New book "Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point"

What an utterly inane statement. Both parties have contributed over the decades to America being what it is. (BTW, don't insult my country by referring to it as "Amerika"!) It's just been recently that the extremists on the far right have ignorantly taken to demonizing progressives by throwing around "socialist", revealing thereby that they are clueless as to what constitutes "socialism".

Your posts make me think of Mark Twain's famous observation: "Education - that which reveals to the wise, and conceals from the stupid, the vast limits of their knowledge. "

 

I agree, we needs term limits... sick of these "ambitious careerists" in congress going along to get a long.

But the genius of the Constitution and the men that made that happened changed the entire world for the better... and raised the standard of living of the entire planet should be the only thing about these great American men that is taught in school.

Only a Communist would want to teach negativity about those great men.

 

The EC has to go. The US won't survive as a democracy as is.

 

That's a really good quote. I've always found that the more I learn about something, the less I realize I know about it. I think a lot of ignorant people think they are experts, and a lot of very knowledgeable people know how much they themselves don't know. Topics like global warming reveal this every day.

 

Taking a pause on the Trump hate parade. People may want to consider two recent elections:
1. 2000. GWBush “selected not elected “
2. 2016. Trump House Democrats fail to muster support to challenge Trump’s Electoral College win

The authors cite not accepting the results of an election as one of the two causes of democracy’s decline or eradication. The other was encouraging violence. Gee, who encouraged the violent protests regarding BLM and are not pushing back on demands for Israel’s elimination?

We’re a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. Just because someone is in the majority (i.e. slavery, Brown vs. BOE, abortion) in their opinions doesn’t make them wise or beneficial choices.

 

Funny note on slavery: it wasn't the majority opinion that it was a huge issue and most Americans were fine getting rid of it. It was saved for years by...the electoral college and the Senate. Small population states in the South were far more supportive of the institution of slavery than larger population states like Pennsylvania and New York, which served as the foundation of Anti-Slavery sentiment. Their influence was outsized by the fact that some of those states were not just small in size but also competitive depending on the party's position on slavery (Florida used its 3 electoral votes to vote Whig in 1848 and Democratic in 1852 and 1856).

 

get rid of the ECC and the two party system.

 

How many state electors in how many states voted in a manner that did not reflect the will of its voters?

 

Winner take all does not accurately reflect the will of the voters. Make it proportional

 

If me wanting the EC and 2nd amendment to stay as it is makes me ignorant then I’m super ignorant.

Not going to change my mind.

 

If the States call a Constitutional Convention, it will be more restrictive on individual rights.

Gerrymandering can not be handled in the State Courts. The ones making the rules, also then control to some extent who the judges are on the Court, for example Florida.

 

The two are directly linked. As long as the president is elected through the Electoral College which awards state electors on a winner-take-all basis a third candidate has absolutely no chance of being elected to the presidency. Although I cannot see it happening in my lifetime the real solution to the problem is a Constitutional Amendment under which the presidency is determined through the popular vote followed by a runoff if no candidate receives a majority of the vote.

 

Quite a few. Minority opinion within a state wasn't ever represented. With 8 electors and a 66-34% split, it isn't like they gave the minority opinion 2 electors. Also, add in that voters often didn't even pick the electors in that era (e.g., South Carolina's state government selected who the electors voted for at the time) and it was quite common to not reflect the will of its voters (or even ask them their will).

BTW, the original point of the EC was to not reflect the will of its voters.

 

So again, how many times in history have the electors cast votes that are different from the popular vote in the state?

 

Do you want me to count the times when there was no popular vote? Individual faithless electors? The Virginia scheme in 1836 to elect a different VP than the one on the ticket that won Virginia?

 

Yes, I do. I want all of the instances, not the talking points

 

Doesn't socialism provide protections for the collective? And are those not personal in some way? Perhaps you want special personal protections. Sounds radically conservative.

 

Okay, well there have been somewhere just short of 100 faithless electors. South Carolina assigned it's electors until the Civil War by way of the General Assembly, so feel free to count how many more electors that would be. I mentioned the Virginia situation (another over 20 votes). There were several other incidents post Civil War.

BTW, electors supposedly exist for exactly these purposes. However, most states outlawed these activities.

 

It appears you are validating the author's claims.

 

Not trying to.