Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Why two senators per state? Why an electoral college? Looking for original founding arguments [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Senators and the EC didn't have anything to do with rural vs urban, nor with slavery. The way I understand it, with the Senate and the EC were part of a desire to avoid "mob rule." Senators were originally not voted on, but rather appointed by each state, as were electors. They were intended to balance out the House of Representatives. There was a genuine fear with the founders that too much democracy would lead to chaos, which is why the US is a representative republic and not a direct democracy.

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
Quote Reply
Re: Why two senators per state? Why an electoral college? Looking for original founding arguments [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
big kahuna wrote:
...which had absolutely nothing to do with slavery, despite soon-to-be Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's ahistoric tweets as to the subject...
The fact that this woman is mere weeks away from being in Congress says so much about the stupidity of the people of NY, and America in general. She isn't qualified to teach elementary civics let alone take a seat in Washington. It's hard to believe, but sadly obvious, that someone so mind-numbingly incompetent can be elected in this country. She is so completely and utterly clueless, she's dangerous. She literally lacks the intelligence needed for the job. She would fail a college-level history exam.
Quote Reply
Re: Why two senators per state? Why an electoral college? Looking for original founding arguments [ripple] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ripple wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
...which had absolutely nothing to do with slavery, despite soon-to-be Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's ahistoric tweets as to the subject...

The fact that this woman is mere weeks away from being in Congress says so much about the stupidity of the people of NY, and America in general. She isn't qualified to teach elementary civics let alone take a seat in Washington. It's hard to believe, but sadly obvious, that someone so mind-numbingly incompetent can be elected in this country. She is so completely and utterly clueless, she's dangerous. She literally lacks the intelligence needed for the job. She would fail a college-level history exam.

Welcome to the LR, ripple. Going to have fun having you around.
Quote Reply
Re: Why two senators per state? Why an electoral college? Looking for original founding arguments [spot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
For the slave states, the Constitution as a whole was parsed through the lens of slavery. The EC was vitally connected to ongoing compromise in the structure of Congress, which was going to make sure that "the unique institution" was protected. It underpinned Southern support, even if it was not at the core of every compromise. Southern delegates preferred appointment of Senators, fought for slave counting in apportionment, sided with small states like Delaware on Senate representation, all because such compromises didn't threaten slavery. It is impossible to envisioin what compromises would have been struck without that imperative.
Quote Reply
Re: Why two senators per state? Why an electoral college? Looking for original founding arguments [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Balance and slowing the speed of government in the more impactful areas like the Constitution.

If you go population only then regional and local interests would be squashed forever. If you go only senate style you give too much power to the minority.

No idea on electoral college vs. just awarding the points.

These days people don't understand that the point of the founding fathers was to allow social change and other changes, but to make it slow and meaningful. Not rapid and knee jerk.

These days, I think we're going to be forced to having states decide more things whether we want it or not because a lot of stuff will happen in courts at some point that points it back down from the Fed to the states (Roe vs. Wade, just a gross example).

In the end, it sucks to an extent because some states will likely not uphold some Constitutional rights (taking gun rights, abolishing abortion, abolishing gay marriage), but, at least you'd not have it be a nation-wide failure.
Quote Reply
Re: Why two senators per state? Why an electoral college? Looking for original founding arguments [burnthesheep] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

I seem to recall it being fairly easy to find an answer on this, but the flood of conflicting info on the internet is pushing relevant facts pages down.
I seem to recall it being a compromise. Smaller, not rural, states would not join the union unless they had some safety valve of representation. No, California didn’t exist, and New York wasn’t the powerhouse it is now, but Virginia did and was. Virginia was the most populous colony, and could have easily determined the destiny of the union over the rest of the states. While the house could still give larger states immense power, the senate was the safety valve. Also, senators were not directly elected then. They were selected by state legislatures, which was a further protection from Mob Rule. Say what you want about political obstruction, but it serves as an obstacle to political impulses of the day.
You also have to remember, that there were a couple examples of direct democracy in place at the time, and they were failures. The French Revolution became a literal slaughter and reign of terror. The actions of some of these other experiments validated the controls the founding fathers put in place.
Why this is an issue is beyond me. Oh, I know. People who live in California and New York, and those who think like them are sore over the fact they can’t push their extreme views on the rest of us. So it is working as designed. I’m fine with political evolution taking a generation or two to sort out.







Quote Reply
Re: Why two senators per state? Why an electoral college? Looking for original founding arguments [ripple] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 

Quote:
The fact that this woman is mere weeks away from being in Congress says so much about the stupidity of the people of NY, and America in general. She isn't qualified to teach elementary civics let alone take a seat in Washington. It's hard to believe, but sadly obvious, that someone so mind-numbingly incompetent can be elected in this country. She is so completely and utterly clueless, she's dangerous. She literally lacks the intelligence needed for the job. She would fail a college-level history exam.


She should change parties and run for president.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Why two senators per state? Why an electoral college? Looking for original founding arguments [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BarryP wrote:
Honest question, and no, this isn't some ploy to justify changing the system to benefit my chosen candidates. I'm literally curious what the original intentions were.

This is sort of inspired by a discussion with someone who argued that the reason for 2 senators per state was to balance the power between the city dwellers and the farmers, specifically so that the farmers wouldn't have their lives dictated by the majority who live in cities, further stating that the system works because the power is split roughly 50/50.

I then pointed out that when the laws were written, 95% of the country was rural.

I'm curious what the original intentions were, and how many argued for and against them. I've often heard arguments citing the "founders intentions" that are clearly misplaced as they are using modern arguments, not to mention misunderstanding that the founders did not agree on every detail of the constitution.

As a student of political history, the idea was to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The idea was that our government was conceived with the veil of uncertainty with the primary goal being the preservation of individual liberty. The founding fathers did not know what the future held or what our country would ultimately look like so we had to design a system that would preserve individual liberty while still enabling the core functions of any government (e.g. collective defense). Considering that it was a shot in the dark, I'd say that they did a pretty good job with the exception of the Commerce Clause.

Btw, when one operates in the realm of uncertainty and therefore alternate pasts and many possibly futures, protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority is a very noble and valid objective. We like to believe that humans behave in certain, predictable ways but that's really not true. What if in the 1930s the urban population of the U.S. had become highly anti-semitic while the agrarian population felt otherwise? In such a scenario, a check on the majority's opinion would obviously have a positive outcome. And, no, that's not an absurd proposition.

BTW, we find ourselves in a similar situation today. We don't know what our country (or the world) will look like in 100 years. We like to think we do but, in reality, we don't. I can make just as much of an argument for a larger rural population 100 years hence as I can for a larger urban population. As far as I can surmise, the "least bad system" gives voice to the majority but also places a check on it.
Quote Reply
Re: Why two senators per state? Why an electoral college? Looking for original founding arguments [GreenPlease] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Honest question, because you give a very different opinion than most of the others here.

Do you think that it is more likely that Virginia, despite being 13 times the size of Delaware in population, wanted to have the senate system because they fundamentally believed in protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority (Virginia being the majority), or is it more likely that Delaware wanted a senate system and Virginia wanted a house of representatives, and that the two wing deal was a compromise that they could agree upon?

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Why two senators per state? Why an electoral college? Looking for original founding arguments [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't recall anything in my readings that indicated it was a compromise resulting from the dynamic you propose. Everything I've read indicated that the system we have is largely the result of design and deliberation. That said, what you propose is plausible and I may have just never come across any mention of such a negotiation. It's also possible that such a compromise was an obvious solution to an impasse and it was rationalized after the fact.

Edit: and regardless of its true genesis, I stand by my view that it is the "least worst system." I originally went to school to become an mechanical engineer (a path I had to abandon due to time constraints). As a freshmen I snuck into an upper level class on heat engines and in one of those classes a professor said something that has stuck with me ever since:

"The piston driven internal combustion engine is the worst possible design except for all of the others"

In the case of the piston driven ICE, it turned out it was the lowly piston ring that made up for all of the other deficiencies in the design. Humans don't design perfect systems. We have to design systems with tradeoffs. When designing a political system, you cannot design it for a single iteration or the current reality. You have to design it for multiple iterations and multiple different realities if you want it to last for an appreciable length of time. The U.S. political system is somewhat unique in political history. Basically everything else has been tried (popular democracy included) and is known to have a limited shelf-life.
Last edited by: GreenPlease: Oct 12, 18 9:17
Quote Reply
Re: Why two senators per state? Why an electoral college? Looking for original founding arguments [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
IMHO you could find that out by who went. The Constitution congress was attended by Madison and Washington. Madison, along with Hamilton, were the main authors behind the Federalist Papers. Madison also wrote the Virginia Plan that called for bicameral congress with a chamber based on population!

So 50% of the Virginia delegation, minimum, wanted the House - so at least 50% of the landed gentry of Virginia wanted population based representation to balance out state based.

But remember at the time no one cared about you if you didn't own land. Upper class or bust.
Quote Reply
Re: Why two senators per state? Why an electoral college? Looking for original founding arguments [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Every state delegation came with a goal to protect their own states' interest. Viriginia was the most populous state by far, but was exactly the size of Pennsylvania if one only counted free white males. Large population states (and those that expected to become larger) preferred population-based representation, slave states wanted their property to be counted, small states opposed that. Most of the features in the Constitution were messy compromises due to competing interests. Some of them turned out to be extremely useful, some of the shortcomings exacerbated divisions which resulted in the Civil War.
Quote Reply
Re: Why two senators per state? Why an electoral college? Looking for original founding arguments [tri_yoda] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tri_yoda wrote:



BarryP wrote:
Quote:
or people who just "feel" like a woman under such a system.


Shania Twain for President!


I'm ready to be a White House intern.

Didn't her husband divorce her, and or cheat on her, because she wouldn't put out?
Quote Reply
Re: Why two senators per state? Why an electoral college? Looking for original founding arguments [Perseus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Maybe she wasn't interested because she was gettin' some from the intern?

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Why two senators per state? Why an electoral college? Looking for original founding arguments [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BarryP wrote:
Honest question, because you give a very different opinion than most of the others here.

Do you think that it is more likely that Virginia, despite being 13 times the size of Delaware in population, wanted to have the senate system because they fundamentally believed in protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority (Virginia being the majority), or is it more likely that Delaware wanted a senate system and Virginia wanted a house of representatives, and that the two wing deal was a compromise that they could agree upon?

I'd say the first. The important take away from GreenPlease's statement is that the Founding Fathers had a low opinion of Democracy. They intentionally made the USA a Republic, and not just on technicalities. I'd even go so far as to say that describing ourselves in this day and age as a Democracy probably would piss them off. It's a total give away that their sublime work has been lost on us.

They would not have accepted the premise that simply polling the people was the most just method for doing all civic things, and that any deviation from that "accepted good" must therefore come only through interests and power manipulating against reason and logic.
Quote Reply
Re: Why two senators per state? Why an electoral college? Looking for original founding arguments [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
oldandslow wrote:
For the slave states, the Constitution as a whole was parsed through the lens of slavery. The EC was vitally connected to ongoing compromise in the structure of Congress, which was going to make sure that "the unique institution" was protected. It underpinned Southern support, even if it was not at the core of every compromise. Southern delegates preferred appointment of Senators, fought for slave counting in apportionment, sided with small states like Delaware on Senate representation, all because such compromises didn't threaten slavery. It is impossible to envisioin what compromises would have been struck without that imperative.

I think you're overstating the case a bit by claiming that every bit of the Constitution was parsed through slavery (and I probably overstated the case by saying that the senator issue didn't have anything to do with it). I stand by my assertion, though, that the Senate largely came into being due the fear of the tyranny of the majority.

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
Quote Reply
Re: Why two senators per state? Why an electoral college? Looking for original founding arguments [spot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Okay, but I didn't actually say "every bit" ;). I said "as a whole". Large compromises (like ominbus bills), are taken as a whole, a very specific point or a preceived overall imbalance can derail the entire thing. Slave states expected that the new Constitiution would keep slavery intact for the foreseeable future, and they did not envision the changes that would occur which would diminish their representation. They also didn't seek a secession clause, which would have been useful in 1861 ;).
Quote Reply
Re: Why two senators per state? Why an electoral college? Looking for original founding arguments [GreenPlease] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
I don't recall anything in my readings that indicated it was a compromise resulting from the dynamic you propose.

It's a well documented series of negotiations literally known as the "Connecticut Compromise."

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: Why two senators per state? Why an electoral college? Looking for original founding arguments [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
Quote:
I don't recall anything in my readings that indicated it was a compromise resulting from the dynamic you propose.


It's a well documented series of negotiations literally known as the "Connecticut Compromise."

Never came across it. Then again, all of my readings focused on the designs of political systems and their consequences.
Quote Reply
Re: Why two senators per state? Why an electoral college? Looking for original founding arguments [SH] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SH wrote:
The important take away from GreenPlease's statement is that the Founding Fathers had a low opinion of Democracy.

Not that shit *again*. Use the term "direct democracy" if you want to make a distinction between direct and representative democracy. As a broad generalization the Founding Fathers were huge fans of democracy. That was kind of the whole damn point of the Revolutionary War.
Quote Reply
Re: Why two senators per state? Why an electoral college? Looking for original founding arguments [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
BarryP wrote:
And was slavery part of this decision?


Yes, of course it was. The slaves states pushed things to make them cement their power, like the 3/5 compromise (it was a compromise because they wanted slaves to count as a whole person for representation, but of course not give them any rights). So the smaller northern states saw the immense power that the slave states would have and would only join if they had some powerful representation for themselves. This flows directly into the electoral college also, this allowed slave states to have a huge advantage in selecting the president.

Basically nobody at the time thought the senate was a great idea, everyone is like, "Hey this is a pretty bad idea, but it is the only way to get everyone to sign up to this whole constitution."

False.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply

Prev Next