Sorry, I missed all that in the constitution.

Hahah d00d. Can we agree that in discussing the intent of the constitution we need context? Or can we agree that we don't? And if we don't need context, we need to also remove context from the discussion of all other parts of the constitution as well? (such as the 2nd amendment?) Let's not play democrat and only point to external evidence when it suits us and stick our heads in the sand when the external evidence, such as it is, doesn't suit us.

(and yes, democrats, I know that previous sentence is equally valid if you s/democrat/republican/)

I actually don't think context or intent are particularly necessary unless it's one of the rare instances where the meaning seems somewhat vague. Certainly the second amendment and the electoral college portions aren't vague.

Well, granted, if you don't understand the socially harmful reason for a tradition, you don't feel like you have to change it.

I'm unaware of any socially harmful thing in the constitution except maybe prohibition but we all know how that went.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

Here's how they intended presidential elections to work:

Voters (TBD by the states) would not vote for President, they would vote for Electors, by name, with the intention of voting for the Elector and not the President.
States would conduct Elector voting per district, and the state government would appoint the remaining two.
Electors would not pledge to vote for certain candidates. They would instead use their own judgment to independently vote for the best candidate.
The President would be the candidate with the most Electoral College votes.
The Vice President would have the second most Electoral College votes. (Predictable stupidity followed; this bug was quickly fixed.)


Here's how presidential elections actually work:

Voters (all citizens) vote directly for the President and Vice President.
Some ritual happens, during which a state with X districts casts X+2 votes for whichever is the most popular candidate in that state.
The candidate with the most votes wins.

Woo, what an important and sacred institution.

You gave an okay description, with slight editorializing, of the original system and a fully sarcastic description of the present incarnation, which is, of course, equally constitutional.

Ooooh nooo! And citizens vote for senators by direct election now! The whole constitution is a sham!

/me checks thread

/me notes that the thread isn't about this song



This thread is sh**.

Why does everyone have to be so mean?

And by everyone I mean Nikumubeki specifically.

What a coincidence, Nikumubeki also means Nikumubeki specifically when he says "everyone"!

Yes, the fact that the elector job used to serve a purpose, but necessary social change has transformed it into a ridiculous and purely ceremonial role which need exist only because it's too hard to get rid of it, does indeed imply the entire constitution is a sham. Thank you for this attentive and discourse-elevating contribution to our discussion about adult subjects.

No problem.



That line of reasoning is about as true as saying all restaurants should be banned, because one time you ate at one and you didn't like the food you ordered. A single change born out of compromise and political expediency to a document that is specifically designed to change and adapt to new circumstances, could not render the entire constitution a sham, as what you wrote suggests.

But maybe you meant to say something else?

Criticizing a single part of a system of government which no longer serves any useful role, and no longer has any authority invested in it, does not equate to criticizing the system of government as a whole.

That's better, but what you said still isn't quite correct. The electoral college does have authority, even if you -- or even, for that matter, if a majority of Americans -- don't like it. The fact that Donald Trump is now president-elect after losing the popular vote demonstrates that. The fundamental premise of constitutionalism is that whatever the constitution says is legitimate; it's unique as a document because Americans consent to it as the very basis of authority and legitimacy. A constitutionally defined process being illegitimate or being 'divested of its authority' is a contradiction of terms, until that process is redefined, according to the rules set out by the constitution for changing it.

Sigh.

The original intention of the Electoral College was for Electors to use their own judgment to select the president. That is why Americans vote for electors instead of directly for the president.

Today, electors have no agency to independently select the president, sometimes by law, but universally by convention. They simply cast a vote for what the public wants. The Electors therefore have no authority and do not contribute anything additional to the system.

Electoral College is NOT synonymous with your vote distribution. You can continue to elect presidents in exactly the same way without having any Electors.

lol, you just repeated yourself and didn't respond to anything I said. Ha!

You're struggling, so I'll help:



No, electors (the electoral college members) do not have authority (agency) to select the president. The mass of the public has the authority (agency). The legal acrobatics that led to the delegation of this authority does not materially change the fact that the nomination of electors serves no practical purpose.

The last election's outcome didn't happen because of the electoral college, it happened because of the distribution of electoral votes. You can have the same vote distribution, and therefore the same outcomes, without needing a college (meaning the physical Elector-people).

The second amendment is vague. There's a reason that academics/scholars, including the SCOTUS & several POTUSs, have debated its meaning since inception. You either don't know what vague means or you're pretending not to for convenience.

Yeah, ok, I see your problem now.



Authority in the sense that I'm using it -- and in the sense that anyone who's informed about these matters would -- does not mean "agency". The problem that constitutions are intended to solve is what members of a national community have the legitimate right to rule over other members in it -- that is, who in a society has a monopoly on the legitimate use of coercive force in order to enforce justice, property rights and so on, in that society? In a monarchy, the monarch is vested with that exclusive right. In a constitutional republic, free citizens consent to a document that outlines the various positions of a government which operates as the sovereign power. That document specifies the limitations of privileges associated with each office, the way people come to assume those offices, and so on, and it's called the constitution. The American Constitution is authoritative within the American political system because Americans, as I said, consent to it, and give it that power, which is the basis of its legitimacy as a document: they recognize it as the supreme basis which invests the various offices of the federal government with their authority.

So authority here has to do with who has the legitimate right to exercise power and rule over others -- not simple "agency". The electoral college is legitimate (i.e., it is not a sham) from a constitutional perspective because the constitution grants it the authority to select who the president is. The fact that the way the institution now operates is not the same as what it once was, or that it's not how the founding fathers intended, again, from a constitutional perspective, is not relevant.

Whatever Alexander Hamilton, or whoever else, wrote in the Federalist Papers isn't part of the US Constitution. It's not binding, and it's only potentially relevant if some issue related to the electoral process comes up in a federal court and an originalist judge decides to let it inform his or her opinion. But the mere fact that things have changed doesn't undermine the constitutional authority of the electoral college to select the president, even if there are very compelling reasons to question whether the current electoral system is a good or fair way to select the president.

Authority means control over something. It means you have the power to make decisions, instruct others, and enforce the implementation of those decisions. Agency is a prerequisite of authority. It doesn't make any sense to assert authority when you are not able to act independently or change outcomes.

No ****.

The electors do not have agency and do not have power to independently choose the president.

No ****.

The electors do not have agency and do not have power to independently choose the president.

Yes, for example, you could pointlessly involve a group of 538 people to perform a pointless vote-casting ritual despite a predestined outcome.

Again, the Electoral College system is totally independent of the electoral vote distribution. You can have regionally biased elections without an Electoral College, and many countries do that. The question of whether the electoral vote distribution is fair is independent of whether the Electoral College makes sense.

Alright, I'm done. No use in debating someone who isn't arguing in good faith.

Happy New Year Massassi!

I recently quit FB because I spent all of my time posting long philosophical rants and debating. It wasn't a negative departing or anything, I just want to be more engaged with the real world.

It's fun and unsurprising to find an active thread like this in one of the major crucibles of my childhood. Never change, Massassi.

You are insane.

Nope.

Yes, actually, you are.

Nope.

Besides, we're talking past each other anyway.

One of us is, anyway.

Yeah, you are.

But it's ok, I forgive you. :p

<3

I'm recently done with Facebook too. It feels good.

This thread sucks

Imagine how I feel. I can't even read the Rogue One thread because I haven't seen it yet. And it's the only other active thread on the forum!

Make this thread great again!!!

There isn't really that much to spoil about Rogue One. No twists or anything like that. And anything that might come off as surprising is actually quite easy to forsee.

I disagree. You should definitely watch it before you read that thread. Or read anything about it.

I don't get this debate over the electoral college. Surely if it did its duty, we would not have Trump as our president elect.

Along the lines of threads turning to suck level in the Massassi community.

Apparently I am considered a racist with this community after being mugged by 4-6 black gang bangers in Chicago. This makes me racist. Pretty pathetic. This community can't seem to let this one go. After returning years later.