Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

It’s Dangerous When Minority Party Rules

It’s dangerous when the minority party rules everyone else

 

Before the end of the year, Amy Coney Barrett will probably be sworn in as a Supreme Court justice — and she may serve for decades. She will have been appointed by an impeached president who lost the popular vote in 2016 and may well continue in office after losing it again in 2020. She will almost certainly be approved by senators representing less than 45 percent of the American population.

 

Our nation is moving even deeper into minority rule: The House aside, the U.S. government is controlled by the less popular party in a polarized two-party system. We may call this unfair, but that would trivialize the problem. It is entirely permissible under the Constitution, and it is dangerous. When the majority of a nation’s citizens can’t get its candidates elected or its preferred policies passed, the government’s legitimacy is compromised and destabilizing pressure begins to build.

 

The tendency toward minority rule in the United States, present since the founding, has become more acute. That’s certainly true in the Senate: California has 68 times as many residents that Wyoming has, but the same number of senators. The disparity in population size between the biggest and smallest states is far greater than anything the founders knew.

 

Residents of rural, sparsely populated states are vastly overrepresented in the Senate. And because the electoral college is based on the number of federal representatives, this rural-state overrepresentation plays out in the selection of presidents, as well. Former vice president Joe Biden could well win the popular vote by three or four percentage points, or even more, this fall and still not be elected.

 

The House, the most democratic institution in the three branches of government, has no role in selecting Supreme Court justices. That’s the purview of the president and the Senate, which means that the composition of the high court has a minoritarian, rural-state bias built into it as well.

 

(According to a Washington Post-ABC News Poll, only 38 percent of Americans say the replacement for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg should be nominated by Trump and confirmed by the current Senate; 57 percent say the nomination should be left to the winner of the presidential election, and put to a Senate vote next year.) Should a Trump nominee be confirmed, the Supreme Court will consist of six justices appointed by Republicans, even though the party has won the popular presidential vote only once in the past seven elections (George W. Bush, in 2004).

 

On its own, a rural state bias in representation is potentially problematic but not invidious. Plenty of issues in rural states should receive national attention, of course. But the problems mount when one party dominates the rural areas and the other dominates the urban ones, which is where we stand today. Republicans essentially get bonus points: They can be the less popular party and still get to govern.

 

Political science research reveals that ideologically extreme parties tend to do worse in elections than more moderate parties, and that parties that find themselves in the minority — and out of power — recognize the problem and recalibrate toward the center. But because of their built-in systemic advantage, Republicans face no such check. They have come to prefer winning narrowly with committed partisans than winning broadly with unreliable moderates. Such a strategy helped bring the nation President Trump.

 

This presents a further problem: How are Democrats to respond to an increasingly extreme, Trumpist Republican Party? Democratic leaders, when pressed with examples of Trump’s latest malfeasance, typically respond with, in effect, a one-word answer: “Vote.” It’s good advice, of course. But what if it’s not enough? What if Democrats continue to bring more people to the polls than Republicans but Republicans maintain control of most of government?

 

Democrats largely responded to the presidential elections in 2000 and 2016 — in which they won the popular vote — by conceding that rules are rules, and sometimes the more popular candidate just doesn’t get to be president. But how many such defeats will they take in stride? There may be a tipping point at which the situation becomes intolerable.

 

Since George Floyd’s death, in police custody, at the end of May, enormous numbers of protesters (many, although hardly all, Black) have taken to the streets to demand change. They have done so in large part because, with considerable justification, they don’t think that working within the system — voting regularly, calling their elected officials, showing up at city council meetings, etc. — is producing the change they need. Black people are still being killed by police officers who face few or no consequences. Protest and unrest are a predictable outcome when a population thinks the political system is completely unresponsive to its needs.

 

Imagine that dynamic multiplied many times over. When well more than half the country votes for one result — over and over — and continues to get another, the situation is unsustainable. This is how a government loses its legitimacy. Governments worldwide facing legitimacy crises have been faced with struggling to govern, as we saw in the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos, or brutally cracking down on protests, as we saw in Egypt under Hosni Mubarak and continue to see under Abdel Fatah al-Sissi. It’s an ugly situation, and the United States is not immune.

 

Reform is possible — in theory. The Constitution can be amended to substantially change the electoral college procedure, as happened in 1804 when the 12th Amendment was ratified, allowing separate votes for president and vice president. But as long as one party considers the current system advantageous, it’s hard to imagine such an amendment attracting the supermajority support needed to pass. Other reforms — such as an interstate compact that would make presidential elections subject to the popular vote — are possible without an amendment.

 

And that reform, too, faces the brutal logic of minority rule: The party in power will fight desperately to keep its entrenched advantage (and deepen it, if possible). Almost by definition, the longer the anti-democratic spiral continues, the harder it becomes to reverse. And it’s not a counterargument to say that the advantages the Republicans have today are “constitutional.” In fact, that’s the heart of the problem.

 

It’s dangerous when the minority party rules everyone else 

 

It’s dangerous when the minority party rules everyone else....we sure see FAR more hate crimes, armed morons and militia's.  We need to regain control of our Democracy!


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Silver Conversationalist

Wyoming has a population of 550,000 - 600,000. 

 

Just sayin'.

Nobody knew health care could be so complicated.
Donald Trump
Honored Social Butterfly

I watched this and am just shaking my head in disbelief.  So sad.

Esteemed Social Butterfly


@Soosie wrote:

I watched this and am just shaking my head in disbelief.  So sad.


Me, too.

 

Honored Social Butterfly

Who would EVER use the word "smart" with trump?  Certainly, they'd be referring to his predecessor!

 

Great ad, Ms. Stretch!


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
0 Kudos
209 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Soosie wrote:

I watched this and am just shaking my head in disbelief. 

 

As are millions who know this too is a sham, a fake, edited video to distort an opposition candidate to the far right wing extremist candidate...

 

 

So sad. Indeed it is...

 

 


 


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Honored Social Butterfly

Let’s consider this aspect also:

A “Majority” of Americans support...

-the ACA and healthcare

-Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid

-A Woman’s rights, Roe v Wade

-Unimpeded Voting

-The elected President nominating the

  SC Judge

 

But, we have the minority trump repubs 

wanting to impede or take away all of these issues, primarily thru the SC.

 

We are seeing what happens thru minority rule, when trump repubs, only support their voters, not the “Majority”

of their Constituents, and a “Majority” of Americans. 
This is selfish partisan behavior, not Patriotic behavior. 


We are better than this...now let’s change it

 

Trusted Contributor

Let’s consider this aspect also:

A “Majority” of Americans support...

-the ACA....

 

Back when the majority of Americans were opposed to the ACA Obama summed it up quite nicely.... TWICE

 

1.   “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day I won”

 

2.  “Tough luck. You lost. Get over it”

0 Kudos
371 Views
17
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@EricH3 wrote:

 

Back when the majority of Americans were opposed to the ACA....Fox News was distorting/lying about the ACA about 24 hours per day....remember those Death Panels?

 

And the GOP was pledging not to vote with Obama on ANYTHING, regardless of if amd how it approved America, race relations or moved the country forward.  It was difficult for the GOP to vote and side with a black man.

 


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Trusted Contributor

Back when the majority of Americans were opposed to the ACA....Fpx News was distorting/lieing about the ACA about 24 hours per day....rememberthose Death Panels?

 

And the GOP was pledging not vto 0ote with Obama on ANYTHING, regardless of if amd how it approved America, race relations or moved the country forward.  It was difficult for the GOP to vote and side with a black man.

 

Neither of which is true.  It would help if you made an effort to get your "facts" straight.

0 Kudos
363 Views
15
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Maybe my typing, but the facts are spot on!

 

But thank you for your "offering".


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Trusted Contributor

Maybe my typing, but the facts are spot on!

 

But thank you for your "offering".

 

The perfect example of everything wrong with this site, post erroneous information, then argue that it's true and end with a weak attempt to make a cute remark.

 

From an interview with the National Journal:

 

McConnell: We need to be honest with the public. This election is about them, not us. And we need to treat this election as the first step in retaking the government. We need to say to everyone on Election Day, “Those of you who helped make this a good day, you need to go out and help us finish the job.”

 

National Journal: What’s the job?

 

McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

 

Based on that last statement the left began their spin about "And the GOP was pledging not vto 0ote with Obama on ANYTHING, regardless of if amd how it approved America, race relations or moved the country forward.  It was difficult for the GOP to vote and side with a black man."

 

However, as the fact checking sites said (at least the unbiased ones) that was a half-truth at best because he went on to say:

 

National Journal: Does that mean endless, or at least frequent, confrontation with the president?

 

McConnell: If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he’s willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate for us to do business with him.

 

National Journal: What are the big issues?

 

McConnell: It is possible the president’s advisers will tell him he has to do something to get right with the public on his levels of spending and [on] lowering the national debt. If he were to heed that advice, he would, I imagine, find more support among our conference than he would among some in the Senate in his own party. I don’t want the president to fail; I want him to change. So, we’ll see. The next move is going to be up to him.

 

And what happened on most of those big issues?  Obama said, "Tough luck. You lost. Get over it”

 

The saddest part is the left, like you did above, then tried to make a racial issue out of it when in truth it was not.  But then if you actually forgot all the spin you'd find that about 90% of what's said about Trump is untrue.

 

Good luck to all here.  I don't waste my time trying to deal with people who are so irrational they don't care about and can't accept the truth.

0 Kudos
365 Views
13
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@EricH3 wrote:

Maybe my typing, but the facts are spot on!

 

But thank you for your "offering".

 

The perfect example of everything wrong with this site, post erroneous information, then argue that it's true and end with a weak attempt to make a cute remark.

 

What's wrong with this site....some can disagree with you...

 

 

 

 

McConnell say's he will repeatedly vote against Obama....LOL.  And they did!

 

Good luck to all here.  I don't waste my time trying to deal with people who are so irrational they don't care about and can't accept the truth.  YOUR truth is a sham.  THE truth is fair, usually reasonable AND objective!!!  Good luck to you....


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Honored Social Butterfly


 

But thank you for your "offering".

 

The perfect example of everything wrong with this site, post erroneous information, then argue that it's true and end with a weak attempt to make a cute remark.

 

What's wrong with this site....some can disagree with you...

 

 

 

 

McConnell say's he will repeatedly vote against Obama....LOL.  And they did!

 

Good luck to all here.  I don't waste my time trying to deal with people who are so irrational they don't care about and can't accept the truth.  YOUR truth is a sham.  THE truth is fair, usually reasonable AND objective!!!  Good luck to you....


 


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Trusted Contributor

And once again no factual information so cent reposted the same nonsense.  If you can make a valid argument here is what I said.  Do you have anything that actually addresses the facts?  Anything?  Anything? 

 

Centrist said: And the GOP was pledging not vto 0ote with Obama on ANYTHING, regardless of if amd how it approved America, race relations or moved the country forward.  It was difficult for the GOP to vote and side with a black man."

 

Never happened.  The fact checking sites say it's a lie.  But if you have any evidence to back it up certainly feel free to post it.  But thanks for another great example of why this site is a waste of time.  Regarding that, I forgot that when nothing else works, the norm here is change the subject and make a nonsensical comment to try to cover up the truth.  "YOUR truth is a sham.  THE truth is fair, usually reasonable AND objective!!! "  Yeah, right.  To rational people the truth is the truth regardless whether it fits your particular partisan views or how fair, reasonable or objective you might find it.

0 Kudos
279 Views
8
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@EricH3 wrote:

 

But if you have any evidence to back it up certainly feel free to post it.

 

Sure...my pleasure.

 

"But at the House GOP retreat the next day at a posh resort in the Virginia mountains, there was no woe-is-us vibe. The leadership even replayed the video of the stimulus vote—not to bemoan Obama’s overwhelming victory, but to hail the unanimous partisan resistance. The conference responded with a standing ovation.

 

“I know all of you are pumped about the vote,” said Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican whip. “We’ll have more to come!”

 

The Republicans were pumped because they saw a path out of the political wilderness. They were convinced that even if Obama kept winning policy battles, they could win the broader messaging war simply by remaining unified and fighting him on everything. Their conference chairman, a then-obscure Indiana conservative named Mike Pence, underscored the point with a clip from Patton, showing the general rallying his troops for war against their Nazi enemy: “We’re going to kick the hell out of him all the time! We’re going to go through him like crap through a goose!”

 

An excellent article from a reliable and unbiased source!

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/republican-party-obstructionism-victory-trump-214498 

 

Continue to article content

 

On January 29, 2009, the whittled-down and beaten-up Republican minority in the House of Representatives gathered for a strange celebration of defeat.

 

The Democrats had just drubbed them at the polls, seizing the White House and a 79-seat advantage in the House. The House had then capped President Barack Obama’s first week in office by passing his $800 billion Recovery Act, a landmark emergency stimulus bill that doubled as a massive down payment on Obama’s agenda. Even though the economy was in free fall, not one House Republican had voted for the effort to revive it, prompting a wave of punditry about a failed party refusing to help clean up its own mess and dooming itself to irrelevance.

 

 

But at the House GOP retreat the next day at a posh resort in the Virginia mountains, there was no woe-is-us vibe. The leadership even replayed the video of the stimulus vote—not to bemoan Obama’s overwhelming victory, but to hail the unanimous partisan resistance. The conference responded with a standing ovation.

 

“I know all of you are pumped about the vote,” said Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican whip. “We’ll have more to come!”

 

The Republicans were pumped because they saw a path out of the political wilderness. They were convinced that even if Obama kept winning policy battles, they could win the broader messaging war simply by remaining unified and fighting him on everything. Their conference chairman, a then-obscure Indiana conservative named Mike Pence, underscored the point with a clip from Patton, showing the general rallying his troops for war against their Nazi enemy: “We’re going to kick the hell out of him all the time! We’re going to go through him like crap through a goose!”

 
"This strategy of kicking the hell out of Obama all the time, treating him not just as a president from the opposing party but an extreme threat to the American way of life, has been a remarkable political success. It helped Republicans take back the House in 2010, the Senate in 2014, and the White House in 2016. This no-cooperation, no-apologies approach is also on the verge of delivering a conservative majority on the Supreme Court; Republicans violated all kinds of Washington norms when they refused to even pretend to consider any Obama nominee, but they paid no electoral price for it—and probably helped persuade some reluctant Republican voters to back Donald Trump in November by keeping the Court in the balance.

 

So the party’s anti-Obama strategy has ended up working almost exactly as planned, except that none of the Republican elites who devised it, not even Vice President-elect Pence, envisioned that their new leader would rise to power by attacking Republican elites as well as the Democratic president. President-elect Trump was really the ultimate anti-Obama, not only channeling but embodying their anti-Obama playbook so convincingly that he managed to seize the Republican Party from loyal Republicans. And in the process, he has empowered an angry slice of the GOP base that has even some GOP incumbents worried about the forces they helped unleash."


 


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Trusted Contributor

Centristsin2010:  An excellent article from a reliable and unbiased source!

 

Other than the Mulvaney interview, you posted articles from left leaning and far left sources.  Not unbiased sources.

 

You posted the articles to support your claim: "And the GOP was pledging not vto 0ote with Obama on ANYTHING, regardless of if amd how it approved America, race relations or moved the country forward.  It was difficult for the GOP to vote and side with a black man."

 

Most of what was in the articles was the opinion of the writer and was biased.  I don't have time right now to check the accuracy of the quotes (but I will later) so for now I'll assume they are factual.  But as far as I can see in any of the quotes there is nothing to support your claim.  What they describe is typical politics.

 

 If you disagree, post something that actually supports your claim.  Post something that factually shows that the GOP refused to vote with Obama regardless of whether or not it improved "America, race relations or moved the country forward."  (hint:  political philosophical differences don't count.)

Post something that factually shows that the GOP refused to vote with Obama  because it was "difficult for the GOP to vote and side with a black man."

0 Kudos
283 Views
5
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@EricH3 wrote:

Centristsin2010:  An excellent article from a reliable and unbiased source!

 

Other than the Mulvaney interview, you posted articles from left leaning and far left sources.  Not unbiased sources.

 

Politico?  LMAO!

 

giphy (5).gif

 


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Trusted Contributor

 

Centristsin2010:  An excellent article from a reliable and unbiased source!

 

Other than the Mulvaney interview, you posted articles from left leaning and far left sources.  Not unbiased sources.

 

Politico?  LMAO!

 

You actually used "The Agenda" which, while part of the "Politico" organization, is different than "Politico."  Anybody can submit to it which makes it more opinion oriented that "Politico" itself and more biased.  

 

I assume you prefer to post cartoons instead of addressing the topic to cover up your not being able to factually address what was said, but if that's an incorrect assumption, following is what was posted in case you feel capable of actually responding to it.

 

You posted the articles to support your claim: "And the GOP was pledging not vto 0ote with Obama on ANYTHING, regardless of if amd how it approved America, race relations or moved the country forward.  It was difficult for the GOP to vote and side with a black man."

 

Most of what was in the articles was the opinion of the writer and was biased.  I don't have time right now to check the accuracy of the quotes (but I will later) so for now I'll assume they are factual.  But as far as I can see in any of the quotes there is nothing to support your claim.  What they describe is typical politics.

 

 If you disagree, post something that actually supports your claim.  Post something that factually shows that the GOP refused to vote with Obama regardless of whether or not it improved "America, race relations or moved the country forward."  (hint:  political philosophical differences don't count.)

Post something that factually shows that the GOP refused to vote with Obama  because it was "difficult for the GOP to vote and side with a black man."

 

 

0 Kudos
244 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly
Trusted Contributor

Tom5678:  here ya go! OOPS!!

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republicans-dont-remember-the-obama-era-well-they-should

 

msnbc is THE MOST biased source in existence and the article you referenced has NOTHING to do with the topic or what I said.  Get  a grip, OOPS.  

 

 

0 Kudos
225 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

It’s not only dangerous, it’s happening. 
How can trump claim to be in the majority when he lost the popular vote by 3 million, and between the House and Senate, less than half are trump repubs, who are holding our Country hostage...we are being ruled by a minority...time for change...Vote!

Honored Social Butterfly

Republicans Keep Admitting Everything They Said About Obama Was a Lie

 

White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, appearing on Fox News Sunday, repeated the official administration line that Democrats had to choose between legislation and investigation. Chris Wallace reminded Mulvaney that he had supported a Republican Congress that had engaged in continuous investigations of the White House, reopening probes to chase conspiracy theories even after they had been conclusively debunked.

 

This prompted Mulvaney to make an interesting confession. The Republican Congress never wanted to pass laws in the first place:

 

WALLACE: You were there, of what the Republicans did to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on Benghazi, on Fast and Furious. And they got some things done despite the fact that these were aggressive partisan investigations.

 

MULVANEY: Well, we didn’t get very much done. Listen, I’ll be the first to admit that when the tea party wave, of which I was one, got here in 2011, the last thing we were interested in was giving President Obama legislative successes.

When somebody says “I’ll be the first to admit,” it’s usually an idiom, suggesting they are not trying to hide a fact that is widely known and frequently confessed. But in this case the sentence construction makes more sense if read literally. Mulvaney may actually be the first person to admit that congressional Republicans did not want to give Obama any legislative successes at all.

 

Mitch McConnell boasted that he pressured Republicans to refuse to compromise with any of the Obama administration’s priorities in his first two years (“We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals. Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan.”).

 

Yet after Republicans won control of Congress on the shoulders of a tea party wave of debt hysteria in 2010, a conventional wisdom took hold that President Obama needed to get Republicans to make a deal. Most outside observers conceded that the congressional GOP might not be the easiest negotiating counterparty. Still, Obama was widely held to bear a share of the blame for his inability to get Republicans to make a deal. He didn’t play enough golf with them, or drink enough with them, or “lead.” The idea that Obama could and should force Republicans to make deals with him was pure conventional wisdom for years on end.

 

As a high-profile link between the Obama-era Republican Congress and the Trump administration, Mulvaney has retrospectively clarified a lot of points people refused to understand at the time.

 

Mulvaney casually confessed last week that nobody cares about the deficit. Mulvaney of course spent the Obama era claiming to care about the deficit a lot — so much, indeed, that he was willing to shut down the government or even default on the national debt in order to reduce it. The debt hysteria was manufactured to cover a different agenda. Republicans wanted to force Obama to reduce popular domestic spending programs so they could cut taxes for the affluent. But since neither cutting retirement programs nor reducing taxes for the rich are popular goals, Republicans framed their policy as “deficit reduction,” and the debt-scold community and most of the mainstream news media took this framing at face value.

 

That’s one reason why Obama couldn’t make a deficit deal with Republicans: They didn’t care about the deficit. Also, as Mulvaney now casually concedes, they didn’t want to give him any accomplishments at all, so even if Obama offered a deal they could live with, they would have opposed it rather than allow him to claim legislative success.

 

The Republican Party of the last quarter century regularly toggles between methodological extremes. When they gain the presidency, they dismiss congressional oversight and fiscal responsibility alike as totally unnecessary. When they relinquish it, they pursue both to fanatical extremes. Either they are blowing up the deficit and covering up wild crime sprees, or they are demanding senseless austerity and conducting permanent, redundant investigations of phantasmal Fox News–generated nonevents.

 

Typically, they roll out a new cast of characters to justify the stance of the moment and allow the old ones to fade into the sunset. The Clinton-era inquisitors of Capitol Hill were gone from the scene when the Bush administration was escaping oversight and rolling up debt. The Bushies faded into the background when Obama-era Republicans waxed hysterical about debt and scandal. Now a new reversal is upon us. Unfortunately for Trump’s party, Mulvaney is still with us to answer for the past.

 

Republicans Keep Admitting Everything They Said About Obama Was a Lie 

 

Now, isn't THAT special....


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Honored Social Butterfly


@Centristsin2010 wrote:

 


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
0 Kudos
273 Views
0
Report
Trusted Contributor

 

Centrist said: And the GOP was pledging not vto 0ote with Obama on ANYTHING, regardless of if amd how it approved America, race relations or moved the country forward.  It was difficult for the GOP to vote and side with a black man."

 

Never happened.  The fact checking sites say it's a lie.  But if you have any evidence to back it up certainly feel free to post it.  But thanks for another great example of why this site is a waste of time.  Regarding that, I forgot that when nothing else works, the norm here is change the subject and make a nonsensical comment to try to cover up the truth.  "YOUR truth is a sham.  THE truth is fair, usually reasonable AND objective!!! "  Yeah, right.  To rational people the truth is the truth regardless whether it fits your particular partisan views or how fair, reasonable or objective you might find it.

 

 

Regular Contributor

This strong leader, full of energy, able to make split second decisions, having supreme intellect, who the world will follow with his demanding leadership, will straighten everything out

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnafho4KMiQ&feature=youtu.be

0 Kudos
491 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

I'm not sure you can even call the Republican Party a political party anymore.

Under Trump, they have become a mindless cult obeying an insane leader ..... thanking and praising Trump as they are falling over a cliff!

 

 

DUMP TRUMP AND DITCH MITCH TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
Trusted Contributor

What's truly dangerous is what is currently happening to the media in this country, especially the Post which was once the greatest newspaper in the country but has become nothing more than another tabloid like the National Inquirer.

 

The only thing more dangerous is the lack of knowledge of the principles under which this country was founded, especially since they were clearly explained by the founding fathers in the Federalist Papers.

 

First and foremost. this country was founded as, and always has been, a conglomeration of states with each state having equal representation. That's why each state has two senators.  While the House was established to ensure the population had a voice, the Founders stated specifically they were concerned that large population centers could grow to the point of selecting the President and dictating to the states. To make sure that didn't happen they came up with the electoral college.

 

And now we are in the exact situation the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid. The people in the large population centers are whining about giving more power to the population than the states. Fortunately, the Founders were wise enough to foresee that when they established how the Constitution could be changed. Three-fourths of the states have to vote in favor of it.

 

Anyone who believes that three-fourths of the states are going to vote to give away the power they have to the large population states so they can be dictated to needs to try a little IQ building. It's never gonna happen. So let's stop whining and move on to a topic that's at least within the realm of possibility.

Honored Social Butterfly

 


@EricH3 wrote:

 

EricH...well said.  But IMO, your point is dated (no pun intended).  The framers put the 3/4th requirement in because they knew a time would come when the states would make changes to the Constitution.  As you may know, 33 times since the Constitution was written in 1789, the states were sent new amendments to ratify 33 times, 27 times the states ratified the amendments are some, I think 5 or 6 are still pending. So it seems to me the process works.

 

As far as some states giving up power, who knows? Some may have to give up some control to remain solvent.  With possibilities of additional states joining the Union, the 75% threshold may become easier to attain.  Who know?  Did anyone actually believe someone would be such a threat to our Democracy here would be elected?  I think now!

 

IMO, the Post is far from the Nation Enquirer, but we are both entitled to our opinions; no?


 


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Recognized Social Butterfly

Erich3,

Do you actually believe that the founders foresaw that there would be one state that had a population over 68 times that of another?  I, for one, do not think the founders were omnipotent.  If we refuse to change with the times, eventually our Country will be destroyed.

BTW, the theory that a few a large states will be able to exert control over the rest is ridiculous, look at the math, especially if each vote was treated equally.

cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png