Did the Founding Fathers Screw Up? - Op-Ed by Harold Meyerson for American Prospect

Superfreak said:
Poet,

A couple of comments on the article...

1) No, it was not a mistake to allow for gridlock. It prevents parties/politicians from running rough shod over the populace.

2) The fault of the gridlock lies with US, the people. We continue to send the same people (or same type of people) to DC over and over and over again, yet we expect different results. We allow states to 're-draw' districts to the extent that we end up with 'safe' districts for one party or another. That leads to extremists from the right and left being elected. The more 'safe seats' the fewer moderates we are going to tend to see as the real elections will always be in the primaries where the 'safe' party is pandering to its own base to the detriment of the remaining populace in their district.

3) If we want to try and end this, we should have every state redraw lines based on population only. Divide each state up into squares (or as close to square as you can) that represent the right portion of the population.

Here is the current CO maps.... http://comaps.org/ushouse.html

Those are bad, yet probably not anywhere near as bad as states with larger numbers of districts like TX, CA, NY etc...

I would say the way our map is drawn, we have 4-5 'safe' seats that are very unlikely to ever change party hands. THAT is not what our founders intended.
Click to expand...

Very well. Gridlock? What about "popular vote"? Which would have "iced" the gridlock surrounding the 2000 election that the Supreme Court decided in the favor of George W. Bush...whereas, Gore had won the "Popular vote", which you want to call "running shod" over the populace.
Gridlock doesn't lie as the fault of the people. It lies with an irresponsible Congress, who do any and everything but the will and work of the people. When parties are allowed to lobby for redistricting which favors their political interests, the people are not served. Politics shouldn't be a career...term limits should be the rule of thumb.
I agree with your #3. Satisfied? Now can I get back to scintillating ?
 
poet said:
I told you...stop pretending that you know me. You don't. I hate baseball. stupid bitch.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know you very well. You and those of your ilk are not good Americans. Your methods are un-American in my opinion.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
yeah, you're stupid. nowhere did I excuse slavery, I just said it was commonly accepted for centuries before we were able to correct it. Don't let that stop you from jumping to wild assed conclusions though.
Click to expand...

As I said, people like you refuse to take responsibility for any goddamn thing...most importantly, your own words.
Why did you caveat your statement with first off, don't take this as condoning slavery as I know that will be your liberal tendency to do, but the founders were not the only people who considered black people 'not people', but property???????????????????????????? You goddamy condoned slavery with that statement, because you tried to use it as justification for the second half of your statement, excusing America for doing what other nations were doing. Not at all a "wild assed conclusion"...but I get the point that you're intellectually challenged....but I don't excuse it. Ifn you can't play with the "big boys", go jump rope with the little girls.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Actually it's the other way around. The founding fathers intended "gridlock" (for lack of a better word) to slow the political process down so as to avoid rule by mob. The founding fathers had a deep distrust of the unwashed masses....and considering the state of public education at that time, one can hardly blame them.
Click to expand...
WHAT???? why is it then, that our public education system teaches that the founders had a deep distrust of central governments instead of the unwashed masses?
 
poet said:
As I said, people like you refuse to take responsibility for any goddamn thing...most importantly, your own words.
Why did you caveat your statement with first off, don't take this as condoning slavery as I know that will be your liberal tendency to do, but the founders were not the only people who considered black people 'not people', but property???????????????????????????? You goddamy condoned slavery with that statement, because you tried to use it as justification for the second half of your statement, excusing America for doing what other nations were doing. Not at all a "wild assed conclusion"...but I get the point that you're intellectually challenged....but I don't excuse it. Ifn you can't play with the "big boys", go jump rope with the little girls.
Click to expand...

make sure you wash your hands before you eat, with all that ear wax on your fingers from sticking them in your ears.

i realize you have to stick to your wild assed assumption or look stupid. I won't hold it against you.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
.......more projection.
Click to expand...

No, this is not projection. This is an observation and opinion. Poet is a left wing activist who uses homosexuality and race to further his agenda rather than principles and ideas. That's the difference between the left and the right. The left uses identity politics while the right stands on principles and ideas. Try again.
 
poet said:
Very well. Gridlock? What about "popular vote"? Which would have "iced" the gridlock surrounding the 2000 election that the Supreme Court decided in the favor of George W. Bush...whereas, Gore had won the "Popular vote", which you want to call "running shod" over the populace.
Click to expand...

I was talking about passing legislation in the Senate on a simple majority. There is a reason we don't allow that. Major legislative initiatives SHOULD have 60 votes. It prevents simple majorities from running rough shod over the minority. How you jumped from that to the popular vote vs. electoral system is sad. I in no way called the popular vote in an election 'running rough shod over the public'.

If you wish to discuss this issue honestly, let me know.

Gridlock doesn't lie as the fault of the people. It lies with an irresponsible Congress, who do any and everything but the will and work of the people. When parties are allowed to lobby for redistricting which favors their political interests, the people are not served. Politics shouldn't be a career...term limits should be the rule of thumb.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with term limits as it would forcibly end the problem I just laid out. But until that time, it most certainly lies with the people. WE are the ones that keep electing the same people over and over again. WE are the ones that stand by and do little to nothing when the current crop of idiots rigs the system.
 
Alias said:
Harold Meyerson. Govt dweeb. Still using that old tired "Dixiecrats moved to the Republican party" crap. Next thing Poet will be telling us is George Washington was gay, Martha Lincoln was a lesbian, and Obama's forefathers were American slaves.
Click to expand...

Nah, Obamas forefathers were Arab slave traders.
 
Alias said:
No, this is not projection. This is an observation and opinion. Poet is a left wing activist who uses homosexuality and race to further his agenda rather than principles and ideas. That's the difference between the left and the right. The left uses identity politics while the right stands on principles and ideas. Try again.
Click to expand...
And you're a right wing extremist who uses false patriotism, religion and bigotry to further your agenda rather then principles and ideas.

Please, tell me what makes you any more of an American then anyone else here?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
first off, don't take this as condoning slavery as I know that will be your liberal tendency to do, but the founders were not the only people who considered black people 'not people', but property. so before you go condemning them, start condemning every other nation out there that also used slavery.

secondly, we eventually resolved that issue, unless you've decided to forget history.
Click to expand...

We resolved it with a war, and by reversing much of what the founders did. So Id still say it was a mistake, even if you put it in historical perspective. Look at the Conentinal Congress, there were plenty of people on the correct side of the issue even then.
 
America's system, though complicated, really is not as gridlock prone as some other countries. Mostly because we use single member districts, a system which inherently favors powerful governments. When a strong president is in power with a majority, they can actually get a great deal done.

The main thing I dislike is the staggered elections. A largely 2 year election cycle is too short, leading to an ADD government that can't decide on a single path. It also encourages rabble rousing and rabid populism, and discourages governments from making tough decision that are good for the long term. And electing different people at different time may sound neat and symmetrical on paper. But it can have stupid results. If people disagree with a presidents policies, they elect a congress that opposes him. And suddenly, nothing gets done. It's not an ideal solution.

I disagree that "gridlock is good". Countries have almost collapsed over democratic gridlock before. The US has actually been pretty lucky to avoid such a fate, mostly because of our majoritarian electoral system and the fact that our two parties historically had a lot in common.

When you get two sides who have radically different views of how the country should be run constantly vetoing each other, it leads to anarchy. No matter what the ideological "constitutionalists" say, the founders didn't think that "gridlock is good". The very reason the constitutional convention was called was to reform the weak and powerless federal government established by the articles of confederation, which was proving disastrous. It's also important to note that the founders did not have experience in democracy - they were inventing the wheel. It is not suprising that, with experience, we have learned that some of the things that they put in place were not ideal. And it is not treason to desire reform. The founders did not mythologize their own views in the way that the demagogues and jacobins of our time do, and I don't see why we should either.

I think it would be best to reform the system so that the house, senate, and president are all elected at the same time every 5 years. Also, it would perhaps be best if we went back to an appointed senate. What is the purpose of directly electing the senate? Randomly giving some people more effective votes? An indirectly elected senate would fit better into the system. Importantly, I think it would feel deference to the democratically elected house, and would confine itself to intervening only in special circumstances. This is, ideally, how an upper house should work. And I don't think the president should have any veto at all. I would honestly prefer if the president were appointed by the house, since I don't see the division between executive and legislative as necessary. The purpose of the executive is to do what the legislature says, after all. An elected president also serves to confuse the voting public, who seem to largely ignore the legislative elections and only concentrate on the big, dramatic presidential election. However, I am perhaps going too far with the last request. A president elected at the same time as the legislature would largely be enough.
 
 
Superfreak said:
I was talking about passing legislation in the Senate on a simple majority. There is a reason we don't allow that. Major legislative initiatives SHOULD have 60 votes. It prevents simple majorities from running rough shod over the minority. How you jumped from that to the popular vote vs. electoral system is sad. I in no way called the popular vote in an election 'running rough shod over the public'.
Click to expand...

Sometimes, the minority needs to be roughshod over. It's also not like this is a purely negative power. A veto can never be a purely negative power. The minority can block necessary legislation (like a budget) and use that to bargain with the majority for legislation that they want. Effectively leading to rule by the minority.
 
Jarod said:
We resolved it with a war, and by reversing much of what the founders did. So Id still say it was a mistake, even if you put it in historical perspective. Look at the Conentinal Congress, there were plenty of people on the correct side of the issue even then.
Click to expand...

And I'll bet you that somewhere in your house, is something that was produced by slave labor. Are you a hypocrite, or just ignorant? Why do you purchase products made in China? Why do you elect presidents who trade with China? Is this an 'out of sight, out of mind' situation? I suspect that was also the case with the Continental Congress as well. They could have very easily outlawed slavery, but then... Cotton was our leading export, and without it, we would have never made it as a nation. At the time, the ONLY way to harvest cotton, was with manual slave labor.

Nowadays, with modern technology and whatnot, we take this stuff for granted, it's easy to become emotive and think with your heart, and ignore the reality they faced at that time. Put yourself in that era, try to understand the economic ramifications, and realize that as much as good men may have wanted to abandon slavery, there was not a way to do that in 1776. The export of cotton was far too important to our economy at the time, and this would be the case for nearly another century.
 
Jarod said:
We resolved it with a war, and by reversing much of what the founders did. So Id still say it was a mistake, even if you put it in historical perspective. Look at the Conentinal Congress, there were plenty of people on the correct side of the issue even then.
Click to expand...

i understand, and contrary to poets conclusions, I agree. Even a few of the founders didn't agree with slavery, though they did own slaves. It was a commonly accepted practice throughout the world. and i guess i'll have to clarify it again for poet, but I don't condone it, it just was what it was.
 
In a parliamentary system, though, the Tea Party would likely be a separate party, just one among many, like Le Pen's ultra-nationalists in France, that could be excluded from the governing coalition.
Click to expand...

It's not really the presidential system that causes this. The National Front in France actually doesn't have any seats in parliament. That's because France is actually semi-presidential and majoritarian. For some reason, people seem to think that "parliamentary" means "lots of third parties", but that's not really true. There are plenty of presidential systems with numerous parties. It really depends more on whether the voting system is majoritarian or proportional. The US is pretty much alone in shunning third parties to the degree that we do, though, among presidential or parliamentary systems, majoritarian or proportional. Americans hate the Republicans and Democrats, but vote for them with a zeal umatched in any other democracy. Strange situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top