the framers didn't want them elected by popular vote either. You cherry pick things
America is held hostage by flyover states
- Thread starter Guno צְבִי
- Start date
the framers didn't want them elected by popular vote either. You cherry pick things
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
only reluctantly by a minority of the 13 states, obviously.....
except for the majority of framers who voted for it........by the way it has worked flawlessly ever since........
What serious problems did they fear? It does not seem they feared it too much since they gave it additional powers compared to the House to confirm judicial appointments and ratify treaties (a power they originally wanted to give entirely to the Senate).
From the Senate History:
"The framers of the Constitution created the United States Senate to protect the rights of individual states and safeguard minority opinion in a system of government designed to give greater power to the national government. They modeled the Senate on governors' councils of the colonial era and on the state senates that had evolved since independence. The framers intended the Senate to be an independent body of responsible citizens who would share power with the president and the House of Representatives. James Madison, paraphrasing Edmund Randolph, explained in his notes that the Senate's role was "first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led."
"In the early weeks of the Constitutional Convention, the participants had tentatively decided to give the Senate sole power to make treaties and to appoint federal judges and ambassadors. As the convention drew to a close, however, they moved to divide these powers between the Senate and the president, following Gouverneur Morris' reasoning that "As the president was to nominate, there would be responsibility, and as the Senate was to concur, there would be security." Due to the concern of individual states that other states might combine against them, by a simple majority vote, for commercial or economic gain, approval of a treaty would require a two-thirds vote. In dealing with nominations, the framers believed that senators -- as statewide officials -- would be uniquely qualified to identify suitable candidates for federal judicial posts and would confirm them along with cabinet secretaries and other key federal officials, by a simple majority vote."
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Origins_Development.htm
That quote from Jefferson is not about the Senate but having the House choose the president if the Electoral College did not obtain a majority. Many thought he was referring to the Electoral College itself.
"I have ever considered the constitutional mode of election ultimately by the legislature voting by states as the most dangerous blot in our constn, and one which some unlucky chance will some day hit, and give us a pope & anti-pope."
http://www.taraross.com/2012/11/the...ting-founders-blasting-the-electoral-college/
Which is another way of saying: America is held hostage by flyover states!
And since that is the title of this thread...we are all in agreement. The desire of individual states to keep their prerogatives back in the 18th century (mostly so that they could continue as slave states)...has now caused an unfair imbalance in the national voting...and in personal representation in the senate.
I doubt we will EVER do anything to correct it (other than what I mentioned earlier)...BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT ANY LESS UNFAIR.
The "flyover states" are part of America--the heartland. The Midwest has a larger share of the population than the Northeast. Nobody is being held "hostage." What is an example of a policy the flyover states are holding hostage? Do you consider New England as flyover states? They are all small in population. Define flyover state so that we can know which ones you refer to.
Wyoming has a population of less than 600,000. Wyoming has two senators...and three votes in the Electoral College.
California has a population of almost 40,000,000. California has two senators...and 55 votes in the Electoral College.
If California had 2 senators for every 600,000 people...it would have 133 senators rather than 2.
If California had 3 votes in the Electoral College for every 600,000 people...it would have 200 votes rather than 55.
If you need a further explanation to understand that things are unfair this way...there is no explanation that will work.
I understand completely what you meant by "unfair." Again, your method defeats the concept of a republic because it ignores territorial representation and reverts to a majoritarian concept which the Constitution sought to avoid. Madison writes in Fed 10 that a republic allows for a larger territorial area which creates a greater diversity of interests and makes it hard for those interests to gain power because of their distance apart. This was to prevent any group from exercising its control over others; for example, CA imposing policies on smaller states that are against its interest and values. This has allowed the U. S. to maintain regional differences and avoid divisive conflicts.
CA +TX +NY have more people than the smallest 26 states combined (not sure if 26 is still the correct number); yet, they have only 6 Senate votes vs. 52. That would be unfair in your view but it prevents three states from imposing its policies on 26. It protects minority rights.
Are the New England states "flyover" states? I don't grasp the "held hostage" analogy. What policy(ies) are the flyover states holding hostage? What would be the purpose of the Senate in your model?
Using "flyover" as code for smaller states is fine with me...but besides the point.
My focus is on the unfairness...the notion that "states" have rights that supersede the rights of humans.
Wyoming is NOT A HUMAN. Neither, for that matter, is Delaware.
The people living there vote differently...but the people living there have a HUGE advantage over me (I live in New Jersey) and an even HUGER advantage over people who live in California, Texas, or New York, to use your "for instance."
I reiterate...NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE THIS FACTOR FOR THE SENATE OR THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE anytime soon. (Probably never...although I can see California and a few other states breaking down into several states in some way.)
The "held hostage" is a way of saying that the people living in those small population states have an advantage proportionally over the people living in the larger population states.
(You really didn't get that???)
But from a political viewpoint the small population blue states + larger blue states together eliminate most of that unfairness. It is also unfair that if my congressional district votes 50.1% Republican and 49.9% Democratic the Democrats have no representation in my district. But it is ok to be unfair if practicality and rationality outweigh any proposed changes.
I don't think states can break into separate states without congressional authorization. Isn't CA voting to break into three states?
No they do not.
We are talking about individuals...not blocks of voters.
I personally am short changed by votes from (blue) Delaware as much as I am by votes from (red) Wyoming.
It IS unfair. And I would love to see that changed...but I doubt that will change appreciably throughout the country either.
I suspect you are correct on both item you listed here.
We'll see how it works out.
I think New Jersey should be two states. The north and south parts of our state are constantly at near war...often because the southern folk stupidly are Eagle fans and the northern folk favor the Giants.