Fatal Flaw in U.S. Constitution

[coati]

Question: Fatal to what?

Answer: Fatal to democracy.

Thesis: The so-called founding fathers decided they did not really trust or want a government based on majority rule of all the people in the new country, and they wanted to placate the state governments, particularly the ones whose economies depended upon slavery. So, they devised a system that granted enormous political power to the arbitrarily constructed states, including states that had very low voter populations, This has resulted in the Senate, the Executive branch, and the federal Judicial branch being heavily influenced by states that have relatively low populations.

The Senate is obviously structured to grant equal representation to each state regardless of population. The Executive is not directly elected by the voters. It is elected through an Electoral College system that skews power to the states. And finally the federal judicial nominees are appointed by the Executive and approved by the Senate. The result is that within the first 16 years of this century we have had two Executive administrations that were elected by a minority of voters. To put democracy in even great peril, the current Executive administration is working to strip away the Constitutional power of the House of Representatives to appropriate funds on behalf of the majority of the voters. With the federal judicial system being stacked by minority elected presidents in this century, this president may get his way in over-riding the House appropriation power via the National Emergency Act. The power of the House of Representative is also being skewed through gerrymandering and voter suppression.

Prognosis: It ain't likely that this is gonna change, because the patriarchs who developed the Constitution also granted the States the ultimate power to stop any attempt to change the way the federal government operates.

I no longer agree with the Leonard Cohen line that "Democracy is coming to the USA."

The long revered Constitution, which has been treated by many almost as a direct revelation from God, has a fatal flaw that is killing democracy and granting inordinate power to relatively low population states and lobbyists/corporations who can buy an enormous amount of power in those states.

 

[KeithD]

It wasn't really a case of what the Founding Fathers wanted. They first floated a more centralized governing plan but couldn't muster the support of the smaller states, which were needed for continuity of land mass. What they ended up with was what they could sell to have a nation at all.

 

[coati]

It wasn't really a case of what the Founding Fathers wanted. They first floated a more centralized governing plan but couldn't muster the support of the smaller states, which were needed for continuity of land mass. What they ended up with was what they could sell to have a nation at all.

Yeah, but the male representatives from those smaller states were among the group we paternalistically call the Founding Fathers. In the end, the whole group of big daddies made the decision to sacrifice majority rule with a plan to get more states involved, states that happened to produce ag goods with slave labor. The original sin of slavery has had many consequences in our nation's history.

I think what you are saying is that this was a Faustian bargain to allow more states to participate. I am proposing that this bargain contained a fatal flaw to democracy, one that will not likely be changed because of the Catch 22 for the amendment process in the same document.

Damn, the Constitution was not delivered by Moses from God.

 

[phrodeau]

Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were confirmed by Senate votes representing a minority of the population. Same for the tax cuts.

 

[KeithD]

Yeah, but the male representatives from those smaller states were among the group we paternalistically call the Founding Fathers. In the end, the whole group of big daddies made the decision to sacrifice majority rule with a plan to get more states involved, states that happened to produce ag goods with slave labor. The original sin of slavery has had many consequences in our nation's history.

I think what you are saying is that this was a Faustian bargain to allow more states to participate. I am proposing that this bargain contained a fatal flaw to democracy, one that will not likely be changed because of the Catch 22 for the amendment process in the same document.

Damn, the Constitution was not delivered by Moses from God.

No, I'm simply saying it was a political compromise they had to make to get it done. They couldn't have an integrated land mass without the smaller states included. The smaller states didn't want to be swamped by the larger ones, which was a real concern for them. You are conflating too much into the situation at the time. For one thing, nearly all of the men we recognize as the Founding Fathers were from big states--Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. That they were men was no big deal at the time. Men ruled everywhere in the world and Suffragetting hadn't occurred to women at the time. In any event, women like Abigale Adams found a way to get an oar in on decisions. I think you're trying to pack too much into what was a pretty simple political issue at the time.

Yes, it's a problem now, but it's not one the Founding Fathers can be fingered for not having the foresight to see and prevent. We can't always find someone else to blame.

 

[Pocketshaver]

its not a fatal flaw.

if you get rid of the electoral college system, 4 fucking cities would decide the outcome.

and leave America a cesspit of shit worse then venezuala and the rst of the banana republics.

 

[KeithD]

So, you only want farm people to vote? You don't believe each citizen should have an equal vote? Great conservative that you are you want to be able to tell people they can only live where you want them to live?

You are wrong in sooooo many ways.

 

[coati]

No, I'm simply saying it was a political compromise they had to make to get it done. They couldn't have an integrated land mass without the smaller states included. The smaller states didn't want to be swamped by the larger ones, which was a real concern for them. You are conflating too much into the situation at the time. For one thing, nearly all of the men we recognize as the Founding Fathers were from big states--Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. That they were men was no big deal at the time. Men ruled everywhere in the world and Suffragetting hadn't occurred to women at the time. In any event, women like Abigale Adams found a way to get an oar in on decisions. I think you're trying to pack too much into what was a pretty simple political issue at the time.

Yes, it's a problem now, but it's not one the Founding Fathers can be fingered for not having the foresight to see and prevent. We can't always find someone else to blame.

Regarding the myths about the Founding Fathers, do you notice we tend to capitalize that term, as people do with the words God, the Bible, and other religious terms? I'm purposefully chipping away at that religious myth as our nation rapidly heads toward what another poster referred to as a banana republic with the highest deficit in history. And remember that it wasn't just women who were not allowed to vote at the birth of the nation.

But set aside the whole notion of blame for a moment, and consider the core thesis. Does the U.S. Constitution contain this flaw that apportions too much power to states with low populations? If you say yes to that, have lobbyists and corporations figured out how to exploit this flaw? And third, will it be extremely difficult to change this situation because the amendment process contains the same flaw?

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

It's not a Democracy, dude - it's literally a Republic like ancient Rome or from time to time during its history ancient Athens, although Athens was also a Timarchy and quite literally an Oligarchy at times too. Voting franchise is based on specific material and obligatory ('sworn') conditions, not just on citizenship. And it is very similar to ancient Rome in that there is enshrined in the Constitution, 'religious' rights and freedoms - but these are all subtle forms of state taxation disguised as state-sanctioned 'ideas' (read 'ideology').

 

[coati]

Agreed, USA is not a democracy.

The Roman Empire fell under the weight of corruption that could not be controlled by its people.

 

[KeithD]

Regarding the myths about the Founding Fathers, do you notice we tend to capitalize that term, as people do with the words God, the Bible, and other religious terms? I'm purposefully chipping away at that religious myth as our nation rapidly heads toward what another poster referred to as a banana republic with the highest deficit in history. And remember that it wasn't just women who were not allowed to vote at the birth of the nation.

But set aside the whole notion of blame for a moment, and consider the core thesis. Does the U.S. Constitution contain this flaw that apportions too much power to states with low populations? If you say yes to that, have lobbyists and corporations figured out how to exploit this flaw? And third, will it be extremely difficult to change this situation because the amendment process contains the same flaw?

I've been around a good long time, with close connection to Jefferson country (if I turn a bit to the left and look out the window, I can see his house). I saw a lot of Founding Father mention in the sixties. Haven't seen much since, certainly not at the level of the 60s.

I don't think of the issue of the Electoral College as a constitutional flaw. The Constitution includes means for making changes and updating, which is what should be done. The flaw is in the selfishness and callousness of people. Not much a constitution can do to prevent people of bending and circumventing whatever was provided 300 years previously.

We'd be changing the Electoral College system now, this not being the first time it has negated the overarching "one person one vote" principle, if it didn't benefit the forces that it empowers in the favor of inequality.

 

[phrodeau]

The vast majority of the American people are in favor of inequality. They're pretty obvious about it, too.

 

[coati]

We'd be changing the Electoral College system now, this not being the first time it has negated the overarching "one person one vote" principle, if it didn't benefit the forces that it empowers in the favor of inequality.

Well, Keith, that fits my thesis and prognosis, doesn't it?

The system has been successfully gamed to benefit the forces you just reference. Power is concentrated in the Executive and Senate to rig the Judicial branch for our lifetime, the people's House is being stripped of power in an unprecedented way through the National Emergencies Act, and the amendment process would require two-thirds of the states to change this growing imbalance in power. I mean, it has gotten so bad since the days of Nixon that we can't impeach a guy who is so crooked he makes Nixon look like a man of integrity.

I think we may have passed the tipping point for democracy within our lifetimes. Corporate ag has a huge hold on the primarily rural states, the fossil fuel industries and private health/pharma corporations are still dominating campaign contributions in most states, and the scapegoating approach to cultural issues is still successfully harvesting a solid base of voters in the red states. Even if there are temporary retreats from insanity, the easily-gamed electoral college and gerrymandering structures will still be susceptible to corporate domination.

There is too much power in the low population states. And, as you stated, there is no likely prospect to amend the Constitution at this point. The Walmart society is ready to flush the whole country and future generations down the toilet in a vortex of short term greed and cultural fears.

I'm not saying the founders did not mean well, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The relevant question is do we have a system that can actually be corrected by the majority of voters if it goes over the tipping point toward haywire. It does not appear that we do.

 

[srgreene]

Question: Fatal to what?

Answer: Fatal to democracy.

Thesis: The so-called founding fathers decided they did not really trust or want a government based on majority rule of all the people in the new country, and they wanted to placate the state governments, particularly the ones whose economies depended upon slavery. So, they devised a system that granted enormous political power to the arbitrarily constructed states, including states that had very low voter populations, This has resulted in the Senate, the Executive branch, and the federal Judicial branch being heavily influenced by states that have relatively low populations. ....


Prognosis: It ain't likely that this is gonna change, because the patriarchs who developed the Constitution also granted the States the ultimate power to stop any attempt to change the way the federal government operates.

I no longer agree with the Leonard Cohen line that "Democracy is coming to the USA."

The long revered Constitution, which has been treated by many almost as a direct revelation from God, has a fatal flaw that is killing democracy and granting inordinate power to relatively low population states ....

Oh, where to begin with your jejune observations. I certainly do not trust government- who could, really, after the scores of millions of people murdered by government in the past century. That in itself is good reason to be distrustful of it, and to constrain its power.

You have a very prejudicial way of presenting things:

<<and they wanted to placate the state governments, particularly the ones whose economies depended upon slavery. So, they devised a system that granted enormous political power to the arbitrarily constructed states, >>

The founding fathers- there's no reason to disparage the term, that's the way it was- wanted to create a nation out of very different identities. And no, the states were not "arbitrarily constructed"- they conformed with historical boundaries. It was a union of sovereign states, bound rather loosely together for the common benefit, with each state having its own separate identity and traditions. Part of the genius of said founding fathers was the concept of the separation of powers, both between the states and the federal government, and within the federal government. It is a principle that has been profoundly undermined in the past century, although the feds avidly grabbed more power from the early days of the republic.

The founders respected the will of the people, but they realized the need to mediate that will through institutions. They never imaged a direct democracy, or one where the voting franchise would be granted to anyone with a body temperature of about 98.6 F. They, I think, assumed the electorate would have a "stake in society"- today, to far too many people, government exists to give them goodies in life. Since they are given, and not earned, they are not valued.

You show no understanding of the principles behind the founding of the USA, or of the historical situation that brought to fruition the notion that a government that in some broad way reflected the will of the people.

 

[coati]

You show no understanding of the principles behind the founding of the USA, or of the historical situation that brought to fruition the notion that a government that in some broad way reflected the will of the people.

The bottom line is not my understanding of what the founders intended. The bottom line is whether the system designed by the founders will actually lead toward a union that is sustainable, now that the genie is out of the bottle on how to use money and media control to game that system.

The will of the people you referenced is not being "mediated" by the institutions. It is being undermined by the institutions to the point of foreclosing a sustainable ecological future and sinking our nation into a quagmire of debt that is mainly benefiting the rich through tax breaks, not the unwashed and undeserving masses that you inferred simply want something for nothing.

The founders' elitist view that not every law abiding citizen should be able to vote took a century and a half to correct, and now we are dealing with their convoluted electoral college electing two minority-supported presidents within the first two decades of this century. Your elitist views align with those of the founders.

 

[KeithD]

The bottom line is not my understanding of what the founders intended.

Yes, and that's where I think you go off the rails--asserting that the Founding Fathers intended to set up the problem we now have. I say "balls" to that. They were trying to get through a current barrier. They did what they had to do at the time to get the nation off the ground (again--this wasn't the first attempt at it). They delivered a Constitution with the means in it for adjustment.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Question: Fatal to what?

Answer: Fatal to democracy.

Thesis: The so-called founding fathers decided they did not really trust or want a government based on majority rule of all the people in the new country

That's because they were better students of history and realized what a fucking disaster mob rule democracies are and there needed to be a way to check that for balance.

The long revered Constitution, which has been treated by many almost as a direct revelation from God, has a fatal flaw that is killing democracy and granting inordinate power to relatively low population states and lobbyists/corporations who can buy an enormous amount of power in those states.

No, Not inordinate, just enough to keep some level of liberty....you know...the thing the USA was founded to be all about but you very clearly hate?

No, I'm simply saying it was a political compromise they had to make to get it done. They couldn't have an integrated land mass without the smaller states included. The smaller states didn't want to be swamped by the larger ones, which was a real concern for them. You are conflating too much into the situation at the time. For one thing, nearly all of the men we recognize as the Founding Fathers were from big states--Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. That they were men was no big deal at the time. Men ruled everywhere in the world and Suffragetting hadn't occurred to women at the time. In any event, women like Abigale Adams found a way to get an oar in on decisions. I think you're trying to pack too much into what was a pretty simple political issue at the time.

Yes, it's a problem now, but it's not one the Founding Fathers can be fingered for not having the foresight to see and prevent. We can't always find someone else to blame.

When Keith D is the voice of reason your TDS is off the charts.

its not a fatal flaw.

if you get rid of the electoral college system, 4 fucking cities would decide the outcome.

and leave America a cesspit of shit worse then venezuala and the rst of the banana republics.

That's exactly what Coati wants...totalitarian centralized government control by a socialist political party.

The vast majority of the American people are in favor of inequality. They're pretty obvious about it, too.

Not inequality, but inequity.....why is it none of you lefties can ever make the distinction between the two??

 

[jaF0]

I've said before, it doesn't have to be one way or the other. There can be a blend. Maintain the principle of the EC, but alter how it votes.

First, the Electors MUST be elected by the people, not the parties.

Second, add a weighting element of the national popular vote. The in state vote gets priority so the the sates have their state's rights as they should. But the national popular vote that goes to the other candidate(s) should be able to tip the balance. Exactly HOW those mathematics would work would need to be determined by others more into math than I am.

Perhaps the percentage of difference in the NPV could be added to the instate vote percentage which may in some cases tip the total.

 

[KeithD]

48 of the states use "winner takes all" to arrive at the electors. That throws equality of voters out the window. They may need to do no more than make all states split their electors on the basis of proportional votes in the state. That's still not total equity, but it's getting closer and two states do it, so it could be done by the rest of them too.

As long as those benefiting from the inequality (primarily the Republicans) have control of the change, it's not going to happen. It just adds to the Republican policy of gerrymandering and voter suppression . . . and, currently, in the presidential elections partnering with a foreign adversarial government. Way to go in un-American behavior, Republicans.

 

[jaF0]

This is why the representatives (and senators) should not get to choose who gets to choose them.

 

[KeithD]

This is why the representatives (and senators) should not get to choose who gets to choose them.

??? That doesn't have much of anything to do with how the electors are given the vote. The popular vote in the state determines who the electors are going to be. In 48 states whatever party came out ahead in the presidential (with the VP attached) election in the state gets all of the state's electoral votes. If the Democrat gets 50.1 percent of the vote and the Republican gets 49.9 percent of the vote, the Democrat gets all of the state's electoral votes. True, on rare occasion the elector doesn't vote for who he/she pledged to vote for, but that's a different matter and only rarely occurs.

I'm not sure what you were saying.

 

[jaF0]

I'm not sure what you were saying.

Parties doing gerrymandering and Congress and State Legislatures making laws restricting who can vote where, when, etc.

 

[coati]

Yes, and that's where I think you go off the rails--asserting that the Founding Fathers intended to set up the problem we now have. I say "balls" to that. They were trying to get through a current barrier. They did what they had to do at the time to get the nation off the ground (again--this wasn't the first attempt at it). They delivered a Constitution with the means in it for adjustment.

Yeah, they did the best they could with what they knew in the 18th century when natural resources seemed endless and subjugation of women, blacks, and natives was taken for granted.

Now we live in the 21st century. The means for changing the Constitution at this point may be draconian to the extent that will not allow us to change quick enough to a avoid a major economic and social collapse. The dumbest/greediest minority segment of society is putting us on a collision course, and this same segment can effectively block any attempt to amend the Constitution. It could be a fatal flaw in the Constitution..

If it makes you feel any better, I won't blame the revered founders, although my Apache neighbors will think I am going soft. I can blame 20th century politicians for not having the foresight to abolish the Electoral College while they had a chance to do so.

Having a Senate skewed power away from the people and toward the states enough. Having both a Senate and an Electoral College method of electing the Executive was too fucking much to avoid the consolidation of power we are seeing now.

BTW, I don't give a crap who thinks I am going off the rails by expressing these views. It's America-- get over it. I just don't happen to think the founders should be regarded as a sacred cow. and I think that Scalia was full of shit with all his "originalist" rationalizations for his partisan political views.

 

[KeithD]

What would have to be done for drastic election reform is for the majority to go more of a majority--at least two thirds of the seats in both national houses for the next decade, plus over two-thirds control of the seats in over two-thirds of the state legislatures for the next fifteen years. Not likely, but in their traitorous and treacherous support for the corrupted, criminal, and traitor Trump, the Republicans are doing what they can to help this happen.

 

[JackLuis]

What would have to be done for drastic election reform is for the majority to go more of a majority--at least two thirds of the seats in both national houses for the next decade, plus over two-thirds control of the seats in over two-thirds of the state legislatures for the next fifteen years. Not likely, but in their traitorous and treacherous support for the corrupted, criminal, and traitor Trump, the Republicans are doing what they can to help this happen.

I saw a infomercial on a group that is organizing to change the Election Law at the State level, and thereby force the Federals to change the rules that Mitch finds so advantageous. They believe that since the states make the election rules that a State lead rebellion will force Congress to act to make Mississippi and Alabama toe the line, instead of prevaricate.

Better than shooting half the Senate, I guess.