Thread: Our Democracy
View Single Post
Old 01-29-2017, 02:32 PM   #13
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR View Post
I was discussing the EC with friends earlier and made the statement whit the EC, as it sits, is worth keeping. If it was purely a popular vote than San Jose, CA would have equal power wit the State of Rhode Island. Is it fair that a larger city should have more power than an entire state? I feel the amendment that granted a delegate count equal to the combined number of Senators and Reps in Congress was a pretty smart move.

If it was only the popular vote than many cities would have more power over large swaths of land and many states in our country. Surely that would be problematic. Large cities and large states have considerable more power as it is.

That is the exact outcome desired by Progressive ideology-One State not 50 different ones. Getting rid of the Electoral College and electing by popular vote alone is a major step toward the rule of the central bureaucratic power desired by Progressives.

They system is overall good, needs tweaking to allow fairness and to discourage cheating, but it is a fair system.

Fortunately 2/3rds of the states would need to agree to change.
The Progressives know that, which is why they have chipped away, a bit at a time, at our constitutional foundation. They have used every political, social, psychological, and judicial means available to achieve their end goal.

I have asked here several times if the States were necessary, and never got a response avowing that they were. Psychologically, we may have arrived at a point where, if nudged to think about it, most people would not really consider it a necessity that we must have separate States. That they are just geographical markings established by past history, a sort of nice tradition filled with various fun competitions and characteristics and pride of place--but necessary?--maybe not. They certainly present some burdensome legal complications and problematic inefficiencies. Overall, many, if not most, might think it better, or may already think it is so, to have one codex, a uniform code of civil law for the entire country, rather than 50 different, even if they are very similar, codes.

It may not be that difficult, with a few more Progressive tweaks, to get 2/3rds of the States to agree to the one State solution--at least, at first step, if not by definition, by fact--de facto in spite of de jure.

That's exactly what so-called "judicial activism" does. That's how the courts have been used to promote the one State rather than the 50. Many Rulings, especially over the past 80 years, have led us closer and closer to the Progressive destination.

For instance, the Roe v Wade decision. Constitutionally, there is no provision for Federal Government imposition of abortion law on the individual States. Constitutionally, de jure, the matter should be left to the different States, but the Court, by its own whim (so-called "interpretation") gave the jurisdiction to the One State, the Federal Government. The court, de facto, further advanced the reality of a "de jure" State rather than the separate 50.

The coming Democrat Senator's inquisition of Trump's Supreme Court nominees will reveal their desire to appoint Judges who will
de facto, by their decisions, push us further into the unitary, totally centralized, State--"our Democracy" rather than our Republic.

Last edited by detbuch; 01-29-2017 at 03:39 PM..
detbuch is offline