Civics Education in the US

I would suggest that each state gets one vote for president. That seems the most equitable way to run a treaty between sovereign states.

 

After they won their independence, they were no longer colonies. They were independent and sovereign states. Like France or Belgium, for example.

 

Perfect 50 states, the popular vote of the state rules , only one vote per state.

 

Right, because 1969 was so recent.

I'm not, like some here, arrogant enough to think that just because I don't like the EC and think it shou'd be abolished, that my view is the popular one. Most voters have very little idea how it works or why it exists. My point, for those who still don't understand, is that IMHO it is time to reexamine the EC's role in our process of electing a president. IMHO it is way past time to go to a one person, one vote presidential election.

I'm done here. No more inane replies, thank you.

 

It means alot to me being born in 1965

 

Dont even suggest I dont know the EC by heart, pal been debating it since 1994 on the internet

 

Indeed, each state does have 2 Senators; and, like our Founders, I find this to be an agreeable compromise. Even still, the Senate cannot make law, can it??

That power is reserved to the House, i.e. the branch most closely tied to the people

And, b/c they are vested with the power to make law, declare war, coin and regulate money, etc, they are on the shortest leash, i.e. they stand for election every 2 years, as opposed to 4 years for President and 6 years for Senate.

None of that is good enough for you though is it?? You insist on overthrowing our republic, and replacing it with a democracy. Is that right??

You want to turn our population centers into seats of power that will dictate to the serfs in "fly over country"??

Something akin to Hunger Games??

James Madison - democracies... spectacles of turbulence and contention... as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

Is that your vision for America??

 

Nice post..

 

No kidding? So glad you're here to explain things. </sarcasm>

In the years leading up to when the founders were crafting the Constitution, most still referred to them as colonies. It was during that process that they began formally calling them states.

 

Aw come on.

"Britain acknowledges the United States (New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia[15]) to be free, sovereign, and independent states, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, property, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof,"

 

I could find an equal number of writings from back in the day where even one or two founders used the word colonies. Try the federalist papers, I'm sure there's one or two in there. So what? It doesn't change my point, but if it makes you feel better about yourself, I'll call 'em states from now on. Happy?

 

Yes. They were and are sovereign states. Super happy now.

 

I'm not going to track thru a morass of stuff you post just so I can understand what you posted in one particular one.

If you want a single post understood say what you mean, mean what you say, man up and own it.

 

THE WRONG "TAX-PATCH"

Wow! That is precisely what the country needs as regards Civics!

That, and I might add, the necessity for Fair-and-Decent distribution of Income&Wealth by means of an effective upper-income taxation.

If one should go looking for "what's a fair tax plan" on the Internet it is amazing the befuddling number of sites that occurs. Each one a different approach to the matter, and none were ideally simple.

So, I will have to go with this one - where the question is "Who pays for what and how much?":


The above image comes from ITEP - which is a site that discusses various tax-systems and propose not an exact solution, but one that meets numerous criteria. As noted above, which coincides nicely with any discussion on National Taxation. (Once the above objectives are met, then national-objectives fall nicely into place. Meaning national expenditure should not be going half-wise to the DoD!)

Which is a better start-point, imho, than just throwing out the tax-percent figures. I see no reason why states should compete on VATs. (It is childish nonsense. They should all have the same percentage.)

It is entirely possible nonetheless that certain states have acute problems that only national taxation can help address. And the HofR should assume that as a Major Issue to be dealt with between-and-amongst the representatives - and added to any annual discussion regarding the national-budget.

Each one of those coloured sections in the above graphic is worthy of considerable debate - beyond the simplistic "Who gets taxed how much at what income level". Because the approach suggested is in the "aggregate" and not helter-skelter piecemeal - that is, all aspects of a national tax-system and not just all-and-sundry state-level taxation.

Which is probably why such a system nationally aint nevah-gonna-happin. Because the states think they all have their own "tax-patch", and they wont want to relinquish it. What should be done FIRST is defining nationally levels-of-taxation for both state and the nation.

Yes, there is a differentiation between "state-rights" and "national rights" - but since the US-economy is an aggregate, then so should be taxation. States should not be competing with one another in the matter of Total Taxation because any economy (which is the source of all taxable revenue) is inescapably national-in-nature.

Which brings to the fore that other highly-quirky question of the National Budget. Which, to date, simply pushes out further the day-of-reckoning as regards the National Debt and its penchant presently to "sky-rocket" (see graphic-history here). A debt that is a burden on each and every American. And not just this "guy" called Uncle Sam in DC ...

 

The only one that needs a civic lesson in this thread is the ones who deny the Constitution.

And once again you try to hijack your own thread. Giggle giggle

 

From here: A decision from the Supremes as to who votes for what, from here: How Our Laws Are Made

Excerpt:

Now, pray tell, why is that ruling not applied to the vote for the presidency?

My answer:
*The Supreme Court, as presently constituted, is far too highly influenced by the present majority of judges who favor one particular-party over another. And why does that happen? Because it is the PotUS that nominates a judge to the Supreme Court! Which, to my mind, is yet another failure of the US's uniquely manipulative two-party system. It is stipulated in the Constitution that the PotUS selects members to the SC. (See here.)
*I, for one, do not see why this should be a privilege accorded to a PotUS. After all, the SC is one of the three powers the constitute "the government" of the United States. Rather, these judges should be selected by the HofR.

 

It has been changed numerous times..


And good luck with a third party, I gave up after Anderson

 

And the Electoral College is a necessary part of no Republic I have ever heard of. The United States is a republic, no question, but the EC is a tacked on appendage whose main purpose is, or rather was, to prevent us having all the conflicts that could arise when 3 and possibly 4 or even more equally popular candidates were all running for President. That is what the Founding Fathers thought would happen. The one thing they did not foresee was the rise of political Parties, which many of them, most notably Washington, actually warned against. They probably kept the EC because together with parties it winnows the candidates to just two.

And that does make all this sudden affection for it somewhat mysterious in a way. It's the main thing preventing the rise of a third party, another great shibboleth of the consevative/libertarians in this country

In any case could all you Trumpers PLEASE stop this BS as if there is some sort of Holy Wisdom in it. You and I and the neighbor's cat ALL know that the ONLY reason you love it so is because it enabled the Great Orange God to win. This is borne out quite well by the fact that GOG himself was ready to go to WAR if the EC had been the ONLY thing giving Obama the Presidency in 2012

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...038b76-4af7-11e9-93d0-64dbcf38ba41_story.html

 

All I ask you to realize we are a nation of 50 soverign states, not one country that all thinks the same.. that's the beauty of the EC..

We need the EC today more than ever before in our history, I despise the left but I am ok with them because of the EC .

 

TRIAS POLITICA

It is clear that the Constitution was created with the intent of assuring a distinct "separation of powers". At the time of its conception, the main governmental problem was that monarchs were supreme in deciding who should be a judge of litigation (between subjects), and who not.

If there are three separate powers, and the Supreme Court is the third-one - then the Executive Branch should not be selecting members of the highest Judicial Branch. The people's will in this selection should be conveyed by the Congressional Branches (HofR and Senate)

About the "powers of governance" and who selects them - from WikiPedia, here: Separation of powers - excerpt:

NB: The reference above is to "state as a country" and not a subdivision of the United States.

 

1820 again?

 

Willya bloody just STAWP. You're okay with it because it enabled Trump to win. If it ever defeated a conservative who had the popular majority you'd be in the streets.

I truly can't see what the "sovereign" states have to do with it. If the States all appointed electors proportionately instead of winner-take-all , as they CAN, and anybody with the slightest knowledge of statistics and numbers over a hundred can readily see is what they OUGHT, to do then we wouldn't have these occasional flukes that turn our elections on their heads.

It's possible that Trumpers believe that since the EC favors rural areas they can pull this off again. After all NO liberals live in the country, the areas of suburbia, horse farms and communes.

Trump won in 2016 because the cons turned out while the liberals stayed home, that gave a close election and the EC comes into play only in close elections.

That won't happen in 2020.

 

The main and major reason that third parties invariably fail is the Electoral College. In 1992 Ross Perot got 19% of the vote, the largest third party total in history. He got NO electoral votes at all.

 

And that's why Bill won= bush jr=Obama = Trump..

Good gawd it's all his fault

 

As I have mentioned Far-Too-Often - no other major democracy on earth has adopted an EC to determine its "Executive Head of government". Those that have are all small countries of little significance*. Whether their ECs are manipulative is a good question.

Which means what? The other major democratic countries such as Europe after WW2 looked closely at free-democracies. And Great Britain, the ex-owner of the American colonies went on to create a British parliament. Neither GB nor any of its English-speaking ex-colonies employs an Electoral College (aside from India).

Meaning what? Uncle Sam made a colossal error in 1812 to create a state Electoral College, which now collectively refuse to correct the error.

That's what ...