Tuesday, December 6, 2016

Secessionist American States


For John, BLUFThis is all part of the five Kübler Ross stages of grief.  Then there was the guy who checked himself into a psych ward, per The Huffington Post.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




This is from NTK, the Need to Know Network.  Their view of themselves is here.  There is no author mentioned. At any rate, here is the lede plus one:
On Tuesday, disgruntled Democrats held a forum to discuss the possibility of replacing the Electoral College.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) conceded that Democrats could not get rid of the Electoral College due to the way the United States Constitution is written.

Well there is that.  They recognize how the Constitution is written, but apparently not why.  They have forgotten that the reason for the Electoral College, for two Senators per State, is to ensure the small stakes have a say and thus are willing to be members of the Union.  A Union run by Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Texas, California and Washington State would not be attractive to the other 42.

It ends thusly:

Rational people, not the fringe, are now talking about whether states could be separated from the U.S., whether we should have a Constitutional Convention.  And I think as time goes on that is apt to become more the case unless we here can figure an answer to preventing the majority from being ruled by the minority.
Cry me a River.  Are these folks ready to take on that anti-democratic institution, the US Senate.  There is, first of all, the filibuster.  Then there is the issue of one man one vote vs the allocation of two senators to each State.  Maybe we should just abolish the US Senate, or populate it solely with former Cabinet Officers, but with the ability to delay legislation, but not change it or block it. 

And what about the undemocratic way of picking a President if no one gets 270 votes in the Electoral College, it goes to the House of Representatives, where each state gets one (repeat, one) vote.

Then, there is the question of if, by switching to a popular vote we will then require a run-off, to ensure we don't elect a minority President.  I would suggest that to win a Candidate would need at least 50.5 percent of the vote, to ensure that small variances don't challenge the results.

Representative Zoe Lofgren of California needs to give this some serious thought, including an analysis of all the possible outcomes.

Hat tip to the Drudge Report.

Regards  —  Cliff

  This should not be confused with the now defunct NTK newsletter, gone about eight years.
  If the Democrats are disgruntled, can we assume the Republicans are gruntled?
  Aren't you ready to bet that the Democrats are regretting Senator Harry Reid's "nuclear option".
  Sort of like the British House of Lords.

No comments: