The Federalist: Federalism and the Constitution are bad. And Fascism is necessary.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/2...-so-our-president-is-elected-by-popular-vote/


Oh no! Not states as sovereign entities banding together and agreeing how they will allocate their electors as is their right under the Constitution!!!1!

So if enough states did approve this popular vote measure, what are the odds SCOTUS would uphold it?

This court? Who knows. But Article Two, Section One, Clause Two is pretty explicit in that the legislatures of the states get to determine how to appoint their Electors:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

And there is a long history of the states not having to assign them Winner Take All. IIRC Maine and Nebraska assign one elector to which ever candidate wins in each House district with the remaining two going to the overall state popular vote winner.

Hmmm…. Okay now I am just thinking out loud.

Assuming you could pass some kind of non-partisan redistricting regulation how about that formula being applied nationally for the EC.

Would it be better or worse than the status quo?

Wow, conservatives are up in arms about nullifying one of the last vestiges of slavery? Never would have thought...

The thing is, post-January 6 and with the background of the independent state legislature doctrine, the notion that the state legislatures should be able to direct their electors to cast their votes any particular way seems like it will provide another place for Republican gamesmanship to try to exploit loopholes.

Wait, I’m confused. I thought states as sovereign entities was an outmoded concept, an evil legacy of dead white slave-owning men? And the Fed should be in charge of everything For The Good Of The People? Why, next thing you know someone will say Senators should be appointed by state legislatures! My God, the horror!

We're hardly surprised. We've tried explaining to you over the years, you just don't seem to grasp what is being explained.

I don't even know where this is coming from and, quite frankly, I'm afraid to ask as I'm certain someone will respond with you pulled it out of your ass.

Well, see, when the people elect senators in a statewide vote, sometimes they have the inconvenient habit of electing Democrats.

And because you can't gerrymander a statewide U.S. Senate district, but you can gerrymander state legislative districts, direct popular election of senators takes one avenue for cheating off the table, while returning to election by legislatures would expand Republicans' ability to win even when the majority of the people vote against them, which is ultimately the only way they can survive.

We know.

I guess this is why I'm not a politician. I am so not that ... sneaky, manipulative, underhanded ...

436 districts drawn without regard to state borders, plus 2 from each state’s winner plus DC?

I guess it would depend on your definition of better. It ought to increase turnout overall in large states, and minority party turnout in non-swing states. Third party turnout could go either way.

Might as well just get rid of "states" altogether. I mean ... 250+ years ago, the idea may have made sense. But, the US is one country now. There shouldn't be different laws in different states.

So, if someone can explain, like I'm a 5 year old, the purpose of separating out into states like we have now, I'd much appreciate it.

You see little Jenee each state has its own individual needs and a lot of the time what works for one state may not work for another state. Rural states have different needs than urban states.

No This does not explain a need for different states. Each state has both rural and urban areas. The needs of people do not change over state lines. I live on the border of Wisconsin and Illinois. Live in one state, work in the other. The only purpose of that line, that I can tell, is to fuck up my annual taxes.

You'll have to do better.

Racism, guns, God and abortion seem to be the only reasons.

Decentralization.

I'll be happy to try to explain, but I think the concepts are beyond a 5 year old.

Let's put aside for a second anything to do with history or "because that is what the Constitution says."

In a system where there is a single government that oversees the entire country, there would be times when that central government would make decisions that would ignore the needs of one area (geographic or otherwise), or give one group of people advantage over another. There would not be much that the minority would ever be able to do. There also would be lag time between when a problem arises and the central government could react.

The federal system is meant to allow checks and balances so that people from all states have a reasonable amount of say. It also allows the individual states to experiment with different solutions to issues, and at least theoretically, that experimentation will bring about innovation and more success. What works in California might not work in Alabama. At the same time, the federal system can set baselines so that each state is required to meet fundamentals as to individual and group rights.

There are, of course, issues that arise in the execution of all this and in particular contexts (like abortion rights, for example). But as a broad concept, I do think it generally works.

Thank you.

If that is truly the reason, they are fucking it up beyond all recognition of what it should be.

Relying on the federal government to get everything done is a pretty inefficient process and you’re going to be waiting a long time to get things that are necessary and specific to your community.

I agree 100%. For those who are keeping score, that’s two. That being said, the Federal government is also fucking things up.

For those keeping score, I have maintained for over 14 years here, 4 more over at trekbbs, and 30+ years of my life before that, that most people have more in common that the media would have us believe. It's when extremists convince lazy people who don't want to think that the differences are larger than can be overcome, that people start attacking each other over insignificant things like telling people who they can and can't have sex or what other people should wear or how to address people in a respectful manner.

Part of the issue that the Founding Fathers were trying to address was the balance between local and central control. The system they conceived is by design meant to make it so that people in one individual state or group of states cannot dominate those others, so that one set of interests can't dominate others, etc. while at the same time, letting some amount of common purpose move things forward in certain areas.

I am not sure how you mean "they are fucking it up beyond all recognition."

I mean, the states themselves can't even regulate and balance within their own states. and certain states do dominate others.

and if you can recognize present workings between states and Federal with what was proposed 250+/- years ago, you win. Cuz I can't.

Well, y'see, rural areas have some very specific needs that city dwellers can't possibly understand.

Like the need to make sure queers can't get married.

Or the need to reduce women to the legal status of ambulatory incubators.

It's absolutely essential that their right to oppress their people not be abridged by any meddlesome Yankees.

Or something like that.

It’s not a straw man. It’s hyperbole - an exaggerated claim and (by definition) meant to be taken literally. And since this particular tactic has been used at nauseam, no one actually takes it literally.

It's not a straw man when you've literally been saying it's a good thing that states can make laws to restrict abortion.

Now THIS is a strawman. The Federal government has the resources necessary to be able to do much more than the local communities, especially in rural areas which are disproportionately poor. But that in no way, shape or form stops local communities or even states from organizing to meet their own needs.

Except when the need is to deprive someone of their human rights, which seems to be a frequent refrain from the shithole areas of the country.

there's some value in having "administrative districts" - not necessarily drawn according to present boundries - to provide more focused attention to region specific needs (the state of the great lakes, western water management, costal concerns, etc) but it would probably be unwieldy to try to handle everything at the national level.

That said, civil rights should be universal and not at the whims of political subdivisions, and matters which concern all of us like environmental policies need to be handled at the national level - assuming we ever have a national government that actually reflects the majority of the population.