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

I'm go ahead and bet my non-existent fortune that the same folks mad about this are absolutely chipper about the 26 (IIRC) states that have a mutual aid compact to address the border "crisis" despite almost all of them not being border states.

Just wondering if there anyone here who agrees with the Federalist’s stance?

Should states be able to allocate their Electoral College votes as is required by the US and their state constitutions and the applicable federal and state laws?

Or… na?

Or ALEC.

For real though; I win the Lotto and setting up a Democratic version of ALEC is one of my top priorities.

Have you found the quotes yet of people saying that?

A number of them being slave owners doesn't discredit all the ideas they had, it just makes anyone trying to hold them up as moral authorities a giant fucking idiot.

Even a small country like mine has "administrative districts", each province has their own governing body and head of province...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinces_of_the_Netherlands#Politics_and_governance

I agree Lanzman, that is a giant facepalm. You should direct us towards the examples of people saying the things you talked about so we can mock them together.

The question is what decisions are suited to what level of administrative division.

I'm fine with my city council voting on whether or not to have curbside recycling, and whether the intersection down the street from my house needs a stoplight, and how often to sweep the streets. I'm also fine with their decisions on those items being different from the decisions that get made in the next town over.

Basic human and civil rights? Not so much.

I would answer that question; however, the article is behind a pay wall so I don’t know what it actually says vs what type of spin and hyperbole you’re likely using to describe what’s happening.

What are you talking about. There is no pay wall.

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


But here, if this helps:

Democrats Are Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So Our President Is Elected By Popular Vote

BY: ANDREW MORGAN
JULY 28, 2022
6 MIN READ

The left’s push for a popular vote for the presidency directly undermines the electoral system established by our Constitution.

The left is at it again, and conservatives need to be on high alert. The left has been pushing for a national popular vote to elect the president of the United States for years. Since 2017, 10 more states have either signed the National Popular Vote bill into law or approved the bill in one state legislative chamber. This should be a grave concern because it directly undermines the electoral system established by our Constitution. If not stopped, the American system of presidential elections will be changed potentially forever.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It has been enacted by 15 state legislatures plus Washington, D.C., and passed in 41 legislative chambers in 24 states. For the proposal to become the law of the land, enough states totaling at least 270 electoral votes would be required to enact the law, and states would then commit their electoral votes to the candidate with the most popular votes nationally, regardless of which candidate won at the state level.

The states that have enacted the compact represent 195 electoral votes: Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, California, New York, and the District of Columbia. States with passage in one chamber include Arkansas, Arizona, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Virginia. Successful passage in all of these states represents 283 electoral votes, enough to change the law and make our presidential election decided via popular vote rather than the Electoral College.

Democrats have long been unhappy with the electoral process, unless, of course, their candidate won. When their candidate loses, debate begins anew about how unfair the Electoral College is. The argument is always the same. Since we conduct our elections by democratic process, it makes sense to elect our nation’s executive according to the will of the majority with a voting plurality.

Five times, presidential candidates have won elections without the popular vote: John Quincy Adams (1824), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), George W. Bush (2000), and Donald Trump (2016).

Minority and Less Populated Areas Would Lack Representation

The commonly heard sentiment during election cycles is “every vote matters.” However, what is not fair is that if the president is elected based on a plurality, then the minority would not have a chance of having their candidate elected. Only the concerns and interests of more heavily populated areas, such as the East and West coast cities, would be represented. Interests of the minority and less populated areas would naturally be set aside and of little interest to future presidential candidates. Worse, the executive would be beholden and accountable solely to the majority.

This condition was not the intent of our founders. Their intent was to ensure that the nation’s highest executive, as well as the executive branch, represented the interests of all Americans regardless of political affiliation. A future president would need to appeal to those concerned about not just national but also regional issues.

Further, the Electoral College provided a means to disburse and decentralize power. State electors are elected just days before and are unknown until just prior to an election to prevent undue influence to stay true to the people’s votes in their states. Our founders framed it so as to prevent collusion and cabalist (their word) behavior, preclude violence, and thwart involvement of foreign powers.

Cabalism Comes to Light

Following the 2020 election, our founders’ concerns came to light and fruition. Our national elections have been fraught with cabalist behavior, undue influence, numerous forms of cheating, as well as foreign interference. The tyranny they feared came to pass, driven by collusion among the administrative state, the legislative branch, legacy media, Big Tech, and nongovernmental organizations. An independent executive branch separate from the legislature has become an illusion.

In Federalist Paper 68, Alexander Hamilton wrote, “the process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of the president will never fall with a lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue and a little arts of popularity may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first owners of a single state, but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole union.” Hamilton would have been appalled today to have witnessed the travesty undermining his sentiment.

So why does all this matter?

An Oppressive Majority

It matters because the idea of a national popular vote is gaining steam and if adopted by enough states, the Electoral College will become irrelevant. Minority voter interests will no longer matter at the national level. Only the whims of the majority will. And the result will be precisely why Socrates opposed a democratic form of government. Once a majority is established, it finds a way to remain permanent, and the majority class will become oppressive to the minority class. There will be no means to overturn the majority, no matter how skewed the majority’s view may be.

The implications for the country are vast and would make the United States just another oppressive tyrannical state. The ultimate reason for the success of the U.S. was that its founders held a belief that we are created and guided by a higher power, and they recognized that men are inherently corruptible. They implemented controls to prevent those with ambitions from achieving outright power over the minority, thus making the U.S. unique among nations.

Left Looks to Crush the Right

The left’s tactics are in high gear, accelerating in an attempt to overwhelm conservatives and Republicans to a tipping point at which the left acquires complete control and the right becomes powerless.

The left’s all-out assault has become abundantly clear since President Joe Biden took office. As soon as Democrats attained the presidency and the narrowest of majorities in the House and Senate, they pressed forward with their agenda, nearly unimpeded had it not been for the likes of Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., and perhaps divine intervention.

Whether changing voting laws in its favor, creating crises to circumvent the laws already in place, continually flooding the courts with litigation designed to throw sand in the gears of transparent elections, or changing the electoral process altogether, the left’s efforts to gain and retain control, by any means necessary, will not relent.

In addition to ongoing election integrity efforts across the nation, it is imperative that conservatives push back attempts to advance a national popular vote. It is incumbent upon individual citizens to tell their state representatives that it is not the desire of the people to circumvent the constitutional process for electing our president.

Failure to stop a national popular vote could take generations to reverse.

Andrew Morgan is a former deputy assistant secretary of the Army, a senior executive within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and a retired U.S. Navy captain. He received his MBA from George Washington University and master's from National Defense University.

No, the right are crushing themselves.
They could win the black and Hispanic vote if they wanted, but they're that committed to racism.
They could give the people policies that are popular, but they're that committed to thuggish oligarchy.
They could be compassionate, but they're all in on the idea that cruelty is strength to the bitter goddamned end.

Fuck their crocodile tears.
Die angry, fuckers.

Hispanics are shifting to the Republican Party.

A) Don’t see anything where they say the states can’t do this.
B) It warns of what proponents of the electoral college have been saying since forever, huge urban centers ex. LA., New York etc. will basically decide the President pretty much permanently.
C) Sounds like some pie in the sky stuff, IMO. The reason I say this is because when Trump was president there was a window of opportunity to get a constitutional convention of the states and even though republicans controlled enough state legislatures, governorships, congress and the presidency, they still couldn’t get it done. Same with repealing the ACA. Granted Democrats are more lock step, but still, I wouldn’t hold your breath.
D) I think the states are totally free to do this, but it does open up a can of worms that I’m not sure Democrats have thought of. If they can do this does that mean secession and nullification are on the table? I’m glad to see the Democrats re-embracing their roots, though I hope they don’t go back to embracing Jim Crowe and Slavery.
In short, they are certainly within their right to try this. Good luck and don’t be surprised if it ends up backfiring.

Fantasy rep from Dicky.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/23/1113...increasingly-shifting-to-the-republican-partyhttps://www.wsj.com/story/why-hispanic-voters-are-shifting-toward-the-republican-party-1add04efhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ht-heres-where-democrats-will-be-hit-hardest/
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...-to-steal-hispanic-voters-from-democrats/amp/
Dicky’s response

Wrong.
This->

Snooze at your own risk, science denier. You know what the predominant religion is for Hispanics is? Catholicism. You know what Catholics are against? Abortion.

Show me the soul tank on a sperm, and the transfer hole on the ovum.

I wasn’t referring to abortion, I was referring to your denial that Hispanics are shifting to the Republican Party.

Propaganda is never paywalled - their money comes from the shadows

As currently constructed, someone sure as fuck needs to

That headline is laughable, though, considering that every time Democrats get power, they pretty much refuse to use it.

Tafkats leans right, politically. He’s just not a trumpeter and doesn’t fall for propaganda. You know, like you claim to be.

Them's fightin' words.

This opinion piece is arguing that trying to do an end-around the Electoral College system is bad because rural areas and numerical minority areas would be hurt.

I think that misses the point that there's a slippery slope when state legislatures start to meddle with how their electoral college votes are selected. If Trump had been more competent/luckier, state legislators would have been able to send competing slates of electors and throw the situation into more chaos.

It's not necessarily just a matter of resources (if by resources one means primarily money. manpower and the like).

As an example, imagine a version of America where there were no state governments and the Trump administration was the only government entity larger than a city to handle the pandemic. The government would have plenty of resources to potentially handle the pandemic. But it would almost certainly handle it similarly to the way the Trump administration in our reality did: downplaying the seriousness of the pandemic, appointing as many cronies as possible to put in charge of the response, spending money in support of friendly areas of the country, etc. Without states to balance out the lackadaisical Trump administration's approach, things would be dramatically worse. Of course, on the flipside, if there had been a federal government that cared to intervene properly, the results would probably have been better than the reality where Republican governors downplayed the virus too.

It's as much about willpower as the other resources. The state governments are probably more responsive to the interests of their residents than a single federal government would be.

Not only have I found entire communities that say that, I have many personal acquaintances that say the Founding Fathers are 'Trash' and they won't ever hear anything good said of them.

They were mad at Lin Manuel Miranda for popularizing Hamilton, not realizing that he based everything on Chernowith's book.

Same ACAB morons who go quiet when you mention Eugene Goodman's name.

Yeah, they exist, and they are loud.

That's the theory, but it's very dated. Considering the profound difference in organizational structure, information processing capacity, and telecommunications from the 17th to the 21st century I don't think that is still true.

Because state governments have always been easier to capture than the federal government.

And if you explicitly are putting people into power to not help people, you won't get a lot of help.

Between the necessity of the federal government to intervene in civil rights, the history of massive federal programs like medicare. social security and medicaid, the far greater resources of the federal government helping in food needs, and simple economies of scale federal aid is more impactful than state aid.

And if you live in poor red states, you aren't likely to get much in the way of state aid.

There's a reason that the income disparity line exploded under Reagan Revolution and continues to balloon. They stop the Federal government from providing aid while also ensuring all state governments they control sabotage that aid.

Apologies. Am I confusing you with … another poster?