Political Crossfire Forums

[LostSoul3412]

Harbinger wrote: Senators are representatives of the states.

:td:

After the Seventeenth Amendment, Senators are representatives of the people, not the state governments.

[Harbinger]

LostSoul3412 wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Senators are representatives of the states.


:td:

After the Seventeenth Amendment, Senators are representatives of the people, not the state governments.

Then we can pass an amendment to repeal the 17th amendment and give the federal senate the exclusive right to elect the president. How would that be be?

[bigstick61]

Quote: Why bother with an electoral college at all? Seems redundant to me. Senators are representatives of the states. They are elected into office by the people of the states. Why not give the Senate the exclusive power to elect the President? That ought to give equal influence to the states while keeping the people fairly seperated from the process.

First off, the Electoral College is supposed to be proportional, so a more likely body under your proposal would be the House of Representatives. In fact, they are the backup for the Electoral College in case no person gets a majority of votes. The Representatives from each State form into a group and each State has one vote. If no one gets a majority, then they have to keep debating and voting until someone does. The Vice Presidential backup election method is the Senate voting, a majority of the Senate needed for there to be a victor.

Second of all, the Electors are supposed to be delegates, not representatives of the people, chosen for their abilities/qualifications and/or ideology. The Representatives in the House do not qualify as such, and neither would Senators. Since Senators no longer represent the States, the States would have no real say anyways, although they weren't supposed to under the EC system either, even if the State legislature chose the Electors rather than the people. Like I said, the Electors are supposed to be delegates.

[Harbinger]

bigstick61 wrote:
First off, the Electoral College is supposed to be proportional, so a more likely body under your proposal would be the House of Representatives. In fact, they are the backup for the Electoral College in case no person gets a majority of votes. The Representatives from each State form into a group and each State has one vote. If no one gets a majority, then they have to keep debating and voting until someone does. The Vice Presidential backup election method is the Senate voting, a majority of the Senate needed for there to be a victor.

You mean the House is more proportional to the populations of each state? Okay, lets give the House of Representatives the exclusive right to elect the President and the Senate the exclusive right to elect the Vice President. The college still seems redundant. Why use the House and Senate as backups for a college that only functions to direct the attention of the people away from their Congressional representatives?

If anything, an electoral college should be the backup for Congress.

bigstick61 wrote:
Second of all, the Electors are supposed to be delegates, not representatives of the people, chosen for their abilities/qualifications and/or ideology. The Representatives in the House do not qualify as such, and neither would Senators. Since Senators no longer represent the States, the States would have no real say anyways, although they weren't supposed to under the EC system either, even if the State legislature chose the Electors rather than the people. Like I said, the Electors are supposed to be delegates.

But a representative is a delegate and vice versa.

dictionary.com wrote:
Delegate
1. a person designated to act for or represent another or others; deputy; representative, as in a political convention.
2. (formerly) the representative of a Territory in the U.S. House of Representatives.
3. a member of the lower house of the state legislature of Maryland, Virginia, or West Virginia.
–verb (used with object)
4. to send or appoint (a person) as deputy or representative.
5. to commit (powers, functions, etc.) to another as agent or deputy.

Representative
1. a person or thing that represents another or others.

[agentkgb]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Harbinger wrote: Senators are representatives of the states.

:td:

After the Seventeenth Amendment, Senators are representatives of the people, not the state governments.
States wouldn't exist if it weren't for the people in them (well, they would, they'd just be patheitic).
There shouldn't be people in the government who just represent another subsection of the government, they should represent the people of that subsection of the government. You can't really represent a state without representing the people in it.

[LostSoul3412]

agentkgb wrote: There shouldn't be people in the government who just represent another subsection of the government, they should represent the people of that subsection of the government.

Let me ask you a question,

What is the purpose of federalism?

[Harbinger]

LostSoul3412 wrote:
agentkgb wrote:
There shouldn't be people in the government who just represent another subsection of the government, they should represent the people of that subsection of the government.

Let me ask you a question,

What is the purpose of federalism?

To favor giving more power to a central governmental authority like our federal government and less power to the states. As opposed to anti-federalism (or confederalism) which is to favor giving less, if any, power to the federal government and more power to the states.

[LostSoul3412]

Harbinger wrote: To favor giving more power to a central governmental authority like our federal government and less power to the states. As opposed to anti-federalism (or confederalism) which is to favor giving less power to the federal government and more power to the states.

:td:

You're comparing it to the wrong system. Essentially, federalism and confederalism are the same thing with different priorities. The question still stands.

What is the purpose of federalism?

[bigstick61]

No, Federalism involves the decentralization of government through having multiple levels. However, a central governmental is maintained and it is not weakened to the point that it is ineffective. A delegate is not a representative. He is not there to represent the wishes of the people who chose him. He is free to do as he wishes, as the people have delegated the power, in this case, to elect the President and Vice President, to him. He chooses the President. In a representative system, the representative would represent the wishes of the people. Although he may deviate from this, it could get him removed from office. There is a difference. The founders felt that a delegative system would be better for the election of the President so as to better insulate him from the people. They did not want a representative system as a first choice, which is why the House is used as a backup.

I was looking at the Constitution of the Republic of China. In it, they have a body called the National Assembly. They are chosen for six-year terms which are nearly concurrent with Presidential ones, and are chosen proprtionally by the people as delegates. They choose the President and Vice President and also can create and pass Constitutional Amendments, and all amendments proposed by the people or the legislature must be approved by them. Although I like our system as designed better, because it promotes Federalism, and also because it is better suited to our country, and for other reasons, what do you think of this method?

[LostSoul3412]

bigstick61 wrote: No, Federalism involves the decentralization of government through having multiple levels. However, a central governmental is maintained and it is not weakened to the point that it is ineffective. A delegate is not a representative. He is not there to represent the wishes of the people who chose him. He is free to do as he wishes, as the people have delegated the power, in this case, to elect the President and Vice President, to him. He chooses the President. In a representative system, the representative would represent the wishes of the people. Although he may deviate from this, it could get him removed from office. There is a difference. The founders felt that a delegative system would be better for the election of the President so as to better insulate him from the people. They did not want a representative system as a first choice, which is why the House is used as a backup.

Correct. The American government is established with not one, but two levels of government that (are meant to) operate independent of the people: the national government, and the state governments. Our elected officials are not there to represent our interests (although they will if they have any wish for reelection), they are there to operate the government.

The point that I was trying to make was that with a federal/confederal system, the people are protected by two layers of government as opposed to one (as with a unitary system). Because of that, the state governments do not equate to the people, because the state governments themselves are sovereign bodies.

bigstick61 wrote: I was looking at the Constitution of the Republic of China. In it, they have a body called the National Assembly. They are chosen for six-year terms which are nearly concurrent with Presidential ones, and are chosen proprtionally by the people as delegates. They choose the President and Vice President and also can create and pass Constitutional Amendments, and all amendments proposed by the people or the legislature must be approved by them. Although I like our system as designed better, because it promotes Federalism, and also because it is better suited to our country, and for other reasons, what do you think of this method?

Too unitary, and too empowering. With no separation of powers within the government, this single body is holding all the power. Very centralized, and very dangerous.

[bigstick61]

The National Assembly only has those powers. It's basically an Electoral College. The ROC's central government is actually seperated into six branches, the executive, the judiciary, the legislature (unicameral), the control yuan, the examination yuan, and the National Assembly. The legislature, which has a president and vice president much like our legislative bodies, has the same powers as Congress, with only a few more than Congress does; it is directly elected and is proportional, as well as representative, with three year terms with no limits. The control yuan is sort of like a large oversight committee which makes sure that the executive stays within its limits, and has the power to impeach officials as well as to try impeachments. It is elected by the legislatures of the provinces, municipalities, and local governments (indirectly elected) and the members serve six-year terms. The examination yuan pretty much just writes exams and controls the examination and training of government personnel or those that wish to work for the government. The executive has the same powers as ours does in the US Constitution, but in times of declared war or emergency, may issue executive orders which become law, which may be challenged by the legislature. The executive also proposes the budget, spending plans, and similar bills to the legislature, as well as those regarding the military, but all are subject to approval by the legislature like any other bill. The President has a weaker veto power than the US President. Also, the people may propose laws and constitutional amendments by referendum, but they are subject to approval by the legislature, and manedments must also be approved by the National Assembly. The Constitution establishes a federal system, with the bulk of power being in the hands of the provinces, although unlike the US system, such power is not derived from their sovereignty, but rather from the central Constitution, although it makes sense conerning the country we are talking about, as very few of the provinces consider themselves to be somewhat sovereign.

[agentkgb]

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: There shouldn't be people in the government who just represent another subsection of the government, they should represent the people of that subsection of the government.

Let me ask you a question,

What is the purpose of federalism?
It's a form of government that involves subsections of it (states) being represented in the federal government. :roll: And?
The fact that something is a political idea with a name for itself does not mean it's a good idea. It diffueses the political power of the people and works on the assumptoin that people of the state are united in their interests, so that representing the state is the same as representing the people of the state. Since people of the same state can obviously have different interests, this doesn't make a lot of sense. In large countries states might be necessary to effectively run the country, to bureaucratize it. But that doesn't mean it makes sense to represent a state without representing the people of the state, when the state is obviously just a bunch of people.

[bigstick61]

However, the American system involves at its heart decentralization; your vision of federalism is one where the parts which make up the whole are merely subsections. That is not so in the US. The US is made up of 50 individual States who gave up a portion of their sovereignty to enjoy the blessings, security, and benefits which accompany a Union. It is that small prtion of their sovereignty on which makes up Federal powers. The States created the Federal government, not the other way around, and the mass of power is supposed to be in the hands of the States; this makes them much more than mere subsections.

Federalism is ideal, in particular the type in which the primary entities, such as states or provinces, have the bulk of the power, as it decentralizes and diffuses government power, which is beneficial to all and further improves upon a republican system. Centralization puts too much power in the hands of too few people, which is potentially dangerous to liberty.

Why should it matter if it diffuses the power of the people? That is a good thing. Both governmental and popular power need to be restricted in order to create a balance, which is what arepublic does; I assume you advocate that we be a democracy. Too much power in the hands of the people is just as dangerous as too much power in the hands of the government, and at times can be even more dangerous.

The reason why State governments should have representation is because it is their right, as the sovereign States, to have such representation. The State governments are interested in maintaining their power and protecting their sovereignty; this may not always be true of the people, especially as suffrage is made universal, as the masses tend to favor or be manipulated into favoring centralization. This is why the State government s should have it; the people already have representation through the House. Two representative bodies which represent the people are superfluous; having an idirectly elected Senate is a vital check both on the people, as well as on Federal power.

To say that the people's will should always rule the day is both unwise, and advocates a very dangerous thing.

[LostSoul3412]

agentkgb wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: What is the purpose of federalism?
It's a form of government that involves subsections of it (states) being represented in the federal government. :roll: And?

:td:

Strike one.

You've just explained a unitary system. I'm talking about a federal system, and I'm talking about the purpose, not the establishment.

agentkgb wrote: The fact that something is a political idea with a name for itself does not mean it's a good idea.

...?

What is that supposed to mean? If fascists changed the label for their ideal government to "Super-Happy-Rainbows-'n-Chocolate-Love-Council", it would still be fascism. Now, getting back to your statement; um... duh.

agentkgb wrote: It diffueses the political power of the people and works on the assumptoin that people of the state are united in their interests, so that representing the state is the same as representing the people of the state.

:td:

Strike two.

Discover the purpose of federalism/confederalism, and you'll discover why that statement is incorrect. If you're too lazy/disinterested/utterly confused, please post as such and I will provide the answer.

agentkgb wrote: Since people of the same state can obviously have different interests, this doesn't make a lot of sense. In large countries states might be necessary to effectively run the country, to bureaucratize it. But that doesn't mean it makes sense to represent a state without representing the people of the state, when the state is obviously just a bunch of people.

:td:

Strike three.

Learn about the differences between federal/confederal governments and unitary ones, and then get back to me.

[agentkgb]

It is the "the distribution of power in an organization (as a government) between a central authority and the constituent units," something remarkably similar to what I said earlier. Make your point already.

[LostSoul3412]

agentkgb wrote: It is the "the distribution of power in an organization (as a government) between a central authority and the constituent units," something remarkably similar to what I said earlier. Make your point already.

:td:

The key factor between a confederal/federal system, and a unitary system is the split levels of sovereignty between the national and state governments. This means that the national government is sovereign, and the state governments are also sovereign of the people. Because of that sovereignty, the state government do not equal the people that they govern. In a unitary system, the state government would be mere extensions of the national government (which is where American government is headed), however, under a true confederal/federal system, both levels are sovereign of both the other level of government, and the people.

Because of that added sovereignty, state governments are separate of the people, and as such, do not equal the people whom they govern.

[agentkgb]

First of all, I gave you Webster's dictionary definition of "federalism," so don't tell me it's totally wrong.
Secondly, my original post wasn't about whether or not the way the US operates was federal or not, I'm saying that the right of a state shouldn't be more important than the rights of the people in that state, my reasoning being that a state was merely a bunch of people.

[LostSoul3412]

agentkgb wrote: First of all, I gave you Webster's dictionary definition of "federalism," so don't tell me it's totally wrong.

Totally wrong? No. Missing key points? Yes. Even a unitary system has local governments that are extensions of the national government. The difference, that it forgets to mention, is the dual levels of sovereignty within a federal/confederal system.

agentkgb wrote: Secondly, my original post wasn't about whether or not the way the US operates was federal or not, I'm saying that the right of a state shouldn't be more important than the rights of the people in that state, my reasoning being that a state was merely a bunch of people.

Again, that is incorrect under a federal/confederal system. Geographically, and socially, a state is merely a bunch of people, however politically, the state government is sovereign of the people, and therefore does not equal the people in the scope of American politics.

I am saying that because the United States is a federal system, the state government is separate of the people, and therefore should have at least some say over national government that is not connected to the people.

[agentkgb]

I wasn't trying to argue about what a true federalism was, I was just saying that I thought the people's rights should take priority, regardless of whether that was truly federalist.

[LostSoul3412]

agentkgb wrote: I wasn't trying to argue about what a true federalism was, I was just saying that I thought the people's rights should take priority, regardless of whether that was truly federalist.

That's fine, and I'm saying that the state governments should have at least some say over the federal government that is separate from the people.

Ideally, I would have the people elect the House of Representatives, and the President.

However, at the same time I would have the state legislatures nominate their Senators, as well as keep the Electoral College in place to give the state governments shared powers with the general electorate in deciding the president.

For the judiciary, I would keep the system current. Presidential nomination with Senatorial approval.