Political Crossfire Forums

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

LostSoul3412 wrote: 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.
Why?

bigstick61 · Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:52 pm Post subject:

Because not only do they have a certain degree of sovereignty, but also because it keeps the Federal government incheck by preventing centralization and usurpations of State power. Both governments are self-interested. It is realistic, even under the most ideal circumstances possible, such as the early days of the republic, to say that the Federal government will try to increase its power, as it is self-interested; the States will try to maintain that power, as that is in their self-interests. Thus you have a check which results in a balance and a check upon the usurpation of authority on the part of the central government. It matters not that the people desire centralization; a republic, while of the people, is ruled by the law, not by the majority of the people.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

agentkgb wrote: Why?

bigstick61 wrote: Because not only do they have a certain degree of sovereignty, but also because it keeps the Federal government incheck by preventing centralization and usurpations of State power. Both governments are self-interested. It is realistic, even under the most ideal circumstances possible, such as the early days of the republic, to say that the Federal government will try to increase its power, as it is self-interested; the States will try to maintain that power, as that is in their self-interests. Thus you have a check which results in a balance and a check upon the usurpation of authority on the part of the central government. It matters not that the people desire centralization; a republic, while of the people, is ruled by the law, not by the majority of the people.

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

People have a self-interest too though, so if geographical states were a logical means of dividing power like that, representing the people of a state would have the same effect.

bigstick61 · Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:58 pm Post subject:

The people's interests are best served through proportional representation rather than geographic representation. That is why the House of Representatives is proportional; that's how it can be truly representative. The Senate not only serves as State representation and a State check on the central government, but also serves as a check on the people and helps to ensure the independence of the judiciary and the executive below the Presidential/Vice Presidential level.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

agentkgb wrote: People have a self-interest too though, so if geographical states were a logical means of dividing power like that, representing the people of a state would have the same effect.

You're still failing to recognize one key part of federalism: the state governments are sovereign of the people.

Because of that, the states are not mere geographical boundaries, they are sovereign governments in their own right. Granted that they are inferior to the national government's authority, but they are still sovereign bodies under the Constitution. Because of that, those sovereign governments have a self-interest as well, and often times is separate of the people. Because of that, the self-interest of the state is separate from the self-interest of the people, and therefore the general public and the sovereign states cannot be equated to one another.

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

bigstick61 wrote: The people's interests are best served through proportional representation rather than geographic representation. That is why the House of Representatives is proportional; that's how it can be truly representative. The Senate not only serves as State representation and a State check on the central government, but also serves as a check on the people and helps to ensure the independence of the judiciary and the executive below the Presidential/Vice Presidential level.
The House isn't truly representative, because it obvioulsy only takes 50% or less to win a seat in the house. That means that a lot of people remain unrepresented because the house members who are supposed to represent them weren't the representatives they wanted. Same thing with the electoral college.

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: People have a self-interest too though, so if geographical states were a logical means of dividing power like that, representing the people of a state would have the same effect.

You're still failing to recognize one key part of federalism: the state governments are sovereign of the people.
Again, I'm not trying to argue the true meaning of federalism. Federalisms work a certain way and that's how they work. I'm trying to say that state representation in the federal government is not a good means of representing the people, because the people of a state are not united in their interests. I also don't think that it makes sense for states to be represented separately from the people in that state, but the fact that federalism works like that really isn't news to me.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

agentkgb wrote: Again, I'm not trying to argue the true meaning of federalism. Federalisms work a certain way and that's how they work. I'm trying to say that state representation in the federal government is not a good means of representing the people, because the people of a state are not united in their interests. I also don't think that it makes sense for states to be represented separately from the people in that state, but the fact that federalism works like that really isn't news to me.

It's not their point to represent the people.

State governments aren't represented to be the voice of the masses, they're represented to be the voice of the state governments. Why doesn't it make sense? If nothing else, it should make perfect sense because the extremism's of the people are calmed by two levels of government, the states and the federal government as a whole. Without that, all laws would be taken to extremes without compromise that occurs because of the two levels of mediators between the people's ideals. Government is a protector of the people. The Constitution protects us from the government, and the government protects us from ourselves. That is why it is essential to have state levels of government represented in the national government.

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: Again, I'm not trying to argue the true meaning of federalism. Federalisms work a certain way and that's how they work. I'm trying to say that state representation in the federal government is not a good means of representing the people, because the people of a state are not united in their interests. I also don't think that it makes sense for states to be represented separately from the people in that state, but the fact that federalism works like that really isn't news to me.

It's not their point to represent the people.

State governments aren't represented to be the voice of the masses, they're represented to be the voice of the state governments. Why doesn't it make sense? If nothing else, it should make perfect sense because the extremism's of the people are calmed by two levels of government, the states and the federal government as a whole. Without that, all laws would be taken to extremes without compromise that occurs because of the two levels of mediators between the people's ideals. Government is a protector of the people. The Constitution protects us from the government, and the government protects us from ourselves. That is why it is essential to have state levels of government represented in the national government.
Frequently though the people are more moderate while the candidates they have to choose from are farther from the center. It's kind of a moot point I guess because the state government has no interest in putting the people's interests before it's own, so therefore it wouldn't do so, but that doesn't mean it would be wrong of the states to do so.
Also, does your view mean that it would be wrong for California to give its electoral votes to the nationwide popular victor, since it's not in California's interest to gove more equal representation to the country as a whole?

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

agentkgb wrote: Frequently though the people are more moderate while the candidates they have to choose from are farther from the center.

That's almost a fiat presentation on behalf of the candidates in order to create some difference between the two. Often times, candidates are closer to the middle than the extremes of the people. For example, on issues such as abortion, and homosexual marriage, people often divide themselves into two distinct camps as opposed to compromise, as the government does.

agentkgb wrote: It's kind of a moot point I guess because the state government has no interest in putting the people's interests before it's own, so therefore it wouldn't do so, but that doesn't mean it would be wrong of the states to do so.

Of course the state governments are going to operate in some respect to public demands, or else those representatives would not be reelected anytime soon.

agentkgb wrote: Also, does your view mean that it would be wrong for California to give its electoral votes to the nationwide popular victor, since it's not in California's interest to gove more equal representation to the country as a whole?

The electors of the electoral college are free to vote for whomever they wish with no connection to the popular vote. While it has become custom to vote in relation to the popular election of their state, in theory, any elector can vote for any candidate in any election. However, if the do, odds are they would be removed before the next election from their position. But, the point still stands, electors are free to vote for a candidate regardless of the popular vote.

bigstick61 · Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 3:29 pm Post subject:

In the EC system as designed, the Electors would not be able to pledge their vote to a candidate; even if they did, they could not be coerced into doing so by any law, as such a law would be unconstitutional. In the system as designed, the electors choose the President, not the people. The popular vote, if there is one to begin with, would be largely irrelevant. The President is not supposed to be a representative of the people; quite the opposite; he is often called upon to serve as a check upon them.

The representatives represent the majority, or in certain cases, the plurality of the people in their district. Under such condititons, you can't please everybody. It is then up to those not in the majority or plurality to try to influence their representatives by trying to convince them that it would be good politically for them to do a certain thing.

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

You're still basically saying that, for one reason or another, the government should represent the people in addition to part of itself. Governments will do just fine representing itself, as will elected representatives, the people are more needed as a check to government self-interest than the other way around.

bigstick61 · Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 3:57 pm Post subject:

The State government is not a part of the Federal government by any stretch of the imagination. It is an entirely seperate government; this originates from when the States were almost independent countries; they opnly gave up a portion of their sovereignty when they formed the Union. It's like the government having a representative at the UN or some other body that's similar. All 50 individual governments have representation; this is rightfully so and is their right. It also provides a good means to create a body which may check the popular body and ensure the independence of parts of the executive and the judiciary. The State governments created the Federal government. We are not a democracy, and there needs to be a way to check the people. Checks against both the government and the people create a balance; a balance is almost always the desired end. Having too much power in either the hands of the government or the hands of the people is dangerous, regardless of which one it is.

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

bigstick61 wrote: The State government is not a part of the Federal government by any stretch of the imagination. It is an entirely seperate government; this originates from when the States were almost independent countries; they opnly gave up a portion of their sovereignty when they formed the Union. It's like the government having a representative at the UN or some other body that's similar. All 50 individual governments have representation; this is rightfully so and is their right.
That's where I disagree with you. It's not the states' governments' right to have representation, it is the people's right to have their state represented.
bigstick61 wrote: It also provides a good means to create a body which may check the popular body and ensure the independence of parts of the executive and the judiciary. The State governments created the Federal government. We are not a democracy, and there needs to be a way to check the people. Checks against both the government and the people create a balance; a balance is almost always the desired end. Having too much power in either the hands of the government or the hands of the people is dangerous, regardless of which one it is.
Governments only have trouble keeoing power in expreme circumstances, and with today's technology I doubt any technologically-advanced country's government could ever literally face a threat to their power. But the people have a right and in some ways a responsibility to keep their government in check. The government won't really have its power threatended unless it deserves it, but the people always do.

bigstick61 · Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:57 pm Post subject:

I didn't say that it would have its power threatened. The people can use the government to tyrannize others, and that often happens in a democracy, usually subtly at first. Also, as near-sovereign governments, it is the right of the State governments to have Federal representation, and the other reason for doing this are for the good. The people already have representation via the House of Representatives.

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

The people are everything though. They deserve way more than a sixth of the government truly representing them.

bigstick61 · Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:08 pm Post subject:

The people, if left unchecked, or if given too much power, ultimately create tyranny and/or destroy themselves in the end. You are promoting democracy, and that path will only lead us to tyranny. The former statement forms the basis for republicanism.

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

You can't have a tyranny without government, moreover, you can't have a tyranny unless the government has too much control. The more control the people have, the less likely it is that a tyranny will form. Historically, peopla have disliked being under tyrannicla rule.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

agentkgb wrote: You can't have a tyranny without government, moreover, you can't have a tyranny unless the government has too much control. The more control the people have, the less likely it is that a tyranny will form. Historically, peopla have disliked being under tyrannicla rule.

The separate levels of government balance each other out to become a barrier against two levels of tyranny. A federal system protects the people from tyranny by government, and from tyranny by majority. Also, it is possible to be in a state of tyranny by which the people impose tyranny upon the minority, thus tyranny by majority. With two levels of government, the power of the government is limited by itself and by the people, and the people are limited by both levels of government operating independent of their rule.