So?
A. The Constitution, right at the top, and
B. Democracy
Your turn.
Listening to some of the state power fetishists here, you’d think that their version of the Constitution starts with “We the States…”
Something a little weird seems to be going on with the ballot movement in Ohio. A referendum appears to be the only way past a fairly red state legislature but the people backing the initiative are somewhat shadowy in nature and the national organization behind the NPVIC are saying “we don’t really know who’s doing this.”
Ohio would be a really good get. I have to admit that I don’t understand the folks who consider themselves citizens of their states first.
For most people state politics affect their life more. You grow up cheering for local sports teams and build rivalries with neighboring states. Most people’s lives are local, so it is only natural they feel more connected to their state/town.
Maybe it comes from living in Maryland, where we’re not particularly big on state identity. Or don’t see much in the way of benefits coming from it.
Here’s fivethirtyeight’s most recent update, where Nate’s reporter doesn’t even mention Ohio. HD had asked about the next most likely states to join the compact; it appears that Virginia could be a good pickup if Dems gain full control of the state legislature this November. Others mentioned are Oregon and Maine, in addition to the aforementioned Nevada.
I wonder if this is an issue sort of like the voter restoration referendum in Florida, where the conservative base is opposed but mainline conservatives, moderates and independents see the inherent fairness of it and cross party lines to vote for it.
I don’t think there’s a whole lot of people who identify first with their state, and second as being an American. And to the extent they are, there’s probably an awful lot of overlap with sovereign citizens and neo-confederates.
As far as I’ve ever been able to tell there’s supposed to be a provision within the machinations of the Electoral College (and I’ve brought this up before!) for it being the DUTY of electors to NOT vote for someone who CLEARLY is not up to the job of being president of this country. Yes, that would, in some instances, make them so-called “faithless electors” but there never seems to have been a strong “push” for them to do their jobs in that way (such as when, for instance, Republicans put nincompoops “Dubya” and Angry Lid’l’ Donny up for Prez). I would’ve expected more of people who are part of a “college” (even if it’s only temporary) but upon finding out that most national electors are simply party operatives and “superstars” and that there is otherwise nothing about them which makes their choice for president any wiser or more sound than anybody else’s, I gave up on that whole notion. So, yeah - maybe it IS time to abolish the Electoral College and just make the election for Prez a popularity contest.
The Constitution, you know, pretty much everything in Article II as originally written that talks about, you know, electing the President of the nation.
Which, by the way, is just as “democratic” as the suggestion you are making. Unless, of course, you wish to argue for true democracy, and are happy to let the consolidated vote of the nation control such things as environmental laws… :eek:
And we all know what “states’ rights” has been a euphemism for, over the last two and a half centuries …
But, for some reason, that doesn’t irritate me as much as the posts in EC threads patiently telling us how the EC works, or the flippant statement “This is a republic, not a democracy!” Yeah, guys, we’re discussing what should be and how to get there, not what is, 'kay? If you want to denigrate democracy, as is required to support retaining the EC, please do so directly and openly.
You’re probably wrong. Plenty of people think of themselves as Buckeyes or Hoosiers without being into fringe politics.
An absurd pair of logical fallacies here.
-
The Constitution is not infallible and a healthy democracy debates systemic change.
-
An appeal for popular election of the presidency, the one truly national office we have, is not a suggestion that all matters of governance be decided by a popular vote.
Btw, to whomever this applies – a popular vote does not equal a “popularity contest.”
Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak (D) has vetoed the bill, openly stating he joins the GOP in putting state before country. Five Thirty Eight notes that momentum is building anyway.
I identify as being an Ohioan, sure (and as a Cuyahogan and as a Clevelander and as a West-Sider and a bunch of other things). But I don’t identify as being an Ohioan before being an American.
That isn’t the issue. I think of myself as a 49ers fan, but not a 49ers fan first and an American second. I don’t think many people think of themselves as a Hoosier first and an American second.
Plus, the same folks who buy into that dogma don’t seem to realize that we have already changed the methods of presidential succession, elections for the Senate, and several other things from the original intent of the Constitution without having the nation fall apart. And yet, they trot out the neologism that we can’t change the vote for President because we’re a republic, and we can’t stand for not being a republic, so we can’t change the vote for President, etc. as though it means something.
Next thing you tell me, a republic and a democracy are not mutually exclusive!
When we hosted a (wonderful) Colombian kid a few years ago he once asked us why the term “American” is used (in this country) for citizens of only the United States. I’ve wondered that, myself, and the only answer I’ve ever come up with is that the term “United States” doesn’t lend itself well to an adjectival form (although it works fine for Spanish speakers. I believe the term that they use for citizens of the United States is estadounidense)
United States of America = American
Okay. But hopefully you can understand the kid’s question as someone who comes from South America.