Let's critique the U.S. constitution

[IsItJustMe]

The United States is generally considered the first modern republic. It was the model for the French, the Irish, the Haitians, the Chileans, the Mexicans, and so on. Almost every constitution in the world owes a great deal to the United States constitution.

But while Americans are quick to remember this, we tend to be slower to take an objective look at the strengths and weaknesses of the document. When you consider it, though, it is hardly to be expected that the first modern republican constitution would not be subject to later improvement, so even leaving aside the question of changing goals, it stands to reason there would be problems.

To begin with, there are obvious and powerful anti-democratic rules in our constitution.

The senate is an obvious case: A citizen of Wyoming has more than 40 times as much of a voice in the senate as a citizen of California or New York. Furthermore, senators run for election only every six years. This tends to insulate them from popular sentiment, and is basically undemocratic.

Another is the power of the presidency. This is very rare in modern republics. It tends to create a winner takes all system, and a central figure who is answerable to the public only at several removes. It contrasts to India, where the president has very few actual powers (mostly granting clemency to condemned prisoners) and the prime minister, who is the head of government, is directly answerable to parliament.

Next, there is our system of fundamental rights. Of course the American Bill of Rights in particular has been a model for hundreds of later rights documents, and it has to be given credit for that. But at the same time, the development of human rights doctrine in American jurisprudence has been very hodgepodge, and it generally takes a lawyer to understand what a person's rights actually are. For instance, the second amendment to U.S. constitution is a law whose effect is still extremely uncertain even in the legal community. Or consider the enormous amount of substantive law which is derived from the equal protection and due process clauses of the fourteenth amendment.

Furthermore, U.S. human rights law has not grown beyond the bounds of the original enlightenment concepts. In modern human rights philosophy, the material needs of the individual give rise to human rights. But this is plainly outside of U.S. human rights law: You have no constitutional right to eat.

Also, U.S. human rights law is written in an entirely proscriptive fashion: The government MAY NOT do X, Y, or Z. It places no obligation on the government even to protect people from private invasion of those rights. The most obvious case where this would be important is something like voter intimidation by private groups. But more generally, the U.S. constitution is entirely consistent with a situation in which the principal media are rigidly controlled by a tiny number of people with very similar outlooks whose interest are contrary to the public at large.

Thoughts?

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I don't agree that the Senate is a case of problems in the US constitution. It is balanced by the House, so that neither may big states overwhelm small states nor may small states overwhelm big states.

The problem I see is too much executive power in the hands of the President and too little in the hands of the Vice President. I'd restore "most votes becomes President, second most becomes Vice President" to keep them divided and opposed, and give the Pres the Commander of the Military job, chief diplomat job, and sign or veto bills, while I'd give the Veep the job of cabinet appointments, instead of all those jobs going to the Pres.

[general_koffi]

The 2nd Amendment is very badly phrased.

[IsItJustMe]

The 2nd Amendment is very badly phrased.

The 2nd Amendment? How about the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of...

I mean, by the plain text of the amendment, the individual states can set up official religions if they like, or prohibit free speech, etc. Hell, maybe the President can do it by decree. The only one restricted by the text of the amendment is Congress. Everything else has been read in later by courts.

[IsItJustMe]

I don't agree that the Senate is a case of problems in the US constitution. It is balanced by the House, so that neither may big states overwhelm small states nor may small states overwhelm big states.

Wouldn't you say that "One person, one vote" is a fundamental principle of democracy? Surely the 30 million Californians OUGHT to be able to overwhelm the 500,000 Wyomingans, in a democratic system, no?

[Damian]

The 2nd Amendment? How about the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of...

I mean, by the plain text of the amendment, the individual states can set up official religions if they like, or prohibit free speech, etc. Hell, maybe the President can do it by decree. The only one restricted by the text of the amendment is Congress. Everything else has been read in later by courts.

The Bill of Rights were constructively expanded to apply to state governments via later amendments. Altough they were not originally intended to apply to state governments, the potential problems were recognized early, and corrections were made. In particular, the 14th Amendment is seen as the loophole to apply the Bill of Rights to the states.

[Tom Sawyer]

The Senate and the House are meant to balance out the people's representation. If it were done on a purely population basis, then the needs of Wyoming would be ignored in favour of the needs of New York. If it were done on a state by state basis, then New York wouldn't get the representation it deserves and Wyoming would get far more than its fair share. Having the two strikes a nice balance and I quite like the way that that's done.

I agree with Jason about the President and VP positions. Another factor in that is that having them run on the same ticket and be from the same party effectively neuters one of the strongest checks on Presidential power, which is the threat of impeachment. You can see that presently where one of the strongest arguments against impeaching Bush is that it would just make Cheney president, so why bother? If losing the presidency meant that executive power would then shift to the other party, it would be a much more effective check. Of course, it would make the other party more interested in impeachment in order to grab that power, but the process established makes impeachment hard enough that it puts a check on the Senate abusing that power.

[Pavlov's Dog]

The 2nd Amendment? How about the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of...

I mean, by the plain text of the amendment, the individual states can set up official religions if they like, or prohibit free speech, etc. Hell, maybe the President can do it by decree. The only one restricted by the text of the amendment is Congress. Everything else has been read in later by courts.

For a time some states did have their own churches. It wasn't until the 14th Amendment came along that States' lost that power. The real text of the First Amendment is found in the decisions of the court. I agree that this is a hassle for an individual person understanding their rights, but it also makes the document very flexible. The flexibility can be good or bad and plenty of people have opinions on this.

The problem that I notice a lot of Europeans having with the US Constitution and system of government is that they don't understand that US States' retain a certain amount of sovereignty. Our system has moved more toward a centralized and powerful federal government, but there are still parts of our Constitution and laws that recognize the sovereignty of the individual states. To make a lot of the changes you would have to completely disregard the sovereignty of the states and that is not what the states agreed to when they ratified the Constitution. Think of it as a contract the states entered into together. You could argue the need for a new contract, but right now that is the contract they are working under.

[IsItJustMe]

The Bill of Rights were constructively expanded to apply to state governments via later amendments. Altough they were not originally intended to apply to state governments, the potential problems were recognized early, and corrections were made. In particular, the 14th Amendment is seen as the loophole to apply the Bill of Rights to the states.

Well, I know that of course, but it's a very ad hoc system, don't you agree? For instance, take the 2nd Amendment. Even if some court decides that this allows an individual to own a gun, it would only invalidate FEDERAL laws against gun ownership and not state laws, unless and until a court held that this right was made applicable as against the states by the 14th amendment. What sense would that make?

Compare this very nice, clear language from the South African Constitution's Bill of Rights:

The Bill of Rights applies to all law, and binds the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and all organs of state.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Wouldn't you say that "One person, one vote" is a fundamental principle of democracy? Surely the 30 million Californians OUGHT to be able to overwhelm the 500,000 Wyomingans, in a democratic system, no?

And they can. In the House.

[IsItJustMe]

And they can. In the House.

Right. But in the senate, the principle of one person, one vote does not apply. Right? And therefore the senate is an undemocratic institution. Right? And the senate is a key law-making body in the U.S. Right? And therefore a key U.S. law-making body is elected in a patently undemocratic manner. Right?

[Damian]

Well, I know that of course, but it's a very ad hoc system, don't you agree? For instance, take the 2nd Amendment. Even if some court decides that this allows an individual to own a gun, it would only invalidate FEDERAL laws against gun ownership and not state laws, unless and until a court held that this right was made applicable as against the states by the 14th amendment. What sense would that make?

Compare this very nice, clear language from the South African Constitution's Bill of Rights:

I know you responded to my post before Pavlov's response, but I won't repeat what he said.

Basically, the "ad hoc" nature of the Constitution, while in some cases is a weakness, has also been its strength. Remember, a lot of later drafted constitutions had the benefit of learning from our mistakes. Our "learning" comes in the form of a lot of ad hoc amendments and caselaw.

However, I think this is also a strength. You can't necessarily redraft the constitution every time it's determined something else is a recognized right (e.g. abortion) that wasn't 200+ years ago. You especially don't want any particular administration to have the ability to say "well, it's time for an overhaul." Can you imagine if the Bush administration does that?

In view of the above, "evolution" makes more sense than "revolution," and I think in this case we have to acknowledge the weaknesses, as you are, but take advantage of the strengths.

[ravenscape]

Wouldn't you say that "One person, one vote" is a fundamental principle of democracy? Surely the 30 million Californians OUGHT to be able to overwhelm the 500,000 Wyomingans, in a democratic system, no?

It's not a democratic system, and clearly it's not intended to be, else some very carefully crafted parts of the Constitution would be written otherwise.

[IsItJustMe]

For a time some states did have their own churches. It wasn't until the 14th Amendment came along that States' lost that power.

Well, hmmm... I think state religions had been basically abolished in nearly all U.S. states prior to that time. I don't believe any were in practice stopped by the 14th amendment, were they?

Eventually the 14th Amendment would be used to justify the abolition of a state law requiring that a person believe in god to be appointed a notary, but that wasn't until 1961, nearly a century after the amendment was passed, right?

The flexibility can be good or bad and plenty of people have opinions on this.

That's an interesting point, and one I'll give a little more attention to later.

The problem that I notice a lot of Europeans having with the US Constitution and system of government is that they don't understand that US States' retain a certain amount of sovereignty.

I don't think that really has much meaning in 2007, do you? I mean, with the expansion of Commerce clause legislation and the rest, it's about as important as the bit where the English chancellor wears tights, yes?

For the most part, this doesn't matter. If the U.S. congress has to justify key piece of legislation by formal, but silly, ties to the commerce clause, so what? But when it results in important violations of basic democratic principles, that's a little different, no?

[IsItJustMe]

It's not a democratic system, and clearly it's not intended to be, else some very carefully crafted parts of the Constitution would be written otherwise.

And it's precisely those parts which I wish to highlight here.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Well, I know that of course, but it's a very ad hoc system, don't you agree? For instance, take the 2nd Amendment. Even if some court decides that this allows an individual to own a gun, it would only invalidate FEDERAL laws against gun ownership and not state laws, unless and until a court held that this right was made applicable as against the states by the 14th amendment. What sense would that make?

Compare this very nice, clear language from the South African Constitution's Bill of Rights:

The difference is that when the US Constitution was formed it was basically an agreement between already sovereign entities. Was South Africa 15 different countries that joined together under their constitution? I guarantee that if it had a been a bunch of smaller organizations operating independently of one another for a hundred years, it would not have been so simple to come up with an agreement that all those entities would sign-off on with all inclusive language. The States were giving up something by joining the United States, so when they drafted the contract they made sure they got something back. Otherwise there would be no point in them joining the United States if they felt that they were giving up more than they were getting.

[IsItJustMe]

The difference is that when the Constitution was formed it was basically an agreement between already sovereign entities. Was South Africa 15 different countries that joined together under their constitution? I guarantee that if it had a been a bunch of smaller organizations operating independently of one another for a hundred years, it would not have been so simple to come up with an agreement that all those entities would sign-off on.

Well... My point is not that the people who wrote the U.S. constitution were evil people. My point is rather to highlight the things in the U.S. constitution which could be better done. Therefore, whether the text of the first amendment is actually the result of a compromise of the type you say, or whether it is in fact just a case of a badly drafted law is beside the point. The point is that, for whatever reason, it is written in an unclear manner.

[ravenscape]

And it's precisely those parts which I wish to highlight here.
Ok. Is your premise that the lack of a fully democratic approach to the legislative branch is a flaw? Even the House of Representatives is non-democratic - it's representation by the numbers, not one-man one-vote.

[jonatha]

I agree with Jason about the President and VP positions. Another factor in that is that having them run on the same ticket and be from the same party effectively neuters one of the strongest checks on Presidential power, which is the threat of impeachment. You can see that presently where one of the strongest arguments against impeaching Bush is that it would just make Cheney president, so why bother? If losing the presidency meant that executive power would then shift to the other party, it would be a much more effective check. Of course, it would make the other party more interested in impeachment in order to grab that power, but the process established makes impeachment hard enough that it puts a check on the Senate abusing that power.

The "VP/Pres not necessarily from the same party" is perhaps the only provision of the original Constitution that the Founding Fathers decided from experience was a Bad Idea and therefore changed.

(I guess there was whatever the 11th amendement covers - lawsuits concerning residents of different states?)

[IsItJustMe]

Ok. Is your premise that the lack of a fully democratic approach to the legislative branch is a flaw?

Yes.

Even the House of Representatives is non-democratic - it's representation by the numbers, not one-man one-vote.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Could you expand?

[ravenscape]

Yes.



I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Could you expand?

It's an elected group of representatives. Whether the number elected is a ratio of those represented or not, it's representative, not democracy.

[IsItJustMe]

It's an elected group of representatives. Whether the number elected is a ratio of those represented or not, it's representative, not democracy.

Well... Let's approach this from a different direction, shall we?

All representative systems of government are not the same, right? For instance, a king could be said to represent the people. But that would be far less democratic than the U.S. senate, right? And in the same way, the U.S. senate is less democratic than the U.S. house of representatives.

[general_koffi]

The 2nd Amendment? How about the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of...

I mean, by the plain text of the amendment, the individual states can set up official religions if they like, or prohibit free speech, etc. Hell, maybe the President can do it by decree. The only one restricted by the text of the amendment is Congress. Everything else has been read in later by courts.

Actually the individual states did infringe very heavily onto the freedom of speech before certain court rulings in the 19th century...

Heh. You're right.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Well, hmmm... I think state religions had been basically abolished in nearly all U.S. states prior to that time. I don't believe any were in practice stopped by the 14th amendment, were they?

I don't know if any were abolished by the 14th, but Massachusetts did not separate church and state until well after the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. And when Massachusetts did separate church and state it was decided by Massachusetts and not the federal government.

Eventually the 14th Amendment would be used to justify the abolition of a state law requiring that a person believe in god to be appointed a notary, but that wasn't until 1961, nearly a century after the amendment was passed, right?

I don't know. What case are you talking about? The establishment clause itself was incorporated before the 1960s.

I don't think that really has much meaning in 2007, do you?

Yes. Look at gay marriage and civil unions for one example.

I mean, with the expansion of Commerce clause legislation and the rest, it's about as important as the bit where the English chancellor wears tights, yes?

Not quite. Courts have scaled back the long arm of the Commerce Clause in recent years.

For the most part, this doesn't matter. If the U.S. congress has to justify key piece of legislation by formal, but silly, ties to the commerce clause, so what? But when it results in important violations of basic democratic principles, that's a little different, no?

What?

[ravenscape]

Well... Let's approach this from a different direction, shall we?

All representative systems of government are not the same, right? For instance, a king could be said to represent the people. But that would be far less democratic than the U.S. senate, right? And in the same way, the U.S. senate is less democratic than the U.S. house of representatives.

I've never seen a pure monarchy called representative government. The hallmark of representative governments is that they rule at the pleasure of the represented via vote.

In representative democracy, the elected representatives act in the interest of their constituents, but not as a proxy, casting their votes based on the percentages in favor among their constituency.

I think I understand your position -- that tyranny of the majority is a good thing and shouldn't be designed out of one part of the legislative system. I don't agree.

[Pavlov's Dog]

The point is that, for whatever reason, it is written in an unclear manner.

The point is that it was necessary at the time, because all of the States would not have agreed to anything more specific.

[IsItJustMe]

In representative democracy, the elected representatives act in the interest of their constituents, but not as a proxy, casting their votes based on the percentages in favor among their constituency.

Sure. For instance, in ancient Rome, they had the senate, which was elected in this way. And you had inferior and superior tribes. The inferior tribes got to elect more senators per person, and it was expected they would do better as a result.

I think I understand your position -- that tyranny of the majority is a good thing and shouldn't be designed out of one part of the legislative system. I don't agree.

I think that's a little bit of a straw man. I'm not convinced that the house of representatives would be all that much more tyrannical than the senate.

There are many good arguments for imposing certain limits on democracy. The most obvious ones relate to human rights.

Can you think of a good reason why the people of Wyoming should get more votes than the people of California? I can't.

Of course in a more democratic system the needs of urban areas would be given relatively more importance. But in an urban nation, and a nation that gets more urban with every passing year, surely that only makes sense?

[IsItJustMe]

The point is that it was necessary at the time, because all of the States would not have agreed to anything more specific.

I'm not convinced that's true... I think part of it may simply be down to bad drafting. But be that as it may, MY point at least is that the modern construct has a number of what are, from a modern perspective, defects.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Right. But in the senate, the principle of one person, one vote does not apply. Right? And therefore the senate is an undemocratic institution. Right? And the senate is a key law-making body in the U.S. Right? And therefore a key U.S. law-making body is elected in a patently undemocratic manner. Right?

In the Senate, the principle of One State One Vote applies.

Since every bill must pass BOTH the House and the Senate, neither is "the key law-making body". Neither is. They are equal to each other. Neither is more key than the other.

Since EVERY bill must pass through both the House and the Senate, then the greater population of California DOES overwhelm the lesser population of Wyoming. But Wyoming has the ability to rebut California, which keeps the USA from being the "United States ruled by California". The people of both states have a right to be free, don't they? Or do you only have any rights if you are in the majority?

Why is there a clause in the article about amendments about not depriving any state of representation in the senate without the approval of that state? After all, some states don't deserve representation, right?

[IsItJustMe]

I don't know. What case are you talking about? The establishment clause itself was incorporated before the 1960s.

Well, I was thinking of Tolver. But anyway, I'm not aware of very many cases on the establishment clause prior to the warren court....

Look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment) and you'll see what I mean I think.

Yes. Look at gay marriage and civil unions for one example.

OK. Let's look at them.

We have some states that allow them and some that don't. But that's the same in countries that don't have a federal system... Local governments have autonomy, but the federal government can step in if it likes.

Can the federal government ban gay marriage? I don't know. It seems to me that it's at least an open issue.

Not quite. Courts have scaled back the long arm of the Commerce Clause in recent years.

Yeah? Not by much, I think. VAWA was upheld, wasn't it? On the basis that violence against women could interfere with interstate commerce?

What?

I mean that federalism is today a dead doctrine in practice, and its main effect is to force Congress to put certain findings into their laws.

[IsItJustMe]

In the Senate, the principle of One State One Vote applies.

Right...

Since every bill must pass BOTH the House and the Senate, neither is "the key law-making body". Neither is. They are equal to each other. Neither is more key than the other.

Well, now, I didn't say "the key law-making body" I said "a key law-making body." Didn't I? And I'd say they're both pretty important, wouldn't you?

Since EVERY bill must pass through both the House and the Senate, then the greater population of California DOES overwhelm the lesser population of Wyoming. But Wyoming has the ability to rebut California,

Or, in other words, the majority might want a law, as reflected in the house, but it might not be passed, because the senate doesn't want it.

which keeps the USA from being the "United States ruled by California".

Or rather the USA ruled by the majority, right?

The people of both states have a right to be free, don't they? Or do you only have any rights if you are in the majority?

You only have a right to pass a law if you are the majority. Right? That's democracy.

Why is there a clause in the article about amendments about not depriving any state of representation in the senate without the approval of that state? After all, some states don't deserve representation, right?

Because the U.S. constitution is an imperfect document.

[ravenscape]

Right...



Well, now, I didn't say "the key law-making body" I said "a key law-making body." Didn't I? And I'd say they're both pretty important, wouldn't you?



Or, in other words, the majority might want a law, as reflected in the house, but it might not be passed, because the senate doesn't want it.



Or rather the USA ruled by the majority, right?



You only have a right to pass a law if you are the majority. Right? That's democracy.



Because the U.S. constitution is an imperfect document.

Can you give an example where you think the lack of numeric representation in the Senate resulted in the will of the majority of citizens not being carried out?

The Constitution was designed and written to throw numerous obstacles in the way of making and executing laws. Is this a bad thing?

[Pavlov's Dog]

Well, I was thinking of Tolver. But anyway, I'm not aware of very many cases on the establishment clause prior to the warren court....

Look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment) and you'll see what I mean I think.

The establishment clause was incorporated in the 1940s in Emerson v. Board of Education, 330 US 1 (1947)

We have some states that allow them and some that don't. But that's the same in countries that don't have a federal system... Local governments have autonomy, but the federal government can step in if it likes.

Can the federal government ban gay marriage? I don't know. It seems to me that it's at least an open issue.

No the federal government cannot without a Constitutional amendment. They already passed a federal law declaring that marriage was between a man and a woman, but that didn't stop Massachusetts.

Yeah? Not by much, I think. VAWA was upheld, wasn't it? On the basis that violence against women could interfere with interstate commerce?

Umm no. The exact opposite. The Supreme Court fount that Congress exceeded their power under the Commerce Clause with the VAWA. US v. Morrison, 529 US 598 (2000).

I mean that federalism is today a dead doctrine in practice, and its main effect is to force Congress to put certain findings into their laws.

It is not dead. It may not be as strong as it was 200 years ago, but it is not dead.

[Sarpedon]

Wouldn't you say that "One person, one vote" is a fundamental principle of democracy? Surely the 30 million Californians OUGHT to be able to overwhelm the 500,000 Wyomingans, in a democratic system, no?

Wrong. Protection of the rights of the minority is one of the key principles of modern republics. Democracy as we know it is not simply 'majority rules'. It is 'majority shapes policy, while respecting the rights of the dissenting minority.' California can't, for example, vote to take away Oregon's water, or energy resources, as sorely as they may need them. They must buy them, as the Oregonian's have the right to control their own territory. Keep in mind the United States is a Federal Republic; each state is in theory an independent nation with a certain degree of sovereign power. No state can directly interfere in the affairs of another. This protects the minority, and this is very important, because every person will find themselves in the minority at some point or another.

[Worldtraveller]

I like the way the separation of powers in the Constitution is laid out. I think that the powers of the executive branch have been greatly abused recently, but that's another topic.

I like the idea of bicameral legislatures, regardless of the imbalance it creates in some states.

I do agree with having the president and vice president both elected (1st and 2nd place in numbers of votes) separately and not as running mates. I never really understood how that change managed to get through as an amendment....

But that brings me to my biggest beef with our Constitution: the electoral system, and the simple winner take all majority vote wins in all political races.

This is, I think, where our success (as one of the fist modern republics) is our own worst enemy. 240 years ago, they could not have imagined the technological capabilities we have today, so they went for the simplest system they could.

Many modern democracies have much more sophisticated systems that, IMO, we should adopt in the US. I won't get into the various strengths and weaknesses of the systems, but I think something as simple as that would greatly change the nature of our democracy (hopefully for the positive).

I also think (as has been alluded to earlier in this thread) that the Constitution should be much more positive in outlining human rights, and not just limiting the government's power.

The strengths of the constitution lie in its inherent ability to be changed by the amendment process, and the separation of powers. So there are plenty of strengths to go wit the weakenesses.

Cheers,
Lane

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Can you give an example where you think the lack of numeric representation in the Senate resulted in the will of the majority of citizens not being carried out?

The Constitution was designed and written to throw numerous obstacles in the way of making and executing laws. Is this a bad thing?

It's possible that there are cases where the majority wanted a law but was prevented from having it by the minority, but I doubt there are cases based on the arrangement made by the constitution where we have dictatorship of the minority.

Unless you count political party factional wrangling, but that's not what I think we're discussing at this time.

The constitution was quite well written to prevent either the majority or the minority from dominating the other. I don't see a problem.

I like the way the separation of powers in the Constitution is laid out. I think that the powers of the executive branch have been greatly abused recently, but that's another topic.

I like the idea of bicameral legislatures, regardless of the imbalance it creates in some states.

I do agree with having the president and vice president both elected (1st and 2nd place in numbers of votes) separately and not as running mates. I never really understood how that change managed to get through as an amendment....

Both parties wanted to get their hands on an undivided executive.

[Nitrousoxide]

Wouldn't you say that "One person, one vote" is a fundamental principle of democracy? Surely the 30 million Californians OUGHT to be able to overwhelm the 500,000 Wyomingans, in a democratic system, no?

A bicameral legislature with one being representative of the population and the other being representative to the subdivisions within that country is an integral part to any Federal Republic.

The individual subdivisions that make up that country are typically the founders of the Federal Government as is the case in our country and Russia, or they serve as a means of delegating responsibility and keeping local politics in the hands of the local population as is the case with Mexico. Since these subdivisions within the nation are themselves somewhat sovereign, they also need representation within the Federal Government, that is the purpose our Senate, as well as the Mexican Senate, and the Russian Federation Council

[Hooboy !!]

A bicameral legislature with one being representative of the population and the other being representative to the subdivisions within that country is an integral part to any Federal Republic.

The individual subdivisions that make up that country are typically the founders of the Federal Government as is the case in our country and Russia, or they serve as a means of delegating responsibility and keeping local politics in the hands of the local population as is the case with Mexico. Since these subdivisions within the nation are themselves somewhat sovereign, they also need representation within the Federal Government, that is the purpose our Senate, as well as the Mexican Senate, and the Russian Federation Council
Correct.

This country was originally intended to be a confederation of independent states, with each state having a fair amount of autonomy to create whatever form of community that they wanted. The existence of the Senate was to make sure that these state's interests were equally represented at the federal level. The Civil War changed the role of the federal government and the amount of state autonomy, profoundly.

What we see in practice today is a tremendous amount of uniformity from state to state, to the point where there is virtually no differentiation. The Senate, in effect, serves no real purpose any more.

[Angrillori]

Someone else mentioned it, but the objections to the Senate's 1 state/2 Senators problem ties in with my beef.

I don't mind the senate's representation, but the fact that the senate's population is figured in to the electoral college infuriates me. In fact the numbers used to generate the electoral college population infuriate me.

I don't mind the senate not being one-person/one-vote, since I agree with the concept of making laws hard to pass. But for the presidency to favor a Wyoming voter significantly over a California or New York voter is ridiculous.

I haven't done the math in a while, but I remember that an elector from Wyoming represented far fewer people than an elector from CA or NY. Maybe my Senate vote isn't worth as much as a Wyomans Senate vote, but doggone it, my presidential vote should be.

Presidantial "worth" of your vote:
207,683 Voters per electoral vote - VT
169,764 Voters per electoral vote - WY
212,225 Voters per electoral vote - ND
258,644 Voters per electoral vote - SD
221,220 Voters per electoral vote - AK

553,620 Voters per electoral vote - WI

621,117 Voters per electoral vote - NY
656,948 Voters per electoral vote - CA

A WY voter is worth nearly four times as much as a CA voter in a presidential election, and over three times as much as my vote is worth in WI. That chaps my ass.

1 voter in WY = 1/212,000th of a vote.
1 Voter in WI = 1/553,000th of a vote.
1 voter in CA = 1/656,000th of a vote.

Sources: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html for state populations and http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Electoral_map.png for electoral college numbers.

[Nialler]

The OP states that the US constitution is a model for others - including the Irish one. The Irish constitution may be a derivative of the US model, but it is considered far superior by international scholars. That in itself suggests that some rewriting is needed.

The US Constitution is a model - and a good model - of political thinking at the time. It was ahead of its time and it reflected the very best modern thinking, but it needs serious redrafting - no more than does the consitution of almost every country I know.

A wonderful wonderful document, written by very great minds, but it needs maintenance.

[IsItJustMe]

The Irish constitution may be a derivative of the US model, but it is considered far superior by international scholars.

This was very much my point... Just as the first automobiles were revolutionary, but I wouldn't trade a used Honda for them today, because the science of making them has advanced so much.

But what in particular do you consider to be the advantages of the Irish constitution relative to the American one?

[Pavlov's Dog]

A wonderful wonderful document, written by very great minds, but it needs maintenance.

It has maintenance, you just can't see it from looking at the actual text of the Constitution. You can disagree with the way we maintain the Constitution, but to say it has not changed or been maintained over the last 200 years is incorrect.

[J842P]

Wouldn't you say that "One person, one vote" is a fundamental principle of democracy? Surely the 30 million Californians OUGHT to be able to overwhelm the 500,000 Wyomingans, in a democratic system, no?

Again you are ignoring that it is counterbalanced with the House of Representatives. You are forgetting that it is the UNITED STATES, under the Senate all states have the same say. If it hadn't been this way then I doubt a union could have been formed. So what if this is an "undemocratic" part of the system, it is essential for the system to survive. I think the bicameral legislature with different systems was an ingenious compromise.

[xunzian]

I could point to Athens and other democratic institutions to show you that a system that gives equal voice to all citizens is a very bad idea.

One need look no further than how hawkish the general population was post 9/11 to see what a terrible idea it would be to allow for mob rule. Turn the middle east into a plane of glass indeed . . .

The Constitution was designed to prevent just that from happening. It balances mob rule (the House) with a more restrained form of representation (the Senate -- which, I might add, was originally indirectly elected) both of which serve to curb the power of a temporary despot (the president), who appoints (but does not hold) the power to interpret the law.

I like the system. I say restore both the senate and the electoral college to what they are supposed to be. Keep politics local.

[epepke]

The whole Constitution could be worded better, certainly.

I'd like to see something in the Constitution similar to the much more recent Canadian charter of rights and freedoms, wherein the Government had to demonstrate a compelling interest in order to legislate.

The President is too much of a wild card in the current Constitution. I don't think that the office can be gotten rid of, but it could be limited a bit more.

[AdamWho]

I would like to see a change to how voting is done.

1. Direct democracy get rid of the Electoral College
2. Voting day is a national holiday
3. Greater than 50% turnout for a valid election
4. Automatic run-off.
5. Winner of election must have greater than 50% of vote
6. Publicly funded elections
7. An explicit statement that money is not speach
8. Strong independent monitoring of elections, including verification of claims, analysis of policy proposals, and voting.

[xunzian]

I would like to see a change to how voting is done.

1. Direct democracy get rid of the Electoral College
2. Voting day is a national holiday
3. Greater than 50% turnout for a valid election
4. Automatic run-off.
5. Winner of election must have greater than 50% of vote
6. Publicly funded elections
7. An explicit statement that money is not speach
8. Strong independent monitoring of elections, including verification of claims, analysis of policy proposals, and voting.

I love everything except #1.

But, yeah, it is strange how the system is designed to prevent voting (Who has time to vote on a Tuesday?). Likewise, the lack of run-off elections is freakin' messed up.

[Ghostdog]

Personaly I think many if not all aspects of American politics are corrupt and pathetic. The economy screws over millions of people a year. Communism (in my opinion) would actually be enormously successfull if we could all just learn to work together. That and direct democracy would create an ideal society.

[Nitrousoxide]

Of all the governments referenced, from the parliamentary systems in Europe, to the Federal Republics in Germany and Russia, only the US stands out as the most stable.

The Irish model might be loved by scholars, but it doesn't have the stability, the willingness of the people to abide by the outcomes of elections and votes.

We don't have race riots here in the US like France does. We don't have riots when an election does not go according to the way one candidate wants. We don't have a civil war between Catholics and Protestants like Irish do. We don't have insurgents within the country striving for independence like Spain does.

[Ghostdog]

We don't have race riots here in the US like France does. We don't have riots when an election does not go according to the way one candidate wants. We don't have a civil war between Catholics and Protestants like Irish do. We don't have insurgents within the country striving for independence like Spain does.

You choose remarkably horrible examples for an unstable government. Ireland has been subject to religious war for hundreds of years and they are in no condition for a stable government. Spain was subject to terrorism groups striving for independence for a small chunk of Spain. And France is just flat out screwed up because they think they are the best. Anarchy is the answer!

[epepke]

As for "one person, one vote," a person who grows food on 160 acres of land should have more say in some areas than a guy like me who lives in a studio apartment and just eats.

[ravenscape]

Just a reminder. We are discussing the U.S. constitution and its flaws. Please stay on topic. Critiques of other philosophies of government are worthy of their own threads.

[Stinger]

I love everything except #1.

But, yeah, it is strange how the system is designed to prevent voting (Who has time to vote on a Tuesday?). Likewise, the lack of run-off elections is freakin' messed up. I'm completely in favor of eliminating the electoral college. We supposedly live in a republic. And yet, there is not a single political position in the country that is popularly elected by everyone. Not one. We don't come together and vote on president, vice-president, any cabinet positions, the supreme court or any other position. I think that the most important political position in the country should be equally voted on by everyone.

[erimir]

We don't have race riots here in the US like France does.We (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots) don't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Cincinnati_Riots)?

[coloradoatheist]

The biggest problem really is that the federal govt has gotten way too much power over what was originally intended. It was only intended to raise an army, a post office and make sure states played nice. Now the federal govt has decided they are there to solve every problem out there. The 14th amendment should have been included in the first draft but other than that, power should lie in the states where people are more involved and have more say.


Mike

[AdamWho]

Of all the governments referenced, from the parliamentary systems in Europe, to the Federal Republics in Germany and Russia, only the US stands out as the most stable.

I think that our problem is too much stability. There are a whole lot of things that would be nice to add to the constitution but the way it is structured it is too stable.

[Pavlov's Dog]

I think that our problem is too much stability. There are a whole lot of things that would be nice to add to the constitution but the way it is structured it is too stable.

Yeah. Stability has its good points and bad points.

[xunzian]

I understand why people want to eliminate the electoral college, and given its incredibly weak state at the moment, I think we may as well.

But, as I said earlier, I wouldn't mind if it got beefed back to what it was supposed to be. I don't want people electing a president directly, ideally I would like them electing local officials that they know and trust who would make that decision for them. Frankly, I wouldn't mind if they just had local executives vote from amongst themselves the next highest rank and so on (and have this be the same in all branches), so individual citizens can elect their mayor, their aldermen, and their local judges. Let them work their way up.

Sadly, I don't see how a system like that is feasible because of towns vs. cities vs. counties, ect. and how the power would be balanced.

So, instead, I'll go for a powerful electoral college, indirect election of senators, direct election of representatives, and appointment of judges.

Pretty workable system, and it keep the power nicely alienated. A democracy only functions if it has a well-informed populace. People can't help but be informed on local issues and it prevents the stupid sort of circus that happens during election season.

[Worldtraveller]

Of all the governments referenced, from the parliamentary systems in Europe, to the Federal Republics in Germany and Russia, only the US stands out as the most stable.

The Irish model might be loved by scholars, but it doesn't have the stability, the willingness of the people to abide by the outcomes of elections and votes.

We don't have race riots here in the US like France does. We don't have riots when an election does not go according to the way one candidate wants. We don't have a civil war between Catholics and Protestants like Irish do. We don't have insurgents within the country striving for independence like Spain does.
I don't think most of what you mention here has anything to do with the actual system of government in the countries you chooses as examples.

I also think (but have no proof, really, I admit) that much of the US's 'stability' is due to apathy. Bread and circuses ya know...the US population is by and large fat, dumb and happy.

As for the electoral college, I'm all for eliminating it too. I think if we did that, and added instant runoff (or some other simple multivote system), we'd do a lot better with voter turnout, and maybe even make updating our Constitution easier to keep up with changing times (the single greatest thing written into it, IMO).

The only way I could be convinced the electoral college is a good idea would be if we eliminated the winner take all system for all the states, and made it proportional, at which point, you may as well get rid of it anyway, right?

Cheers,
Lane

[B.S. Lewis]

Wouldn't you say that "One person, one vote" is a fundamental principle of democracy? Surely the 30 million Californians OUGHT to be able to overwhelm the 500,000 Wyomingans, in a democratic system, no?

I dunno...the violation of minority rights is a big problem in strictly majoritarian democracies. Ethnic groups, for instance, can be oppressed by majority vote. I can't say that I directly see how Wyomingans constitute a minority that requires protection from the populations of bigger states, but I'm just pointing out the possibility.

[Nialler]

Of all the governments referenced, from the parliamentary systems in Europe, to the Federal Republics in Germany and Russia, only the US stands out as the most stable.

The Irish model might be loved by scholars, but it doesn't have the stability, the willingness of the people to abide by the outcomes of elections and votes.
I have no idea what you mean by that statement. I'm unaware of any election outcome which has caused problems in the Republic of Ireland. Can you show me one?
We don't have race riots here in the US like France does. We don't have riots when an election does not go according to the way one candidate wants.That has already been proven wrong. We don't have a civil war between Catholics and Protestants like Irish do.We most certainly don't have a civil war in Ireland, and, since the Constitution was accepted, we have never had one. The only civil war in the Republic of Ireland predates the constitution by twenty-odd years. You are confusing the Republic of Ireland with Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK. We don't have insurgents within the country striving for independence like Spain does.That is not a constiutional issue.

[Mike Rosoft]

1 voter in WY = 1/212,000th of a vote.
1 voter in WI = 1/553,000th of a vote.
1 voter in CA = 1/656,000th of a vote.


And sometimes your vote has a value of zero. If you live in Texas and support the Democratic Party candidate, you don't have to go to the elections, because he's not going to win in your state anyway. In other words, if one cadidate has 51% support in a narrow majority of the states and 10% in the rest, and the other 90% support in a narrow minority of the states, and 49% in the rest, why it should be the first candidate who is elected, when the second one has much greater popular support? What's the point of the electoral college, anyway?

Not to mention that should you dare vote for a third-party candidate (such as Ralph Nader), you might as well throw your vote to the trash. It's a self-perpetuating system. People don't vote for third-party candidates because they don't have a chance to win and vote for a Democrat or a Republican instead (or don't go to the elections at all). The third-party candidates don't have a chance to win, because people don't vote for them; they don't want to waste their votes. And neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will change the system, because they would lose power.


Mike Rosoft

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I would like to see a change to how voting is done.

1. Direct democracy get rid of the Electoral College
2. Voting day is a national holiday
3. Greater than 50% turnout for a valid election
4. Automatic run-off.
5. Winner of election must have greater than 50% of vote
6. Publicly funded elections
7. An explicit statement that money is not speach
8. Strong independent monitoring of elections, including verification of claims, analysis of policy proposals, and voting.

If #3 is passed, then many state and most local races would never be successfully concluded.

I despise #6. #7 is flat out wrong.

[IsItJustMe]

I dunno...the violation of minority rights is a big problem in strictly majoritarian democracies. Ethnic groups, for instance, can be oppressed by majority vote. I can't say that I directly see how Wyomingans constitute a minority that requires protection from the populations of bigger states, but I'm just pointing out the possibility.

Well, I agree with you here. In principal, it may be necessary to do things like, say, set aside a certain number of parliamentary seats for women in countries where women traditionally face an extra large amount of discrimination.

But... I think that one person one vote is the starting point, and you have to have a pretty good argument to vary from it. And I just don't see that here.

[Nitrousoxide]

I have no idea what you mean by that statement. I'm unaware of any election outcome which has caused problems in the Republic of Ireland. Can you show me one?

Ah, I thought you were talking about Northern Ireland, which does have it's own government which is subservient to the Parliment in London. We seem to have been talking about two different Irelands, the one in the North in my case, and the one in the South in your case.

Sorry for the mistake then.


We most certainly don't have a civil war in Ireland, and, since the Constitution was accepted, we have never had one. The only civil war in the Republic of Ireland predates the constitution by twenty-odd years. You are confusing the Republic of Ireland with Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK.

All due to a mistaken reading of your post.


That is not a constiutional issue.

It speaks to the legitimacy of the government. Despite the fact that some scholers seem to think that, for instance, Spain has a better government than the US, it's right to rule is not as supported as the US's is.

It's similar to what is happening in Iraq, the current government is "better" in that is permits more freedoms and the like that Saddam forbade, but it does not have the support of the people. The best system which lacks legitimacy is a worthless system, and that is what I was appealing to.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

But... I think that one person one vote is the starting point, and you have to have a pretty good argument to vary from it. And I just don't see that here.

Do you see any arguments to vary from it, or only ones you don't think are good?

[IsItJustMe]

Do you see any arguments to vary from it, or only ones you don't think are good?

Well, I see the arguments people here have made, namely that people in small states are a minority who should be protected. But I don't think that's enough.

Let me show you why I think the idea is a little hard to swallow:

African Americans in the United States have historically been subjected to the most vicious discrimination, down to the point of being held in slavery. That discrimination continues to a lesser extent even today. To remedy this, I think black people should be given 1.2 votes each.

Now... How is that argument any weaker than the argument to give people from Wyoming extra votes.

[dancer_rnb]

Well, I see the arguments people here have made, namely that people in small states are a minority who should be protected. But I don't think that's enough.

Let me show you why I think the idea is a little hard to swallow:

African Americans in the United States have historically been subjected to the most vicious discrimination, down to the point of being held in slavery. That discrimination continues to a lesser extent even today. To remedy this, I think black people should be given 1.2 votes each.

Now... How is that argument any weaker than the argument to give people from Wyoming extra votes.

Because historically there were a lot of impediments to blacks voting?
Besides, California can do whatever it wants to Wyoming if it can get another 25 states to go along.

[IsItJustMe]

Because historically there were a lot of impediments to blacks voting?

So... You're saying that we should give preference to rural voters because they HAVEN'T had a hard time voting? I can't be understanding you right.

Besides, California can do whatever it wants to Wyoming if it can get another 25 states to go along.

Yes, yes... Despite that the senate is undemocratic, other aspects of the U.S. system are democratic. So what? Suppose we had a king. Would you accept my argument that this was fine because we also have a house of representatives? Of course you wouldn't.

The government should be as democratic as it possibly can be without trampling on human rights.

[Pavlov's Dog]

The states are not just random entities with boundaries drawn for political convenience. They remain a significant amount of sovereignty. To ask, "Why do the people of Vermont get more votes?" is not the proper way to look at it. It is the state of Vermont that gets a larger share, and the reason why they get a larger share is because that was the agreement they entered in to.

[IsItJustMe]

The states are not just random entities with boundaries drawn for political convenience. They remain a significant amount of sovereignty.

I meant to respond to some of your earlier posts along this line by conceding that they do indeed maintain a certain amount of sovereignty. I think "significant" may be pushing it, but a certain amount, anyway.

To ask, "Why do the people of Vermont get more votes?" is not the proper way to look at it. It is the state of Vermont that gets a larger share,

Surely this is merely a matter of semantics?

and the reason why they get a larger share is because that was the agreement they entered in to.

And by this contract made by their distant ancestors in some cases and no one even related to them in others, they gave up their human right to fair representation?

Nah.

[Sarpedon]

The electoral college is one thing, the Senate is another. I'm in favor of the Senate, as it protects the minority, but not the Electoral college. Inconsistent? Perhaps. But here's a news flash: DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT DEPENDS ON COMPROMISE.

Here's my rationale. Since we have such a strong executive, it makes sense that no state should have a disproportionate vote to elect one. However, on a legislative level, since there are so many legislators, and the ones from the same state don't often agree, there is less harm in having a disproportionate number from smaller states, and it is a positive help to protect the minority.

[chapka]

It's worth noting that it's pointless to compare most European constitutions to the American constitution. Constitutions are fundamentally legal documents, and the U.S. and U.K. use a different legal system from the rest of Europe, which is reflected in constitutions and laws. I don't know which side of the divide Ireland falls on.

Also, state jurisdiction is real and important in many areas despite the broad scope given to the Commerce Clause and the Reconstruction Amendments recently.

I'm not saying it's a perfect document. Personally, I think we need to dump or redraft the Second Amendment and possibly write an amendment or two to include an explicit right of privacy, as some state constitutions do.

The electoral college isn't a great system, but it does do some good. Remember the 2000 recount? Imagine if we had a close election and the national parties knew that any recount in any precinct of any state might tip the election...

[enoch007]

Of all the governments referenced, from the parliamentary systems in Europe, to the Federal Republics in Germany and Russia, only the US stands out as the most stable.

The Irish model might be loved by scholars, but it doesn't have the stability, the willingness of the people to abide by the outcomes of elections and votes.


I actually agree wholeheartedly with the above but

We don't have race riots here in the US like France does.

Uh, no, we have them like we do, and there is no guarentee that others are not on the horizon

We don't have riots when an election does not go according to the way one candidate wants.

No, but we did have the American Civil War break out for that reason.


We don't have a civil war between Catholics and Protestants like Irish do.

True, but various forms of Sectarian violence has raged in this country, many times along the race line, but also other types of feuds (including violence tied to the rights of labor)


We don't have insurgents within the country striving for independence like Spain does.

Yes, but we had the Mormons, and throughout up to and including the present their have been various types of seperatist movements in the US.

[IsItJustMe]

It's worth noting that it's pointless to compare most European constitutions to the American constitution. Constitutions are fundamentally legal documents, and the U.S. and U.K. use a different legal system from the rest of Europe, which is reflected in constitutions and laws. I don't know which side of the divide Ireland falls on.

You're referring, I suppose, to the common law/civil law divide? What are the practical implications of this for constitutions?

The electoral college isn't a great system, but it does do some good. Remember the 2000 recount? Imagine if we had a close election and the national parties knew that any recount in any precinct of any state might tip the election...

That would be an incredibly close election indeed, wouldn't it? I mean... In the 2000 recount, the popular vote totals differed by about a half a million votes.

And to solve this problem which is merely theoretical we take on the practical cost of elections which are decided contrary to the will of the majority in a winner-takes-all system?

[Nitrousoxide]

And by this contract made by their distant ancestors in some cases and no one even related to them in others, they gave up their human right to fair representation?

Nah.


Are you aware that the Senate was origionally made up of representitves who were appointed by their respective state's legislatures? It was intended to be the means by which each state would represent itself as it's own sovereign government in the Federal Government.

Now, it represents the population of the whole state, rather than individual districts as is the case with reps.

[enoch007]

One point about the Constitution I think is relevant is the idea (Jeffersonian) that it's not supposed to work all that well or easily.
Jefferson's apprehension about the encroachment of the State upon the liberty of the citizenry is mirrored in the Constitutional apparatus of "checks and balances" . But these work more like "IOUs and seesaws"and they are purposefully designed to be slow to amend, cumbersome to delineate because of the compromise needed to enact legislation, and best appreciated in their absence. In this way, the State may not interfere with Liberty. And what is Liberty? Or, more to the point, what was Liberty. Because the word Liberty had a more focused definition in the 18th Cen than it's broader interpetation today of "freedom". Actually, Liberty in the 18 Cen spoke of the rights one had that others did not have . This definition remains in the expression "to be at liberty to....", meaning I can do it, you can't. The liberty Jefferson sought to protect first and foremost was that of the landowner, and more precisely the small landholder. So, from the very beginning, the "laws" were designed to keep order by inaction, by allowing those with certain vested interests to exercise their liberties. Over time, however, the vested interests morphed from samll landholders to large ones, then to industry, then to big industy, then to corporate interests. All with the idea that the liberty of these interests represented the best engine for 'progress' and general welfare for the country as a whole (Whatever's good for General Motors is good for America, remember that one?). So the Constitution is designed with hurdles to prevent too much interferance with whatever the business of the country may be at any given time.

[IsItJustMe]

Are you aware that the Senate was origionally made up of representitves who were appointed by their respective state's legislatures? It was intended to be the means by which each state would represent itself as it's own sovereign government in the Federal Government.

Yeah. I was aware of that. It doesn't change my mind. Why should it?

Do states have rights? I can believe that peoples have rights... That if you have distinct populations -- say Kurds and Arabs -- in a country, that you might speak of collective rights of the Kurds and the Arabs. But the people of New York and the people of New Jersey are not in any meaningful sense two different peoples, two different nations.

[Nitrousoxide]

Yeah. I was aware of that. It doesn't change my mind. Why should it?

Do states have rights? I can believe that peoples have rights... That if you have distinct populations -- say Kurds and Arabs -- in a country, that you might speak of collective rights of the Kurds and the Arabs. But the people of New York and the people of New Jersey are not in any meaningful sense two different peoples, two different nations.

No, indeed they are two distinct groups of people. Each one is has a different state and local government with different procedures and constitutions. They are subject to different laws and taxes.

In all, it's as if they live in different countries, just countries with a great deal of economic freedom to do buisness with other countries within that union. It's not at all disimilar to the EU. It's rough counterpart in the EU would be the Council of the European Union.

[IsItJustMe]

It's not at all disimilar to the EU.

Except that they all speak the same language, have almost exactly the same customs, have used the same money since time immemorial, and have never in practice been separate nations. And a few other things... Mobility. Human connections. Commuting across these borders to work. Etc.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Actually, a better comparison would be the EU to the Articles of Confederation. Before the Constitution was signed, the 13 states were basically fully independent countries with a congress uniting them.

[Sarpedon]

have almost exactly the same customs, have used the same money since time immemorial, and have never in practice been separate nations.

I can't tell, are you a non american, or simply another product of our exceedingly poor educational system? All states have the same customs do they? How many states have you visited? I can also name 3 states that were independent nations, and another one that was in everything but name, and another state where part of the state was also an independent nation. They are Texas, California, Hawaii, Utah and Florida, respectively.

Yes it is just you, because you are wrong.

[Nitrousoxide]

Except that they all speak the same language, have almost exactly the same customs, have used the same money since time immemorial, and have never in practice been separate nations. And a few other things... Mobility. Human connections. Commuting across these borders to work. Etc.

Language and customs have nothing to do with the political rights a group should or shouldn't have. You seem to think that race is one of those things which does seperate a group out from another in the setting up of a political structure. Why are language and custom at all different from race then?

Using the same money is not it either, for the EU has a common currency, the Euro. Mobility? Again, the EU allows for easy movement between it's member states. Human connections? I'm not sure what exactly you mean by that, but if it's the exchange of wealth and products, again, our states and the EU member states don't differ much at all in the freedom of movement between them.

The US states were for a time basically seperate nations. The thirteen origional colonies were distinct from one and other, and if you've read some literature from that time period, would would find the people just before and following the revolution did think of themselves not as Americans, but as New Yorkers, or New Jerseyians. In fact, our original government was a confederacy, with a central government even weaker than the EU compared to it's member states. So yes, we do have a history of a seperation between the states.

[enoch007]

The US states were for a time basically seperate nations. The thirteen origional colonies were distinct from one and other, and if you've read some literature from that time period, would would find the people just before and following the revolution did think of themselves not as Americans, but as New Yorkers, or New Jerseyians. In fact, our original government was a confederacy, with a central government even weaker than the EU compared to it's member states. So yes, we do have a history of a seperation between the states.

"Before the Civil War it was common to say the United States are...afterwards we said the United States is...that's what the Civil War did, it made us an is"

(paraphrasing) historian Shelby Foote from "The Civil War" by Ken Burns.

in "Undaunted Courage" by Stephen Ambrose, it is pointed out that at it's inception interstate travel was extremely cumbersome if not outright dangerous. The road system was atrocious, with only a scant handful of anything remotely resembling serviceable roads between the major population centers, and with practically none at all between rural settlements. Basically a "nation" connected by cowpaths.

[Pavlov's Dog]

You're referring, I suppose, to the common law/civil law divide? What are the practical implications of this for constitutions?

The big one is that the meaning of many parts of our Constitution are spelled out in case law and there is no need to actually rewrite the document.

Surely this is merely a matter of semantics?

No it is not. When you label it incorrectly it makes the situation more confusing than it already is.

And by this contract made by their distant ancestors in some cases and no one even related to them in others, they gave up their human right to fair representation?

Vermontians do not see it as unfair. That is simply your opinion. The federal government represents the States and the States represent the people.

Except that they all speak the same language, have almost exactly the same customs, have used the same money since time immemorial, and have never in practice been separate nations.

They have in practice been separate nations. Also the customs vary quite a bit from state to state. How many different states have you ever been to or lived in?

[xunzian]

If #3 is passed, then many state and most local races would never be successfully concluded.

I despise #6. #7 is flat out wrong.

Yes . . .

The best form of government is indeed a plutocracy. No problems with that system at all.



Oh, wait. No.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yes . . .

The best form of government is indeed a plutocracy. No problems with that system at all.



Oh, wait. No.

Did I say that? No.

[Preno]

Language and customs have nothing to do with the political rights a group should or shouldn't have. You seem to think that race is one of those things which does seperate a group out from another in the setting up of a political structure. Why are language and custom at all different from race then?Yeah, exactly. That's why we never see ethnic groups fighting for their cultural rights and for national self-determination.

Cultural and linguistic rights are widely accepted today. I don't know much about general cultural rights, although I'm sure similar documents exist for them, but linguistic rights are set out by EU in the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, and by UN in the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights.

And the fact is that the maximal differences in culture, language and identity between the (continental) American states are far smaller than the differences between, say, Estonia and Ireland, or Spain and Finland.
The US states were for a time basically seperate nations. The thirteen origional colonies were distinct from one and other, and if you've read some literature from that time period, would would find the people just before and following the revolution did think of themselves not as Americans, but as New Yorkers, or New Jerseyians. In fact, our original government was a confederacy, with a central government even weaker than the EU compared to it's member states. So yes, we do have a history of a seperation between the states.Irrelevant. That was more than 200 years ago. Germany consisted of separate states less than 150 years ago. So unless you are trying to say that Germany is not really one 'nation' (at least in the Anglo-Saxon sense that basically equates 'nation' with 'state'), your position is untenable.

[chapka]

You're referring, I suppose, to the common law/civil law divide? What are the practical implications of this for constitutions?

Civil law constitutions tend to be more detailed (or possibly differently detailed), and to allocate powers differently, and to be easier to amend, since it can't be interpreted in the same way.

That would be an incredibly close election indeed, wouldn't it? I mean... In the 2000 recount, the popular vote totals differed by about a half a million votes.

So, 500,000 votes, divided by, say, 100,000 voting precincts, each of which contains on average 1,000 voters. (Numbers pulled out of Google's ass; you're welcome to search for better ones). That means that if you could overturn, on average, five votes for your opponent in each precinct, you're good to go. And, of course, that's in an election where most states were simply ignored; if there'd been real campaigning in states that are not currently considered "swing states," the totals might have been even closer.

[chapka]

Germany consisted of separate states less than 150 years ago. So unless you are trying to say that Germany is not really one 'nation' (at least in the Anglo-Saxon sense that basically equates 'nation' with 'state'), your position is untenable.

Not to nitpick, but Germany consisted of separate states less than 20 years ago. And yes, there have been some problems caused by cultural differences.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Irrelevant. That was more than 200 years ago. Germany consisted of separate states less than 150 years ago. So unless you are trying to say that Germany is not really one 'nation' (at least in the Anglo-Saxon sense that basically equates 'nation' with 'state'), your position is untenable.

It is not irrelevant unless Germany came to a similar agreement as the States that formed the United States did. The fact that the United States was an agreement between several different sovereign states is the exact reason why we have the system that we have. Not only that, it is also perfectly relevant because someone made the false claim that the States never operated as independent states.

[Sarpedon]

And no one is trying to pretend that the character and customs of Prussia, Baden and Bavaria are the same. They arent. Just as the customs and character of New York, Texas, Minnesota and Hawaii aren't the same.

(and btw, the German states were technically independent of each other until the founding of the Weimar Republic. Germany had no national army in world war 1, it had several state armies, somewhat similar to the USA's National Guard system)

[Preno]

Not to nitpick, but Germany consisted of separate states less than 20 years ago. And yes, there have been some problems caused by cultural differences.Right, I didn't even think of that when I was writing the post. But I think you'll agree that the situation more parallel to the American one is the creation of the German Empire.

(And I'm not aware of any large-scale problems caused by cultural differences in post-90 Germany. Unless by "cultural" you mean "economic".)
It is not irrelevant unless Germany came to a similar agreement as the States that formed the United States did. The fact that the United States was an agreement between several different sovereign states is the exact reason why we have the system that we have. Not only that, it is also perfectly relevant because someone made the false claim that the States never operated as independent states.The context of the claim as I understood it was that it was used to support the claim that "it's as if [Americans] live in different countries, just countries with a great deal of economic freedom to do buisness with other countries within that union". Most people would be reluctant to support the statement that "it's as if a Bavarian and a Saxon lived in different countries" by saying that 150 years ago, they were separate states, so I expect equal reluctance in the case of the U.S.
And no one is trying to pretend that the character and customs of Prussia, Baden and Bavaria are the same. They arent. Just as the customs and character of New York, Texas, Minnesota and Hawaii aren't the same.Of course no-one is. But no-one is also trying to say that "it's as if Bavarians and Saxons lived in different countries". The situation of America is much more analogous to the situation of the German Bundeslander than to the situation of the EU (and so is the relevance of pointing out that 200 or 150 years ago, they were separate entities).

[xunzian]

Did I say that? No.

Actually . . . ya did. See, when you say that money=speech, what that means is that those with the most money have the most speech. That sounds like a Plutocracy to me.

[Pavlov's Dog]

The context of the claim as I understood it was that it was used to support the claim that "it's as if [Americans] live in different countries, just countries with a great deal of economic freedom to do buisness with other countries within that union". Most people would be reluctant to support the statement that "it's as if a Bavarian and a Saxon lived in different countries" by saying that 150 years ago, they were separate states, so I expect equal reluctance in the case of the U.S.

The context was that when the Constitution was created it was as if Americans lived in different countries and that is why the Constitution is the way it is.

[Preno]

The closest context (posts #79 and #83) was likening the US to the EU. In that context, I understood "the US states were for a time basically seperate nations" as fairly unequivocally using that as evidence for that analogy. Of course it is true that the Constitution is the way it is because of the situation that obtained when it was written. What was being discussed and what I was replying to, however, was a discussion of the current state of the U.S. and the differences between the states, which are nowhere near the differences between EU member states.

[IsItJustMe]

I'd also like to point out that the overwhelming majority of U.S. states have never, ever been separate countries. The original 13 were, and so were Texas, California and Hawaii, but I think that's all. The rest for all the time that they have had anything which we would call a state were a part of some larger state, and in some cases have never been part of any larger state except the US or the British Empire.

[Pavlov's Dog]

I'd also like to point out that the overwhelming majority of U.S. states have never, ever been separate countries. The original 13 were...

And the 13 states created the Constitution in that context. Then each state joined the Union based on that Constitution.

[just saw the light]

The Constitution gave too many concessions to the Southern states at the expense of the Northern ones.

[jemand]

Right. But in the senate, the principle of one person, one vote does not apply. Right? And therefore the senate is an undemocratic institution. Right? And the senate is a key law-making body in the U.S. Right? And therefore a key U.S. law-making body is elected in a patently undemocratic manner. Right?

A pure democracy does nothing to protect the rights and interests of the minority. A pure democracy is thus not the best form of governance. It is important that those less populated states still have a voice, so that more highly populated states cannot completely override their vote and take advantage of them (in natural resources or anything else).

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Actually . . . ya did. See, when you say that money=speech, what that means is that those with the most money have the most speech. That sounds like a Plutocracy to me.

Actually, no, I didn't. When I say that money is a form of speech (and by far not the only form) I am protecting the political speech that is expressed by campaign contributions. That's nothing like a plutocracy.

[xunzian]

Ultimately, how viable are the other forms in the absence of public financing?

As they say, you've got to pay to play.

The FEC was created to attempt to curb the excessive influence of money in politics . . . and it has failed to do so thus far.

Follow the funding and you see pretty much a 1:1 correlation with voting.

Money talks loudest in the current system. Ergo, plutocracy. If you have any statistics to the contrary, I'd love to see them.

[Chuck Rightmire]

Wouldn't you say that "One person, one vote" is a fundamental principle of democracy? Surely the 30 million Californians OUGHT to be able to overwhelm the 500,000 Wyomingans, in a democratic system, no?

You're right about a democracy. Technically, however, we have a Republic Federation based on the concept of states having power in addition to the people. That was changed with the amendment early in the 20th Century that provided for election of senators by the people rather than the state legislatures. My own state, Montana, contributed to the move for that with the over-the-transom bribes of an early Senator, Clark, a copper king, who was rejected by the Senate the first time he was elected. And coming from a lightly populated state, I have to believe that there is some merit in the system that gives us some say in the direction of the country. At least we now have two Democratic senators and a Democratic governor. For a while the ignorant ruled.

But going back to the basic Constitution: It was essentially set up to enable individuals to transact business across state lines without having to deal with tariffs set up by the individual states that had been doing it under the Articles of Confederation. Some alternative histories today postulate a North America in which the Constitution did not happen and the result is a chaotic situation like Italy before Garibaldi. The electoral college was set up to provide a buffer between the popular vote and the presidency, primarily because the founders, for the most part, did not trust the hoi polloi. In a Scientific American several years ago, a mathematician said that it actually protects the one-man, one-vote idea better than eliminating would. What might be better is for more states to develop Colorado's system where the electoral votes are apportioned by the number of votes for each candidate. I think that the only dissolution of the states and creation of the type of departments such as those of France would actually make much of a difference. In my state, electoral districts are set up on population for both the House and Senate in our Legislature. It doesn't work any better than the federal system. But to accomplish that would require the dissolution of states that I have mentioned before. Which might be a good idea to make our laws and taxes more uniform. I, personally, dislike the idea that each state can determine its own educational standards when we all get to vote in the same elections.

One of the big problems with our Constitution is not the rigidity of the Constitution or the reasons for establishing the government we have. Essentially the founders were trying to prevent a national government from infringing on the rights of these united states and its citizens. (After the Civil War we became the United States.) Our Constitution, in the wake of Chief Justice John Marshall has been modified by the Supreme Court to fit into the framework of the times in which we live. One major problem today is that certain people demand what is a "strict construction" of the Constitution, eliminating the elements the courts have put in place to enable the rules to fit these times. The court often makes mistakes such as the Dred Scott decision and the idea that corporations are people. But it has enabled our basic document to fit the needs of the times. And to pull back from some of those decisions when the times change.

Yes, the Constitution is not perfect and it is not the infallible religious document that some people claim. One of the reasons it has survived for so long and enabled us to live as we do (and post things like this on the Internet) is that it is short, concise and has the ability to be interpreted. It also benefits from the fact that it is difficult to amend so that whims and fads do not get into the basic rule of our law. Many states rewrote their Constitutions within the last century and they have become vast, wordy documents trying to dot every t and cross every i. They get changed a lot.

[ijdod]

2. Voting day is a national holiday


I'm not too sure giving an extra free day would be such a great idea. I think a Sunday would be ideal. Most people aren't working then anyway. I have to admit that The Netherlands isn't quite there yet... some remnants of the 'Sunday is the day of the Lord' still hold strong. That said, we do have laws that require employers to provide paid leave to vote, if work is getting in the way of voting. Of course, that still poses a dilemma for a lot of people: go voting, or miss the latest installment of whatever soap they're watching...

Of all the governments referenced, from the parliamentary systems in Europe, to the Federal Republics in Germany and Russia, only the US stands out as the most stable.

Mainly because you've had the luxury of being fairly isolated. I would say Germany is stable, as are the Scandinavian countries, and The Netherlands. And I wouldn't go as far as calling the other EUropean govenrments unstable, although the newer ones might be.

We don't have race riots here in the US like France does. We don't have riots when an election does not go according to the way one candidate wants. We don't have a civil war between Catholics and Protestants like Irish do. We don't have insurgents within the country striving for independence like Spain does.

You don't have race riots? That whole mess after the Rodney King affair was a friendly family BBQ then? I agree that the US has been fairly calm in that respect recently, but I kinda doubt it's because the underlying reasons aren't there. In other words: powderkeg. Remember that France didn't have race riots until very recently, when their powderkeg caught fire...

You don't currently have a civil war, agreed, but the US isn't immune to them either. Something with the Southern States... and I don't seem to recall there actually being a civil war in Ireland...


I despise #6 (publicly funded elections)

I can actually see the case for #6. As it appears from the outside, your elections are based on money, big money. How much chance does Joe Sixpack have to run in an election and actually win?
--
One of the things that surprises me is the unclear wording of some parts. A constitution should be crystal clear. As an example, the whole discussion about what is ment exactly with the 2nd amandment just doesn't do for a *constitution*. Bad enough it was a normal law...

[xunzian]

Part of what makes the Constitution so enduring is that it is, at times, intentionally vague. The drafters knew in the 1780s, that the world as they understood it would change. So, rather than create an rigid system that would invariably fail to withstand the test of time, they created a very flexible one.

I think that makes sense.

[dancer_rnb]

As an old fart, I'd like to point out that you can't determine from the US today
how it was in the past. The United States is a BIG country. Sixty years ago we did not have an interstate system. Air travel was not all that common.
TV started during that period. The were much more regional variations in how English was spoken. A lot of the migrations between various parts of the country hadn't occured.
The US wasn't anywhere near as homogeneous as it is now.

[dancer_rnb]

So... You're saying that we should give preference to rural voters because they HAVEN'T had a hard time voting? I can't be understanding you right.



Yes, yes... Despite that the senate is undemocratic, other aspects of the U.S. system are democratic. So what? Suppose we had a king. Would you accept my argument that this was fine because we also have a house of representatives? Of course you wouldn't.

The government should be as democratic as it possibly can be without trampling on human rights.

I was probably concentrating more on the history of blacks in this country.
You know, IMO, if we had to depend on democracy, blacks would have gotten their voting rights enforced much later than was the case

We have a lot of unelected officials in this country. Attorney General for instance. Popular vote is not involved AT ALL. Should this position be democratically elected?

[Pastor's Nightmare]

The 2nd Amendment is very badly phrased.

I think the 2nd ammendment has quite a bit of value. My personal opinion is that the number of guns in the US that are not in the hands of the military or police should be directly proportional to the size and strength of the US military and police. This is the ideal situation. Small military and small police means a small number of guns spread through the population and a large military and police means that there is a large number of guns.

Generally speaking, the US political system is pretty stable, however, every country whose military and police grows powerful is subject to destabilization. However, if there are many guns present within the population, it is extremely difficult to use the military and police against the population, which would decrease incentive to do so.

As an example, take Nazi Germany or Rwanda. Imagine the Nazis dragging the Jews to concentration camps with every single Jew owning an AK47. The Nazis might have succeded, but the Jews wouldn't have gone down without a fight... Same with Rwanda... Same with various groups in Pol Pots Cambodia... genocide becomes virtually impossible with a lot of guns floating around...

On the flip side, guns lead to higher levels of violence and deaths. However, I'm willing to accept these deaths for the stabilizing power accorded to a population that has guns. It makes it virtually impossible for a military to be used against the people.

[Pastor's Nightmare]

It contrasts to India, where the president has very few actual powers (mostly granting clemency to condemned prisoners) and the prime minister, who is the head of government, is directly answerable to parliament.


The analogue of the president in the US system is the prime minister. The Indian system is modeled on the British system. I believe it was also used in Pakistan, and the democracy wasn't capable of supporting itself. Also, India could hardly be called a healthy democracy under Indhra Ghandi. She ruled the country with an iron fist. And, she implemented stuff like forced sterilization of the poor so that they wouldn't breed... not exactly a prime example of human rights... On the flip side, the system seems to be working much better now.

[chapka]

As an example, take Nazi Germany or Rwanda. Imagine the Nazis dragging the Jews to concentration camps with every single Jew owning an AK47.

Probably a bad example, since in order to imagine this you first have to imagine what Kristallnacht would have looked like if every non-Jewish German had an AK47.

I see your point, but I don't think it's really valid given modern weapons. Unless we interpret the Second Amendment to allow civilians to own tanks and warplanes and RPGs and high explosives and other heavy weapons, the second amendment no longer does much to protect the citizens against the military. So you get the gun carnage without the corresponding benefits.

The Iraqi insurgents do most of their damage with IEDs, not snipers. If there's ever an American loyalist insurgency, anything that's legal to own will probably be marginally relevant to its efforts as well.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Ultimately, how viable are the other forms in the absence of public financing?

As they say, you've got to pay to play.

The FEC was created to attempt to curb the excessive influence of money in politics . . . and it has failed to do so thus far.

Follow the funding and you see pretty much a 1:1 correlation with voting.

Money talks loudest in the current system. Ergo, plutocracy.

Of course you have to pay to play, no matter who is funding, whether it be donations or the government. Are you complaining that advertising works in your 1:1 correlation?

Yet that is not always the case. Take the 2000 campaign of Forbes, quite independently wealthy, yet unable to muster support. Take the 1992 and 1996 campaigns of Ross Perot and his ability to finance.

Funding is not the whole answer, although you are complaining that advertising works.

I'd rather have a system where political speech is protected as speech than public financing of campaigns, no matter the flaws in the system of free speech.

What has campaign financing done to curb the influence of money? It has entrenched two parties and not curbed the influence of money.

Party A has 100,000 people
Party B has 110,000 people
Party C has 20,000 people

Before the days of campaign contribution limits, Party C could still win because some billionare could fund the Party C campaign to funding levels matching Party A and Party B. Funding means advertising, which influences but doesn't determine votes.

After campaign contribution limits, the amount that can be raised is directly correlated to party size, and now Party C can not advertise to the extent necessary to rival Party A or Party B. Nor can it advertise enough to raise its membership to rival Party A or Party B.

The true meaning of campaign finance reform is to protect incumbents and limit the number of challengers. Do you ever wonder why it is considered a waste of a vote to vote Green Party or Libertarian Party? They can't reach enough voters. All you need to win is enough votes, but they can't reach the voters to get the votes.

The end result of campaign finance limits is real plutocracy, where instead of money being taken out of the picture, politicians move back and forth between extremely well paying jobs at connected firms and offices where they vote for connections for those firms, such as a high level executive for Haliburton becoming Vice President and giving lush no-bid contracts to Haliburton.

Plutocracy? Campaign finance limits have created it, as they were intended to, instead of eliminating it.

Then consider the alternative you support.

How much support must a candidate have to get public funds? Will those funds be scaled to percent support? Who will decide who is viable enough of a candidate to get support? Will candidates be allowed to spend out of pocket?

Talk about an entrenched political class. The first three questions create such a class, and the fourth guarantees even privately wealthy individuals can't break into that class.

Between the two of us, I'm not the supporter of plutocracy.

[IsItJustMe]

The analogue of the president in the US system is the prime minister. The Indian system is modeled on the British system. I believe it was also used in Pakistan, and the democracy wasn't capable of supporting itself. Also, India could hardly be called a healthy democracy under Indhra Ghandi. She ruled the country with an iron fist. And, she implemented stuff like forced sterilization of the poor so that they wouldn't breed... not exactly a prime example of human rights... On the flip side, the system seems to be working much better now.

Undoubtedly there are many problems in India. But it's hardly fair to attribute them all to the constitution. India is a developing nation, and the poverty that is endemic in all such countries creates problems we don't have in the United States.

In general, I meant for this thread to have to do with constitutions, but there is far, far more to a system of government than the constitution, I think we would all agree.

[Chuck Rightmire]

Someone asked a while back how it happened that the Constitution was changed so that the Pres and VPres were elected together. If you look back in history it occurred after several presidential elections were decided in the House of Representatives because no one got enough electoral votes and the electoral college couldn't agree. So they decided to ameliorate the process by changing the rules. It seems to have worked.

[Worldtraveller]

Someone asked a while back how it happened that the Constitution was changed so that the Pres and VPres were elected together. If you look back in history it occurred after several presidential elections were decided in the House of Representatives because no one got enough electoral votes and the electoral college couldn't agree. So they decided to ameliorate the process by changing the rules. It seems to have worked.
This is an accurate reflection of what happened historically.

If by 'worked', you mean that we have eliminated any real competition other than the two party system, you're correct. (Not being snide here, I think this change is one of the bigger mistakes in our Constitutional history.)

I really wish the change would have allowed easier, wider access to the electoral system, not shut it down effectively to force the system to result in a majority. A fairer, in retrospect, system would have been to change the requirements from a majority (i.e. 50%+1) to simply having the most, even if it's a plurality, and the second most popular being the VP.

Cheers,
Lane

[Loren Pechtel]

I think the 2nd ammendment has quite a bit of value. My personal opinion is that the number of guns in the US that are not in the hands of the military or police should be directly proportional to the size and strength of the US military and police. This is the ideal situation. Small military and small police means a small number of guns spread through the population and a large military and police means that there is a large number of guns.

The big problem with the 2nd is that it is not clear enough. I'm pro-gun but I strongly dislike the 2nd.

As far as I'm concerned if the people whose job it is to enforce the law can't agree as to what it says then it's a bad law. In fact, I would go so far as to add a constitutional amendment: Vague laws shall be interpreted in favor of the defendant.

[Mike Rosoft]

Generally speaking, the US political system is pretty stable, however, every country whose military and police grows powerful is subject to destabilization. However, if there are many guns present within the population, it is extremely difficult to use the military and police against the population, which would decrease incentive to do so.

And yet, for some reason, it remains a serious crime to use force against the government, punishable with a lengthy prison sentence, in some countries with death.

If you want the population to be armed so that they can overthrow the government should it become a tyranny, you'll in effect allow them to overthrow the government and establish a tyranny. As happened in many countries of the East and Central Europe.


Mike Rosoft

[Sarpedon]

Mike, its not intended to happen. It COULD happen. Its like Nuclear weapons: a deterrant. Dangerous, yes, but a non-dangerous deterrant isn't a deterrant. What a deterrant does is make people think "Hmmm, things aren't so bad, it wouldn't be worth it to shake things up."

And most tyrannies are established by the elite of the country, not the ordinary people. The army is the the primary menace to democracies. An armed populace is a counterweight to the elite. Machiavelli observed this centuries ago. It is still true today.

[xunzian]

1) Hersch, P. L., and McDougall, G. S. ‘‘Campaign War Chests as a Barrier to Entry in Congressional Races.’’ Economic Inquiry 32 (1994): 630–41.

2) Stratmann, Thomas. ‘‘What Do Campaign Contributions Buy? Deciphering Causal Effects of Money and Votes.’’ Southern Economic Journal 57 (1991): 606–20.

3) Welch, W. P. ‘‘Campaign Contributions and Legislative Voting: Milk Money and Dairy Price Supports.’’ Western Political Quarterly 35 (1982): 478–95.

Given 1, and following 2 and 3, I think that I can safely say that donations do make our current system quite plutarchic.

As a general rule, the person with the most money wins -- this is even true with Perot and Forbes. While they were personally quite wealthy, they couldn't compete with the Dem and Repub machines.

Yes, advertising works. Money determines who is elected, who has a voice. That, to me, isn't free speech but an abomination.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No, Forbes and especially Perot had sufficient personal resources to compete with the political machines, but still didn't win. Advertising works, but isn't omnipotent. Money helps, but isn't omnipotent.

And the ability to donate to a candidate is free speech.

Now can you answer my questions about the alternative? Just to refresh your memory I'll scroll up and snag them.

Then consider the alternative you support.

How much support must a candidate have to get public funds? Will those funds be scaled to percent support? Who will decide who is viable enough of a candidate to get support? Will candidates be allowed to spend out of pocket?

Talk about an entrenched political class. The first three questions create such a class, and the fourth guarantees even privately wealthy individuals can't break into that class.

Between the two of us, I'm not the supporter of plutocracy.

[xunzian]

Not so, the numbers show a very different story if you look at soft money and issue advertising as opposed to candidate advertising. Perot and Forbes got *crushed* there, something like $5 to $1, I believe.

As for campaign finance reform, check out Europe. They have managed to nicely stifle the influence of private cash, though they haven't eliminated it entirely. I think the parlaimentary system works a good deal better in this regard, where the amount of funding a political party gets is dependent on whether on not their candidates get a certain amount of votes. Once you've hit that threshold, it is a flat rate. If the party does well, it perpetuates itself, if not it dies. I do admit that for such a system to get going, it would require either an initial privately funded starter or, more realistically, just use the parties that we have in place. I suppose we could also tie federal funding to success in local elections down to the municipal levels where campaigns are generally so cheap as to render the worries of corruption moot.

Now, I think you are also confused about the difference between a plutocracy and a hierarchy. There will always be a ruling class, but it needn't be tied to wealth.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Hm, interestingly enough it must then come down to how much Perot could have spent versus how much he did spend.

Either way, lack of campagn finance control does not mean that we will have a plutocracy, but campaign finance control does mean both a limitation to free speech and an entrenched political cleass.

Now will you ever answer MY questions? There are four distinct questions.

And the ruling class will acquire wealth through rulership, so in addition to an aristocracy you are creating a plutocracy.

[xunzian]

"How much support must a candidate have to get public funds?"

"check out Europe. They have managed to nicely stifle the influence of private cash, though they haven't eliminated it entirely. I think the parlaimentary system works a good deal better in this regard, where the amount of funding a political party gets is dependent on whether on not their candidates [sic -- party] get a certain amount of votes."


Will those funds be scaled to percent support?

"Once you've hit that threshold, it is a flat rate. If the party does well, it perpetuates itself, if not it die