Is the United States ready for a President who speaks to the populace like adults?

[Boerseun]

Do you also believe the World Series should be decided with one game? That is the equivalent of what you advocate. If the population of California gets big enough should they be able to elect the President for the rest of us with their enormous vote?

I should think so.

 

Imagine the same scenario from a Californian's perspective.

 

I should think that the percentage of the total determines the final outcome. In my (probably flawed) interpretation of the US setup, the electoral collage was a good idea at the time, but have completely outlived its usefulness to the point of being a completely and utterly undemocratic institution.

 

Al Gore won the 2001 election, after all. You Americans got done in.

[CraigD]

That said, you implied more than once in your post that the split between the conservative and liberal approach to politics is roughly even among the US populace, suggesting that it is a "remarkable coincidence" that we are all so "evenly divided."

 

Can you please cite a source for your comments relating to the relatively symetrical and "50/50" divisions of these ideological stances in modern day United States to which you referred?

The data from which I reach the tentative conclusion that about half of US voters are liberal, half conservative, are the past several decades’ Presidential election results:

Year  Liberal  Conservative
1960  49.7     49.5
1964  61.1     38.5
1968  42.7     43.4 (+13.5=56.9)
1972  37.5     60.7
1976  50.1     48.0
1880  41.0     50.7
1984  40.6     58.8
1988  45.6     53.4
1992  43.0     37.4 (18.9 ?)
1996  49.2     40.7
2000  48.4     47.9
2004  48.3     50.7

Note my large, and very tentative assumption that “the correlation between political party affiliation and liberal/conservative worldviews is as strong as is generally assumed”.

 

For many reasons, it’s difficult to get a simple, direct “are you liberal or conservative” statistic. Many people think of themselves as “neither liberal or conservative”, and debate the definitions of the terms. Many consider such information to be very private. Self-reported political attitude varies between regions and cultures: a person considered very liberal by the congregation of a southern West Virginia evangelical Christian church might be considered very conservative by that of metropolitan Maryland social club. Though I’m confident such exist, I tried, but failed after about 20 minutes of searching, to find a survey providing a simple estimate of the liberal:conservative ratio in the US and/or the world. If anyone knows of, or can find such surveys, please help.

 

To make sense of Lackoff’s “strong father/nurturant parent” model, and why I conclude that it addresses the question “Is the United States ready for a President who speaks to the populace like adults” (that is, as one adult to another), a pointed, necessarily overly simplistic summary of the model is useful.

• A conservative / strict father model-holding person was trained as a child to unquestioningly accept the instructions of a single authority, their “strict father”. He extends this model in both directions, requiring people over whom he has authority to follow orders unquestioningly, and requiring people under whose authority he falls to give orders without requiring questioning from him. He does not want a President who speaks to him as one adult to another, but rather one who speaks as a strict father to an obedient child.
  
• A liberal / nurturant parent model-holding person was trained as a child to discuss and reach mutual decisions with one or several or their “nurturant parents”. He extends this model to require people over whom he has authority to question and discuss issues with him before reaching decisions, and requiring people under whose authority he falls to do the same with him. He does want a President who speaks to him as one adult to another.
  

Though my academic and professional background is nearly devoid of specific social science instructions (psychology, history, and anthropology being my closest equivalents), IMHO application of models such as Lackoff’s are our best hope of having social science forum discussions that are actually scientific, rather than the exchange of political speech and personal opinion most common to this forum. Though little referenced, there actually are theories in the social science discipline somewhat analogous to those in the physical sciences, so it should be possible to apply the scientific method to questions about society.

 

PS: pseudo-CraigDerian?! I didn’t even know I had an adjective, and now I find not only that, but that there’s a pseudo-form of me-ness. My internet immortality is now achieved! :hihi:

[InfiniteNow]

PS: pseudo-CraigDerian?! I didn’t even know I had an adjective, and now I find not only that, but that there’s a pseudo-form of me-ness. My internet immortality is now achieved! :cheer:

It just means that you and the wife are now one step closer to a fully uploaded consciousness. :phones:

 

Thanks for the thoughtful replies. I had no idea that presidential voting had split like that for so many years. :hihi:

[C1ay]

I should think that the percentage of the total determines the final outcome. In my (probably flawed) interpretation of the US setup, the electoral collage was a good idea at the time, but have completely outlived its usefulness to the point of being a completely and utterly undemocratic institution.

 

Would you say the same of the European Union? The executive branch of that union gives each of the member states one member on the commission. Each of those gets one vote for the President of that commission regardless of the population of their State. Should representation in the executive branch be apportioned as it is in the Parliamentary branch?

 

The United States means literally that, a union of the States. Then, like now, the States are sovereign entities, each with its own citizens, government and laws. In the founding of the union the people were given their apportioned representation in the legislative branch as were the States. It was decided then that a fair voting power for the member states to use in choosing the President of the executive branch would be one that granted each member a voting power proportionate to its population and the Electoral College was born.

 

Each state gets a number of electors for the executive branch that is apportioned by the number of Representatives and Senators it has in Congress which is apportioned by the decennial census of its population. The Constitution directs that each shall choose its electors in a manner chosen by the State's Legislatures. No Constitutional right to vote in a federal election is provided by the Constitution at all because the President is not a representative of the people. While the Legislatures of the States have chosen to use suffrage of the people to choose their electors they could just as well choose to draw straws.

 

A popular vote of the people of the states would deny the States their Constitutional right to specify how their electors for the Executive are chosen. It would violate the sovereignty of the States and their citizens. It would allow a popular individual to convince only the most numerous population centers to vote for them while completely ignoring the people of isolated regions.

 

Imagine that the scoring of the World Series were changed to the equivalent of a popular vote. The first game is played at Team A's home stadium. Team B flies in the night before but gets delayed at two hops on the way and they don't make it to the motel until 6 A.M. They catch a few hours of rest and head to the game weary from their long night, Team A cleans up with a score of 50 - 0. The next 4 games reflect why these two teams made it to the series because Team B barely wins each at 1 - 0. Now, Team A has 50 points in 5 games but Team B won 4 of the games. Which do you think more closely represents the contest results, the one with the most points or the one that won the most games? Which one is really more fair to both teams?

 

The Electoral College is still very useful in maintaining the proportionate voting power of the sovereign States while maintaining that sovereignty. It provides an indirect method of choosing a President for the union of the States without making the people constituents of the President, a position which should really only have member States as constituents. Following the 17th Amendment, changing the election process of the President by installing a popular vote would give the people 3 branches of representation and bring the nation much closer to a true democracy. A course for anarchy would be set.....if its not already.

[Boerseun]

I see where you're coming from, but I still think it's an incredibly undemocratic institution. I also think your sports team analogy is flawed.

 

See it like this:

 

There are three states in an imaginary union. State 1 has a population of 10. States two and three has a population of 1 each. Total Union population of 12, in other words. Each state has an equal say in the appointing of an Executive President, with the powers that goes with the office. State 1 (pop.10) votes for candidate A, who is a peace-loving mediator, whose foreign policy is one of deténte and international co-operation. States two and three (pop. 1 each) votes for candidate B, who is a warmonger of note, whose foreign policy entails "screw the rest of the world, we'll do whatever we bloody well want". Candidate B wins the election 2 to 1, and has a sufficient mandate to implement his policies.

 

This imaginary union goes to war, with the Executive sure of the mandate given to it. It won the election 2 to 1, after all.

 

But populationwise? 10 out of 12 voters didn't want him there. Democratic? I don't think so.

 

It's all fair and fine to fall back on the "sovereign states" argument. But then each and every State must have the choice of joining the union in any military expeditions or not. The European Union's chief executive is rotational, and largely symbolic, with very little executive powers. The member states are still solely responsible for their own foreign policy and defence. Look at the European participation in Iraq, for instance. The UK is all for it, the rest of the Union is very critical of it.

[REASON]

There are three states in an imaginary union. State 1 has a population of 10. States two and three has a population of 1 each. Total Union population of 12, in other words. Each state has an equal say in the appointing of an Executive President, with the powers that goes with the office.

 

It doesn't exactly work like that though because all three states would not have equal say in appointing the President. The number of electors in each state is more proportional to its population. So in an example similar to yours, State 1 has a population of 100 with 10 electors, State 2 has a population of 50 with 5 electors, and State 3 has a population of 10 with 1 elector. Candidate A for Al gets 10 Electoral votes and Candidate B for Bush gets 6.

 

But as we saw in the 2000 election, the popular vote ended up being superceded by the electoral count (and the Supreme Court as it were) based on the number of States won and their associated number of electoral votes.

 

Personally, I see both sides of it and have not come to a conclusion in my mind as to which method, popular vote or electoral vote, best serves the citizens of the United States. While the President may not be a representitive of the citizens according to the Constitution, it is clear the direct impact a President and the policies he pursues can have on the populus.

[Boerseun]

Whilst that is true, the number of electoral votes assigned to any particular state doesn't keep up with population movements.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to come back to California, to the best of my knowledge, they are way underrepresented in the electoral college because of the massive migration to the West coast.

 

Which means a direct individual vote for the executive would be a much better indicator of who the people would want as their Chief. Straight-forward, no problem. And it achieves exactly the same as if the electoral college were to be re-calculated and electoral votes re-assigned before each and every election. We simply cut out the middle man, and leave less space for gross unfairness like Bush vs. Gore.

[REASON]

Which means a direct individual vote for the executive would be a much better indicator of who the people would want as their Chief. Straight-forward, no problem. And it achieves exactly the same as if the electoral college were to be re-calculated and electoral votes re-assigned before each and every election.

 

I definitely see your point and I have made the same argument amongst my friends. I do believe there is a movement out there to amend the Constitution to allow a popular vote for President. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

-----------------

 

In deference to INow and his OP, whether we're ready or not, I do believe it is time. If we wait until a majority of the population has become critical thinking intellectuals before we elect one to the Presidency, we may find ourselves with nothing but ideological nimrods from here on out.

 

Let us elect strong, worthy individuals that lead by example and are deserving of our admiration.

[C1ay]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to come back to California, to the best of my knowledge, they are way underrepresented in the electoral college because of the massive migration to the West coast.

 

Which means a direct individual vote for the executive would be a much better indicator of who the people would want as their Chief. Straight-forward, no problem. And it achieves exactly the same as if the electoral college were to be re-calculated and electoral votes re-assigned before each and every election. We simply cut out the middle man, and leave less space for gross unfairness like Bush vs. Gore....

 

Whilst that is true, the number of electoral votes assigned to any particular state doesn't keep up with population movements.

 

California is proportionately represented relative to the number of legal immigrants she has. The Constitution species that a decennial census be taken to reapportion representation in the Congress and the number of each States electoral vote is directly proportional to that number of representatives. Keep in mind also that the massive migration of immigrants to California that you speak of is largely composed of illegal immigrants which are not entitled to any representation at all.

 

You're also missing the point that the executive IS NOT a representative of the citizens of the union or of the member States. The citizens have their representatives in Congress. The Executive branch is not a representative branch at all. The executor runs the union according to the laws set forth by the legislature. Again, do you also think the European Union should be restructured so that each member State has a proportionate representation on the executive commission when they already have proportionate representation in Parliament?

 

In a republican form of government with 3 branches there is a representative branch, an executive branch and a judicial branch. Making the executive a representative branch tilts the delicate balance of power between the three and breaks the checks and balances of the system. It should also be noted that the executive branch is only authorized to perform its acts in accordance with the authority given it by the representative branch, the legislature. If it does not suit the desires of the people it is the legislatures job to make remedy for that lest they be sent home by the people so that other representatives can do the job the people want.

[jackson33]

Whilst that is true, the number of electoral votes assigned to any particular state doesn't keep up with population movements.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to come back to California, to the best of my knowledge, they are way underrepresented in the electoral college because of the massive migration to the West coast.

 

Which means a direct individual vote for the executive would be a much better indicator of who the people would want as their Chief. Straight-forward, no problem. And it achieves exactly the same as if the electoral college were to be re-calculated and electoral votes re-assigned before each and every election. We simply cut out the middle man, and leave less space for gross unfairness like Bush vs. Gore.

 

Going a little deeper...

 

According to the Constitution and practiced early in US History...Each State Legislature, nominated/appointed 'Electors' to represent the people of that State to attend a National Convention. They in turn chose the President & VP to represent the US. Electors total the Senator/House Members allocated by the previous census and can not be members of that State legislature or a current member of the Federal Government. (I CANNOT OVER EMPHASIZE) The Founders, were extremely concerned about the general public, even when a VERY LIMITED portion of the public, to vote for or take part in the choosing of the President or VP. In those days, there was no obligation of any electors, from any State as to whom to select.

 

Today, the public of each State theoretically is voting for those electors, opposed to being chosen by the legislature. Even today, the picked individuals to represent their State, are NOT bound to vote for their States pick for the office. Traditionally they do and since the total comes from one or another party, the final outcome, if challenged will be from the same party as the State originally chose. (Don't confuse Party Conventions and the primary systems with the electoral college).

 

There is no mention of a 'DEMOCRACY' in the US Constitution. As some one stated, the US is a 'Representative Republic' and today of 50 States. The term 'Democratically elected', comes from State Elections, which would be correct, if the electors were bound to the publics choice, which they are not.

 

A good example of what was intended, would be the 1800 General Election.

This was the first test of the process, George Washington, pretty much unopposed, and Adams his VP won easily. Hamilton/Adams/Jefferson and a few others were mentioned on the first ballot, for the third President. Adams, the incumbent President and Confederation Candidate (Liberal or big government today) while Jefferson the VP and Republican/Democratic Candidate (Conservative or small government today) were opposed by Hamilton also D/R (I think) and a few others, but all chose by the electors themselves. It took 50 plus ballets (voting sessions) to finally pick Jefferson, who then became our third President. I have mentioned this to show, what was intended, under the constitution. Gore was not the first and won't be the last US President to take office with less than a majority, but there will never be one w/o a majority of the intended 'elector' vote.

 

Bush/Gore, in 2000 was a disputed return from Florida, which would turn the total electoral count to Gore. Its complicated, but traditionally the first count or in some cases a single recount has been accepted. Nixon, had several States where he could have legitimately contested a vote to give him the presidency, but chose not to "For the good of the country"...

over JFK in 1960, but chose not to.

 

iNow; IMO all this is related to 'talking to the people', since I agree with the founders, that the public is predisposed to personal interest, if interested at all. When the public becomes interested, has the slightest idea what the purpose of the Federal Government was intended to do, what it does now or should in the future, then politicians could talk honestly. Said another way they could never talk honestly and simultaneously be elected. Even the discussion on this thread, shows a lack of knowledge, from interested people, to what was intended and what is...IMO.

[Freddy]

What the Founders intended is not a reason not to amend the Constitution. Even Madison, the father of the Constitution, changed his mind a few years later and wrote to Jefferson stating that he supported expanding suffrage to all white male voters, not just those who owned property. The states eliminated the property requirement. The right to vote did slowly expand with blacks, women, and Indians each getting the right to vote. It was the federal government that granted them that right. The logical continuation of this is to amend the Constitution abolishing the Electoral College and providing for the popular election of the president. There is an plan by several states to circumvent the Electoral College during the November election. See link:

Electoral college bypass approved by 2nd state

[C1ay]

The logical continuation of this is to amend the Constitution abolishing the Electoral College and providing for the popular election of the president.

 

It is not a logical extension at all. It will make the President's constituents the people instead of the States and have the direct effect of changing the republican form of government into a true democracy. Once that happens the course for anarchy will be fixed.

 

There is an plan by several states to circumvent the Electoral College during the November election. See link:

Electoral college bypass approved by 2nd state

 

These States are not circumventing the Electoral College at all. The Constitution says that the President shall be elected by the electors of the States but does not specify how their electors are to be chosen. These states have simply legislated that their electors shall be chosen by a popular vote within their State but they will still choose electors just the same. The popular votes of these states will not be commingled with that of other States so even if all 50 States do this, which they pretty much do, you have 50 separate elections for President choosing the electors of the 50 States while maintaining the separation of each State's electors as intended. Ultimately the President is still chosen by the proportional votes of the 50 states as it is now.

 

It would take a commingling of those votes to produce a national popular vote. The State's cannot do this with any legislation written within their own state. To commingle the votes of the several states would require an Amendment that strikes the 12th Amendment. Let the States legislate away on how their electors are chosen, it will do nothing to repeal the 12th Amendment.

[jackson33]

C1ay; Actually N.J., Maryland and Illinois are trying to circumvent the US Constitution, probably there own State laws and the rules of all major parties.

Under there plan, those States Electoral votes would go to the popular vote winner of the Nation, not necessarily the choice of their States. The end result WOULD be the end of the 'Electoral College'. California also has/had a plan to split the electoral count, according to their vote, but don't think it got very far. Any change would have to come from 'Amending' the US Constitution, which is not likely.

 

Freddy; I would agree, the founders intended for Government to evolve according to the needs and wishes of the public. I do think, there were errors in the original concept and the founders themselves, knew and spoke of many problems. Emancipation of Slaves was addressed, treaty status given, broken by Washington and the many amendments made to clarify the original intent.

The point is to change any principle, in the proper manner. Courts, political agenda or any group of citizens under with any idealogical difference should not be instrumental in redefining intent or process for the entire society. You probably have no idea how many things, those founders had no intention what so ever, for a Federal Government being involved in, that are now accepted as Federal Responsibility. Our country fought a civil war over 'State Rights' involving slavery and other issues, but today State Rights, mean getting the most bucks...

[C1ay]

C1ay; Actually N.J., Maryland and Illinois are trying to circumvent the US Constitution, probably there own State laws and the rules of all major parties.

Under there plan, those States Electoral votes would go to the popular vote winner of the Nation, not necessarily the choice of their States. The end result WOULD be the end of the 'Electoral College'. California also has/had a plan to split the electoral count, according to their vote, but don't think it got very far. Any change would have to come from 'Amending' the US Constitution, which is not likely.

 

Well, giving their electors to the winner of the national vote would not circumvent the Constitution since the Constitution does not require electors to vote for whom their State wishes. All it says is that the States shall appoint electors by a method chosen by the State's legislature. This would go against the wishes of the people of their own state where the national vote is in favor of someone other than that which the majority of them voted for.

 

Several states have tried the divide-the-electors thing, I believe Vermont still does. The end result of this is that these states become less important to the candidates since they are no longer a potential swing state. It weakens the position of these states in the federation but if it is what the citizenry of those states want and their state congress legislates it then that is their right.

 

At some point I hoipe advocates of the national popular vote come to realize that the United States is not a federation of the people of the United States but a federation of the States with their citizens as inseparable entities. They have much to lose by turning their backs on their state.

[Freddy]

Well, giving their electors to the winner of the national vote would not circumvent the Constitution since the Constitution does not require electors to vote for whom their State wishes. All it says is that the States shall appoint electors by a method chosen by the State's legislature. This would go against the wishes of the people of their own state where the national vote is in favor of someone other than that which the majority of them voted for.

 

Several states have tried the divide-the-electors thing, I believe Vermont still does. The end result of this is that these states become less important to the candidates since they are no longer a potential swing state. It weakens the position of these states in the federation but if it is what the citizenry of those states want and their state congress legislates it then that is their right.

 

At some point I hoipe advocates of the national popular vote come to realize that the United States is not a federation of the people of the United States but a federation of the States with their citizens as inseparable entities. They have much to lose by turning their backs on their state.

Really, have you read the Preamble of the US Constitution? It says,

 

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

It does not say, "We the States". It was the people of the US at 13 separate conventions who ratified the Constitution and not 13 state legislatures.

[jackson33]

"We" (The representatives of the citizens of 13 independent sovereign states, with common interest) "In order the form a more perfect UNION" (those separate states)....Remeber, the British Empire was a Union of sorts in its own right. Remember the Declaration of Independence and the list of complaints and read the actual Constitution. Taken as a whole, you will note the rights given the people from a Federal Government and/or the States they lived in. Each State followed with similar Constitutions all electing a representative government. My first statement on this thread was 'When discussing the founders, everything must be considered in their times"...

 

Reality of today, to those times and the ideology of the governed (not government), is a scary thing. If a Union is to exist, its should be from the power/consent and advise of States, not the States dependant of Federal Government. Any election, there are only two people involved, where any given authority is to exist from the cumulative States, it should be on an equal basis from each State, not the loudest, most populated, most productive or any single issue which one or more may have no interest.

[C1ay]

Really, have you read the Preamble of the US Constitution? It says,

 

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

It does not say, "We the States". It was the people of the US at 13 separate conventions who ratified the Constitution and not 13 state legislatures.

 

It was indeed the States that ratified their union through their delegates to the United States Constitutional Convention which signed below:

 

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names. Note

 

Go Washington - President and deputy from Virginia

 

New Hampshire - John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman

 

Massachusetts - Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King

 

Connecticut - Wm Saml Johnson, Roger Sherman

 

New York - Alexander Hamilton

 

New Jersey - Wil Livingston, David Brearley, Wm Paterson, Jona. Dayton

 

Pensylvania - B Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robt Morris, Geo. Clymer, Thos FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouv Morris

 

Delaware - Geo. Read, Gunning Bedford jun, John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jaco. Broom

 

Maryland - James McHenry, Dan of St Tho Jenifer, Danl Carroll

 

Virginia - John Blair, James Madison Jr.

 

North Carolina - Wm Blount, Richd Dobbs Spaight, Hu Williamson

 

South Carolina - J. Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler

 

Georgia - William Few, Abr Baldwin

 

Attest: William Jackson, Secretary

 

It was the states which united and formed a federation. That's why we are the United States and not the United People of the States. You might also enjoy reading more about the history behind the Preamble.