Comments on: How Long in the Wilderness? http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/05/14/how-long-in-the-wilderness/ Politics and Culture from a Catholic perspective. Wed, 23 May 2012 17:50:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Elaine Krewer http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/05/14/how-long-in-the-wilderness/#comment-20044 Elaine Krewer Sat, 16 May 2009 13:53:47 +0000 http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=8585#comment-20044 The part of the 17th Amendment that really needs to be scrapped is the provision that allows governors to fill Senate vacancies by appointment -- the provision that gave us Roland "Tombstone" Burris. I wouldn't have a problem with legislatures choosing interim or temporary Senators, particularly in cases where 2 years or less are left in a departed Senator's term. The part of the 17th Amendment that really needs to be scrapped is the provision that allows governors to fill Senate vacancies by appointment — the provision that gave us Roland “Tombstone” Burris. I wouldn’t have a problem with legislatures choosing interim or temporary Senators, particularly in cases where 2 years or less are left in a departed Senator’s term.

]]> By: Elaine Krewer http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/05/14/how-long-in-the-wilderness/#comment-20043 Elaine Krewer Sat, 16 May 2009 04:53:26 +0000 http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=8585#comment-20043 I probably should have specified that my support of a proportional electoral vote system is based on it being implemented nationwide for all states at the same time (so that no states are unfairly advantaged or disadvantaged). I'm all for promoting a proper balance between state and federal power, but I'm not so sure eliminating direct election of Senators would do that. Do we really want to go back to having state legislatures pick Senators? That system is what allowed Stephen Douglas (pro-choice on slavery) to beat out Abe Lincoln for the Illinois Senate seat they were competing for when they held their famous 1858 debates. It led to dozens of accusations of bribery or other corruption against prospective Senators believed to have "bought" their seats. Legislative deadlocks also left many states without Senators for long periods in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I probably should have specified that my support of a proportional electoral vote system is based on it being implemented nationwide for all states at the same time (so that no states are unfairly advantaged or disadvantaged).

I’m all for promoting a proper balance between state and federal power, but I’m not so sure eliminating direct election of Senators would do that. Do we really want to go back to having state legislatures pick Senators?

That system is what allowed Stephen Douglas (pro-choice on slavery) to beat out Abe Lincoln for the Illinois Senate seat they were competing for when they held their famous 1858 debates. It led to dozens of accusations of bribery or other corruption against prospective Senators believed to have “bought” their seats. Legislative deadlocks also left many states without Senators for long periods in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

]]> By: Matt McDonald http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/05/14/how-long-in-the-wilderness/#comment-20042 Matt McDonald Sat, 16 May 2009 03:38:11 +0000 http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=8585#comment-20042 Elaine Krewer, <i>I wouldn't call a proportional electoral vote "foolish", just different.</i> What I mean is, that it would be completely foolhardy for any state to diminish their importance in the electoral process by being proportional while all or the majority of states are "all or nothing". <i>No matter how we slice the electoral vote system, we are going to at least occasionally end up with presidents that win the electoral vote while losing the popular vote, and who ignore smaller states -- unless we go to the proposed electoral compact system that guarantees an electoral victory to the winner of the national popular vote. However, that too has its problems and would only aggravate the problem you refer to (elections being decided in big states with big metro areas.)</i> Which is precisely why the founders did not chose direct election. There is no issue having popular vote losers being selected, it's perfectly acceptable in a republican democracy. <i>Otherwise, the only way for pro-lifers or conservative Republicans to make a difference at the national level would be for them all to move to red states and boost their electoral vote count.</i> I don't understand what you're talking about. Republicans have made a difference at the national level over the course of the last 40 years. The battle has shifted back and forth, but it is not helpless even under the current system. No need to move to a red state though. Even in the blue states, conservatives out reproduce liberals, and the red states all grow while the blue states shrink due to fertility levels and taxes. If you want to talk about effective reform... look at restoring the proper balance between state and federal powers... eliminate the direct election of senators. Elaine Krewer,
I wouldn’t call a proportional electoral vote “foolish”, just different.

What I mean is, that it would be completely foolhardy for any state to diminish their importance in the electoral process by being proportional while all or the majority of states are “all or nothing”.

No matter how we slice the electoral vote system, we are going to at least occasionally end up with presidents that win the electoral vote while losing the popular vote, and who ignore smaller states — unless we go to the proposed electoral compact system that guarantees an electoral victory to the winner of the national popular vote. However, that too has its problems and would only aggravate the problem you refer to (elections being decided in big states with big metro areas.)

Which is precisely why the founders did not chose direct election. There is no issue having popular vote losers being selected, it’s perfectly acceptable in a republican democracy.

Otherwise, the only way for pro-lifers or conservative Republicans to make a difference at the national level would be for them all to move to red states and boost their electoral vote count.

I don’t understand what you’re talking about. Republicans have made a difference at the national level over the course of the last 40 years. The battle has shifted back and forth, but it is not helpless even under the current system. No need to move to a red state though. Even in the blue states, conservatives out reproduce liberals, and the red states all grow while the blue states shrink due to fertility levels and taxes.

If you want to talk about effective reform… look at restoring the proper balance between state and federal powers… eliminate the direct election of senators.

]]> By: Elaine Krewer http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/05/14/how-long-in-the-wilderness/#comment-20041 Elaine Krewer Sat, 16 May 2009 02:47:07 +0000 http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=8585#comment-20041 I wouldn't call a proportional electoral vote "foolish", just different. No matter how we slice the electoral vote system, we are going to at least occasionally end up with presidents that win the electoral vote while losing the popular vote, and who ignore smaller states -- unless we go to the proposed electoral compact system that guarantees an electoral victory to the winner of the national popular vote. However, that too has its problems and would only aggravate the problem you refer to (elections being decided in big states with big metro areas.) For the proportional electoral vote system to really work in terms of making elections more competitive would require a drastic change in how congressional districts are drawn, and of course, an end to gerrymandering districts so they are dominated by one party or the other. Otherwise, the only way for pro-lifers or conservative Republicans to make a difference at the national level would be for them all to move to red states and boost their electoral vote count. As distressed as I am by the current state of affairs in Illinois, I don't plan on moving, partly because I'm not really into hurricanes, kudzu, fire ants, tumbleweeds, wildfires, decade-long droughts, or year-round air conditioning. I'll wait for global warming to bring them to me instead :-) In the meantime I'll put up with the tornadoes and blizzards and continue to work and pray for the reform of our state, which as I've said before, is a long-term project on par with praying for the conversion of Russia. I wouldn’t call a proportional electoral vote “foolish”, just different.

No matter how we slice the electoral vote system, we are going to at least occasionally end up with presidents that win the electoral vote while losing the popular vote, and who ignore smaller states — unless we go to the proposed electoral compact system that guarantees an electoral victory to the winner of the national popular vote. However, that too has its problems and would only aggravate the problem you refer to (elections being decided in big states with big metro areas.)

For the proportional electoral vote system to really work in terms of making elections more competitive would require a drastic change in how congressional districts are drawn, and of course, an end to gerrymandering districts so they are dominated by one party or the other.

Otherwise, the only way for pro-lifers or conservative Republicans to make a difference at the national level would be for them all to move to red states and boost their electoral vote count.

As distressed as I am by the current state of affairs in Illinois, I don’t plan on moving, partly because I’m not really into hurricanes, kudzu, fire ants, tumbleweeds, wildfires, decade-long droughts, or year-round air conditioning. I’ll wait for global warming to bring them to me instead :-)

In the meantime I’ll put up with the tornadoes and blizzards and continue to work and pray for the reform of our state, which as I’ve said before, is a long-term project on par with praying for the conversion of Russia.

]]> By: Matt McDonald http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/05/14/how-long-in-the-wilderness/#comment-20040 Matt McDonald Sat, 16 May 2009 02:01:41 +0000 http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=8585#comment-20040 Elaine, yes, of course and each state should have the right to apportion it's electoral college if it's foolish enough to do so. Granted that your vote in the election doesn't influence the result, but then again if you're in a strongly Red or Blue district, it still doesn't count so you're in the same boat there. Obama is unlikely to spend a lot of time in your district anyway, because he can hit all the Chicago districts in 1 day, and send a few hundred million there in pork to secure it, vs. campaigning all over the state, and spreading is pork money thin. The true landslides you're talking about, where one party would not win any of the districts in a number of states are incredibly rare and even more rarely would that party be able to win a substantial majority in enough states to win the election. The reality is we are just not that disproportionately divided by party in any region. Elaine,

yes, of course and each state should have the right to apportion it’s electoral college if it’s foolish enough to do so.

Granted that your vote in the election doesn’t influence the result, but then again if you’re in a strongly Red or Blue district, it still doesn’t count so you’re in the same boat there. Obama is unlikely to spend a lot of time in your district anyway, because he can hit all the Chicago districts in 1 day, and send a few hundred million there in pork to secure it, vs. campaigning all over the state, and spreading is pork money thin.

The true landslides you’re talking about, where one party would not win any of the districts in a number of states are incredibly rare and even more rarely would that party be able to win a substantial majority in enough states to win the election. The reality is we are just not that disproportionately divided by party in any region.

]]> By: Elaine Krewer http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/05/14/how-long-in-the-wilderness/#comment-20039 Elaine Krewer Sat, 16 May 2009 01:41:41 +0000 http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=8585#comment-20039 Ah, Matt, but the Constitution leaves it up to states to decide HOW they will allot their electoral votes. (The district system was used in many states prior to the Civil War, by the way.) And the current system doesn't encourage interest in "small and large states"; it encourages interest only in perceived "swing" states while states that are solidly red or blue are ignored. It also means that if, say, a Democratic presidential candidate won NY, CA, FL, IL, and a few other large states by a fraction of a percentage point, while losing many other smaller states by a landslide, and even losing the overall popular vote, he or she would still win the election. And furthermore, it disenfranchises people like me (a downstate Illinois resident who votes GOP most of the time). Yes, I voted, and I voted for McCain (with some reservations) out of a sense of duty and aversion to Obama's anti-life views. However, I knew darn well it wasn't going to make any difference since Obama had Chicago in the bag, and with it, all of Illinois' electoral votes. With a congressional district system, however, my vote might have actually meant something since I live (just barely) in a Republican district (now represented by Cong. Aaron Schock.) Ah, Matt, but the Constitution leaves it up to states to decide HOW they will allot their electoral votes. (The district system was used in many states prior to the Civil War, by the way.) And the current system doesn’t encourage interest in “small and large states”; it encourages interest only in perceived “swing” states while states that are solidly red or blue are ignored.

It also means that if, say, a Democratic presidential candidate won NY, CA, FL, IL, and a few other large states by a fraction of a percentage point, while losing many other smaller states by a landslide, and even losing the overall popular vote, he or she would still win the election.

And furthermore, it disenfranchises people like me (a downstate Illinois resident who votes GOP most of the time). Yes, I voted, and I voted for McCain (with some reservations) out of a sense of duty and aversion to Obama’s anti-life views. However, I knew darn well it wasn’t going to make any difference since Obama had Chicago in the bag, and with it, all of Illinois’ electoral votes. With a congressional district system, however, my vote might have actually meant something since I live (just barely) in a Republican district (now represented by Cong. Aaron Schock.)

]]>