I have some thoughts on how many should vote, how many bills should be passed, how many treaties should be ratified, and how many regulations should be promulgated, over at Ricochet.
81 thoughts on “Quantity Versus Quality”
Comments are closed.
I have some thoughts on how many should vote, how many bills should be passed, how many treaties should be ratified, and how many regulations should be promulgated, over at Ricochet.
Comments are closed.
Well done Rand. This simple thought should be required reading for every american. You nailed it.
Mendel, whom you replied to, had a very good point.
This brings up what I think is the first rule of parasitism of any form. Make it more costly for the host (whatever you are leeching resources from) to get rid of you than to keep you and play along. The lawmakers who passed these burdensome laws could have done so in a way that would have made the laws easy to get rid of. But if they did, most of those laws might well be gone by now.
It will be hard to get rid of these regulations because the parasites exploiting these regulations need them to be hard to get rid of. And I don’t think there is any way to solve or mitigate this sort of problem without considerable short term pain.
They have made it painless to use food stamps. Now you just have an EBT card that you can swipe. Everybody will think its just a debit card.
Cass Sunstein (a brilliant, but horribly misguided individual) wrote a book called Nudge. His idea is that you influence people by making the bad choice more difficult to obtain. By having the cashier leave their station to get a pack of cigarettes, the buyer is made uncomfortable because they know that they are holding up the line.
Benjamin Franklin said:
But we can’t get their vote if we don’t make them victims.
The opposition has to go from “Spend Less!” to “Here’s a solid replacement program” to have any real hope. And … the “Spend More” crowd use the heckler’s veto on anything – real aspect of the program or not.
I can’t see how to -get- there. But I think I can describe something that would work. When you look at the various programs, the graft, corruption, forgeries and abuse revolve around the details of -how- the means testing is performed. And then the major problems are in how exactly the funds are spent once allocated.
Screw that.
Amendment: All assistance to further the General Welfare shall be equally distributed to every citizen of any age, sex, or wealth.
Yes, this means Bill Gates gets $1000/year in ‘food stamps’. So? “Wasting” money on Bill just gets taxed right back out of him. It’s fundamentally “progressive” in that the ‘welfare’ aspects are flat-rate, while the taxes are proportional.
By making it everyone, you know that the guy hanging out in the Obamaville under the overpass -has- enough money for food.
If we decide its necessary, we can collectively lean on the credit/debit card companies who issue the ‘food stamp cards’ to allocate some of the ‘company numbers’ at the start of all credit cards to certain tasks – and then limit them. (The first four digits are “Name of issuing bank on a list”, make one of the unused numbers ‘USA Federal Reserve-FOOD ONLY’) Then you’re enforcing the rules on the credit card companies and businesses – entities with assets to shake down and scare with lawyers.
The “Disbursement Problem” turns into double-checking the rolls for the dead and fake IDs.
The “Spending Problem” becomes “Well, I don’t much care if you bought $1000 of dorritos”, you had a -chance- of buying beans, rice and bread for a year.”
Add ‘USA Federal Reserve-Education’, ‘USA Federal Reserve-Medical’, …. Yes. There’s still a heck of a lot of cash being ‘handed out’ – but it relies upon the individuals making decisions with “their” cash now. The ‘intelligence’ of the market can easily exceed the intelligence of the central control. There’s just a fundamental difference between a system of, for, and -by- Aesop’s crickets. And one of, for, and -by- Aesop’s ants.
That’s what the parasites want you to think. It’s one of the reasons they want complication (the other is they do not appreciate the power of simplicity.)
To mitigate killing people changes should not be abrupt but that’s not a problem. The problem is agreeing on where we want to go. We are all born dependent. Independence is a natural state that most can achieve and the state should not interfere with that. During our independent productive years we should be preparing for the age when we become dependent again, either on our own life savings or family or both.
We should not be held hostage by the irresponsible. Soft heads and soft hearts are not compatible,
We demand responsibility with liability auto insurance (I disagree with this but I’m compelled to buy it.) Could we use the same reasoning to require safety net annuities for every child born? If the parents don’t provide a minimum coverage they both get permanently sterilized. No more poor in one generation.
Whenever anyone seriously suggests ending the Electoral College system, I invite them into a simple thought experiment where the president actually is elected by popular vote. In such a system, where will the candidates go? It is not hard to guess: the northeast megalopolis, California’s two major metro areas, and maybe some side trips to Seattle, Chicago, and a couple of Texan cities. They would go where the votes are.
Live in Omaha? You would be lucky to see a campaign’s third-assistant press secretary stop by. Rural Nebraska? You can watch the campaign on CNN or Fox. That’s it! You won’t have votes enough to attract a national candidate.
We already have the term “flyover states.” Popular elections would only serve to increase this trend.
Live in Omaha? You would be lucky to see a campaign’s third-assistant press secretary stop by.
When’s the last time a presidential campaign spent time in Nebraska? Campaigns today ignore most states and most voters, focusing only on the 8-10 battleground states where campaigning might tip the result. It’s as crazy as letting Iowa and New Hampshire pick the nominees.
It’s really not hard to look stuff like this up.
That was for the May 15, 2012 Nebraska GOP primary.
According to FairVote the 2012 campaigns only had public campaign events in twelve states. Two of those states (Minnesota and Michigan) hosted a single appearance each. Out of the 253 total campaign events, 149 — most of them — were held in Ohio, Florida or Virginia.
What’s your point? Did Romney, or did he not, personally campaign in Nebraska?
Yes, because they had to. It changes in every election. But they never will visit the smaller states if your dream is achieved.
Did Romney, or did he not, personally campaign in Nebraska?
Not for the general election, the one decided by the electoral college.
But they never will visit the smaller states if your dream is achieved.
The only small states they visit now are Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire. The EC doesn’t favor small states, it favors evenly divided states, especially large evenly divided states.
The irony here is that the electoral college currently favors the Democrats. Romney got 47% of the popular vote, but he had to win Colorado — a state he lost by over 5% — to reach 270.
Did Romney, or did he not, personally campaign in Nebraska?
Another non-answer. Yes, they do go to Omaha. They go to small town America. And they wouldn’t if they didn’t have to.
Only to win the nomination. Then, when it comes to deciding whether the country will be run by a Republican or a Democrat, they stick to 10 battleground states.
Agreed. It is important for national cohesion for votes to be geographically well distributed. Effectively disenfranchising flyover country is not a recipe for fairness, or tranquility.
It is important for national cohesion for votes to be geographically well distributed.
Votes are people, and people are not uniformly distributed.
Effectively disenfranchising flyover country
What an Orwellian use of the word “disenfranchising”. A popular vote would make votes in “flyover country” worth exactly as much as a vote anywhere else. That’s the opposite of disenfranchisement.
A popular vote would make votes in “flyover country” worth exactly as much as a vote anywhere else.
No, it would’t. Do you make this stuff up just to push your agenda? What’s the point of spending a week in Montana when you can travel up the left coast and get a huge swath of people in one to two days?
If you insist on disenfranchising less populace states, you better prepare for an insurrection. What a stupid idea.
That was the degree to which the Founders thought that the states should have leeway in determining how they determined their electors.
Indeed, and it’s that very flexibility that makes the National Popular Vote proposal feasible.
This is a very important point to make when arguing with modern democraphiles about ending the Electoral College and electing the president by popular vote.
There’s any question that the Founders opposed direct popular election of the president (and Senators, for that matter). But that hardly settles the question.
Somebody give this man the Cocoa Puffs he’s cuckoo for.
Indeed, and it’s that very flexibility that makes the National Popular Vote proposal feasible.
So, are you okay with eliminating Reynolds vs Sims? I mean, if the states should have their way, why did the Supreme Court interfere?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims
I will go so far as to say that urban centers, in particular, are affected by herd mentality. Their votes are highly correlated, and should thereby be discounted to have less impact.
Now that’s what I call disenfranchising. And since when aren’t rural votes highly correlated?
No person’s vote should be worth more, or less, than another’s.
Exactly, and that is the point of the Electoral College. Why should the cities decide everything? If you understand WHY we have an Electoral College it is because the smaller colonies knew that colonies like Virginia would decide everything.
Why should the cities decide everything?
Cities don’t vote. People vote. People don’t stop being people when they live in a city.
If you understand WHY we have an Electoral College it is because the smaller colonies knew that colonies like Virginia would decide everything
And instead, 200+ years later, it’s Virginia, Ohio and Florida that decide everything. They collectively have 12% of the U.S. population, but receive 60% of presidential general election campaigning.
Small states wanted power out of proportion to their populations, and the Founders gave in to their demands, because otherwise there wouldn’t have been a union. But no one should mistake that eighteenth century power grab for some sort of lofty timeless principle that offers those states or the country any great benefit two centuries later.
It wasn’t a “power grab.” It was a desire not to be bullied by a majority. Which is the problem with a democracy.
And instead, 200+ years later, it’s Virginia, Ohio and Florida that decide everything. They collectively have 12% of the U.S. population, but receive 60% of presidential general election campaigning.
That is a fatuous lie. There are 100 senators, equally divided. This gives Rhode Island fair representation (what do you have against Rhode Island anyway?). The West bands together to fight the East in certain cases, and they win.
And who really cares where the money goes? Some billionaire is putting a gazillion dollars into global warming awareness, big deal. Public workers unions use my tax dollars to get democrats elected. It’s the way money works.
“t was a desire not to be bullied by a majority. Which is the problem with a democracy.”
Jim sees that as a feature.
It was a desire not to be bullied by a majority. Which is the problem with a democracy.
They wanted disproportionate power — what politicians don’t? — and had the bargaining power to insist on it. Just as the slave states wanted more House seats than their free populations justified: they insisted on disproportionate representation, and got it, all the better to defend slavery (or, as they would put it, not be bullied by Northern interests). After abolition they had to fall back on the anti-democratic Senate filibuster and committee system to defend segregation (or, again, to not be bullied by the Northern majority).
There’s no question that majorities can go wrong, but it’s artificially empowered minorities that have a particularly bad track record in our history.
what do you have against Rhode Island anyway?
Nothing. As a New Hampshire resident I’m arguing against my own interests. NH is quadruply blessed:
1) It holds the first presidential primary, and therefore its 1.3m people get more personal attention from presidential candidates than most of the other states combined. Members of my family have shaken hands with a number of candidates, including two future presidents, and that isn’t uncommon here.
2) It’s one of the ten battleground states, so it gets more general election attention than 40 other states (with populations totaling hundreds of millions) put together.
3) It gets a Senator for every 650,000 residents (vs. California, which gets one for every 19,000,000)
4) It gets an electoral college vote for every 325,000 residents (vs. California, which gets one for every 690,000)
This is wonderful for New Hampshire, and ridiculously unfair. The order of primaries should rotate, the president should be elected by popular vote, and the Senate (which, like the Electoral College, currently favors Democrats) should be abolished. New Hampshire’s loss would be the country’s gain.
“They wanted disproportionate power — what politicians don’t? — and had the bargaining power to insist on it. Just as the slave states wanted more House seats than their free populations justified: they insisted on disproportionate representation, and got it, all the better to defend slavery (or, as they would put it, not be bullied by Northern interests).”
Ahh the evolution of Godwin. Montana having the same number of senators as California is like the South having slaves. What a disgusting analogy. Might as well take it further. Under your grand solution, people who live in Montana would be slaves California without political representation or political recourse.
“There’s no question that majorities can go wrong”
That’s why we have checks and balances.
“but it’s artificially empowered minorities that have a particularly bad track record in our history.”
BS. Small states don’t have a bad track record in our history. Wyoming hasn’t caused us any problems domestically or internationally. Don’t tar North Dakota with slavery.
“Nothing. As a New Hampshire resident I’m arguing against my own interests. ”
No, you are arguing in favor of your party’s interests. You want to remove the checks and balances that make our country great and replace them with cynical power structures that favor your patriarchal political ideology. You have no allegiance to NH, your allegiance is to the Democrat party.
Under your grand solution, people who live in Montana would be slaves California without political representation or political recourse.
Under my grand solution, as with Madison and Hamilton’s, a person in Montana would have the same political representation as a person in California. You think the person in California deserves less. Why?
No, you are arguing in favor of your party’s interests.
Have you noticed which party currently holds an advantage in the Senate, and in the Electoral College? Hint: it isn’t the Republicans.
It’s a fact. People in big cities do not think for themselves. They are a herd. They should vote as a herd, with appropriate weighting given.
So all men are created equal, except for the ones who live in cities, who are inferior?
It’s not a question of equality, it’s a question of statistical significance.
So you’re going to weight some votes to count more than others, and then say that it isn’t a matter of equality?
It’s a matter of ensuring diversity. You’re not against diversity, are you?
“I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough laws.” — definitely NOT B. Obama
I have some thoughts on how many should vote
Those thoughts seem to boil down to: fewer than are eligible, because quality matters more than quantity.
However, the elected officials who define our election procedures have varying opinions on which voters exhibit the desired quality, and human nature being human nature, they tend to consider their supporters to be of higher quality than their opponents’. So this search for “quality over quantity” devolves into a naked power struggle. And it’s an unstable system: winning an election lets you change the rules, making it more likely that you will win the next one.
Those thoughts seem to boil down to: fewer than are eligible, because quality matters more than quantity.
This petulant argument holds no weight. Do you know what is unfair? That major urban centers now decide everything within a state (thanks to the Supreme Court’s interference).
And you liberals, who are so obsessed with removing the Electoral College because of some insistence that the popular vote is more democratic, seem to have no problem with NINE JUDGES determining the outcome of 300 million Americans.
However, the elected officials who define our election procedures have varying opinions on which voters exhibit the desired quality, and human nature being human nature, they tend to consider their supporters to be of higher quality than their opponents’. So this search for “quality over quantity” devolves into a naked power struggle. And it’s an unstable system: winning an election lets you change the rules, making it more likely that you will win the next one.
I see that you understand how elected officials can become corrupt. Yet you give them more and more power with every election.
I’m all for taking the power to set legislative districts and make election procedures away from elected officials, and giving it to disinterested parties.
God save us from “disinterested” parties. There are only two kinds: the clueless, and the unscrupulous.
Jim has a fetish for bureaucracies.
“Jim has a fetish for bureaucracies.”
Indeed. His entire argument here is in favor of concentrated power at the federal level, that states should have less power over their own land, resources, people, and representation at the federal level.
It is in vogue right now for Democrats to advocate that the checks and balances put in place by the founders be torn asunder in order for Democrats to gain more power and money. The very things that could destroy the country that founders warned us about are things that today’s progressive Obama Democrats work to implement.
There is no evidence that today’s intellectual left is anywhere near as capable intellectually and philosophically as our founders. That they want to tear down our institutions and replace them with one party rule not only of politics but also of government institutions shows how far removed from the wisdom of the founders they are.
Mob rule is why we have a republic and not a true democracy. Democrats think they can steer the mob and ride it like a surfer rides a wave and they may for a time but they fail to consider how often surfers wipe out.
Or, how often the intellectualoids who midwife revolutions end up against the wall with a blindfold and a cigarette when an unscrupulous strongman seizes control over the repressive machinery they helped construct.
The only small states they visit now are Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire.
Again, so what. The divided states continuously change. This does nothing to further your argument for removing the Electoral College.
The EC doesn’t favor small states, it favors evenly divided states, especially large evenly divided states.
This is nonsense.
1) It holds the first presidential primary, and therefore its 1.3m people get more personal attention from presidential candidates than most of the other states combined. Members of my family have shaken hands with a number of candidates, including two future presidents, and that isn’t uncommon here.
Interesting but irrelevant. How many presidents won NH?
2) It’s one of the ten battleground states, so it gets more general election attention than 40 other states (with populations totaling hundreds of millions) put together.
Again, irrelevant. If South Dakota became important, more money would go there. Money is an effect, not a cause.
3) It gets a Senator for every 650,000 residents (vs. California, which gets one for every 19,000,000)
That’s the point. Care to be bullied by New York?
4) It gets an electoral college vote for every 325,000 residents (vs. California, which gets one for every 690,000)
Again, that’s the point.
This is wonderful for New Hampshire, and ridiculously unfair. The order of primaries should rotate, the president should be elected by popular vote, and the Senate (which, like the Electoral College, currently favors Democrats) should be abolished. New Hampshire’s loss would be the country’s gain.
You whine about disproportional representation, but you still haven’t justified why 9 judges get to decree rules over 300 million people.
You whine about disproportional representation, but you still haven’t justified why 9 judges get to decree rules over 300 million people.
Supreme Court justices aren’t representatives. As for why they get to review laws, ask the framers of the Constitution and John Marshall. The main thing I’d change about the Supreme Court (and federal courts in general) would be to replace lifetime appointments with long, fixed terms (e.g. 18 years).
I knew you’d bring that up. It’s a complete non point.
I’m asking YOU why you accept their decisions but whine about the Senate.
Jim,
You provide living proof to anyone who questions the Founders’ rationale for the Constitution. They were spot-on in understanding the irrationality of mob rule, fashionable ideas, and rush-to-judgment legislation. They understood just how easily well-meaning people could be swayed into believing that corrupt politicians could actually be on their side. They did everything to set up a system that prevents gullible people from electing politicians whose intent was tyranny.
It is truly incredible, that at that critical juncture in history, they got it so amazingly right.
It was Madison who considered “a republican Government in which the majority rule the minority” the “least imperfect” of all governments, and wrote that “the vital principle of republican government is the lex majoris parties, the will of the majority.” Don’t blame Madison for the concessions he was forced to make to get the Constitution adopted. The Constitution was every bit as much a pragmatic compromise as the Affordable Care Act.
First of all, this is all 7th grade material. Of course it was a compromise. Your information is nothing new. But it works because it was a compromise.
Second, quite whitewashing history. Not a single republican voted for Obamacare. You know that and you are lying.
“The Constitution was every bit as much a pragmatic compromise as the Affordable Care Act.”
Hmm, who compromised on Obamacare? No one. You certainly can’t say that Obama compromised with his insurance company donors. I guess you could say that insurance companies compromised with Obama but they had little choice considering the totalitarian vindictiveness of the Obama administration. We have all seen, from industry to industry, what happens to companies, groups, and individuals that Obama views as his enemies.
Audits, investigations, baseless lawsuits, jail time, regulations as retribution, and illegal surveillance of communications are just a few of the tactics used by Obama and the Democrats.
Hmm, who compromised on Obamacare? No one.
You have a short memory. Legislators who wanted a single federal exchange compromised with one who wanted state exchanges. Legislators who wanted a public option compromised with others who threatened to filibuster over the public option. Don’t you remember the “Cornhusker Kickback”? The “Louisiana Purchase”? “Gator Aid”? Those were all compromises.
The Connecticut Compromise of 1787 that gave each state two senators was just the Cornhusker Kickback of its day, the price paid for votes that were needed to pass the Constitution.
There was no compromise with the people who thought that the government shouldn’t be in charge of the nation’s health-care system. It was just leftists arguing with leftists.
And there was no 1787 compromise with people who thought we should have a king. It was just republicans arguing with republicans. What’s your point?
You make my point for me. In 1787 there was no political opposition to having a constitution. In 2009 there was a great deal of political opposition to a government takeover of the health-care industry. It was not compromised with; it was ignored, because “I won.” The Democrats compromised with themselves, which is why there was virtually no Republican support, a first for such sweeping legislation.
In 1787 there was no political opposition to having a constitution.
Of course there was! Not only were there antifederalists who opposed revising the Articles of Confederation, there were still Tories who wanted reunification with England. But the framers of the Constitution were able to ignore them, because they’d won the contest for public support. It was the voters who set the parameters within which compromises were made, both in 1787 and in 2009.
Hate to break it to you, but the Articles of Confederation was a constitution. This was an argument about how to organize the country, not how to take over the health-care system.
You have a short memory. Legislators who wanted a single federal exchange compromised with one who wanted state exchanges. Legislators who wanted a public option compromised with others who threatened to filibuster over the public option. Don’t you remember the “Cornhusker Kickback”? The “Louisiana Purchase”? “Gator Aid”? Those were all compromises.
Nice try to get the foot out of your mouth. You democrats think that compromises within your own party is what is called compromise? How absurd. It just shows how self-righteous you are that you won’t even consider bipartisanship as real compromise.
Not a single republican voted for Obamacare.
You democrats think that compromises within your own party is what is called compromise? How absurd. It just shows how self-righteous you are that you won’t even consider bipartisanship as real compromise.
It’s ridiculous that you consider compromise across party lines as the only “real” compromise. Compromise happens inside parties all the time, and there was plenty of compromise at the Constitutional Convention, before we even had parties.
Hate to break it to you, but the Articles of Confederation was a constitution.
And the federal government had a large role in healthcare before 2010. The GOP preferred that status quo to passing the ACA, just as antifederalists preferred keeping the Articles to passing the Constitution. In both cases those opposed to change had insufficient public support to block the new laws.
And the federal government had a large role in healthcare before 2010.
It was trivial compared to now.
It is called the United States of America.
(1) The order of primaries should rotate, (2) the president should be elected by popular vote, and (3) the Senate … should be abolished.
Why did the founders disagree with you, Jim? Because they understood what you still get wrong. Because of wrong thinking like yours we have been progressively dismantling the things they got right. Before by bad amendments, now by executive order.
They didn’t give the vote to everyone, for a reason. We call ourselves a democracy but we are not and were specifically never intended to be. You Jim would like to turn this country into a democracy which does not… establish Justice … and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity In fact, it does just the opposite as we are seeing more clearly as time goes by.
Your third point is to complete the damage already done by making senators win by popular vote. Why didn’t you go for broke and eliminate states altogether and just have federal law?
We are suppose to elect those mature adults that would secure liberty and our future for all our people, not rock the vote. Only BHO could make Jimmy Carter look good. JC was at least a reasonable although bad choice. BHO was never a reasonable choice. Reason was no factor in his election.
Distributing power to the states and the people makes our system more robust. Centralizing power makes it less flexible and fragile. Then let them pass more laws and wave those laws for friends and you’ve gone from republic past democracy and straight to tyranny. Rule of law doesn’t protect us anymore as it once did.
It’s not that the founders were smarter than you Jim. They simply had more wisdom.
Why did the founders disagree with you, Jim?
Where the Senate is concerned, the founders (Madison and Hamilton, anyway) agreed with me:
It’s not that the founders were smarter than you Jim. They simply had more wisdom.
We don’t give every state the same number of senators because the Constitution’s framers thought it wise — they thought the opposite. It was simply, as Hamilton put it, “a contest for power” that the small states won. As a delegate from Delaware threatened, if the big states did not give them disproportionate power in the Senate, “the small ones will find some foreign ally of more honor and good faith, who will take them by the hand and do them justice.” Small states don’t have equal representation in the Senate because of some rational principle, they have it because they threatened to secede and ally themselves with foreign powers. It’s a capping irony that this exercise of raw power politics is now enshrined as holy writ.
When all you have is a hammer, everything is a power grab.
It’s a capping irony that this exercise of raw power politics is now enshrined as holy writ.
It’s not ironic. The Founders understood human nature and its corruptibility. Unlike you, who falls for the latest con person as long as you get stuff.
“Small states don’t have equal representation in the Senate because of some rational principle, they have it because they threatened to secede and ally themselves with foreign powers.”
Ultimately, the founders agreed that small states deserve protection from the tyranny of the mob. That some thought differently at one point during the process does not invalidate the ultimate agreement.
What do you think would happen today if things were as you desire and small states were the butt end of partisan politics with no electoral recourse or representation? They would revolt, as we have seen countless times throughout history. Why put our country through that when allowing smaller states to have representation removes the possibility?
The country is more than just people. We survive by a variety of industries, like agriculture, where population is not a reflection of the importance of the industry. Why shouldn’t people who have important roles in the success of our country have representation? Why should people who Democrats look down on also be subject to tyranny from people thousands of miles away who neither respect or understand their way of life?
Checks and balances are a good thing Jim. They are part of the American Exceptionalism that sets us apart from the tyranny that has been the norm for human history. Are you a progressive or a regressive?
Ultimately, the founders agreed that small states deserve protection from the tyranny of the mob.
No, they agreed that giving in to the small states’ demands was better than being stuck with the Articles of Confederation. You’re mistaking pragmatic dealmaking for a completely imaginary 180º change of heart.
with no electoral recourse or representation
I’m arguing for equal representation for every voter. You’re arguing that people like me who live in small states should have more representation than people like Rand who live in large states. There’s no good reason for things to be slanted that way. It’s a historical artifact.
There are many good reasons for things to be “slanted that way.” They are called “states.” We know you only believe in the State.
As Hamilton put it, “As states are a collection of individual men, which ought we to respect most, the rights of the people composing them, or of the artificial beings resulting from the composition? Nothing could be more preposterous or absurd than to sacrifice the former to the latter.”
You’re defending the preposterous and absurd.
New Hampshire gets fair representation in the Senate, and not in the House.
The whole Go^*(6%(&)* point of the Senate and the appointment of Senators by member States Houses was to be a firewall against a tyrannical central government and an irrational House.
As you are obsessed with a central government that reaches into everyone’s daily affairs, you can’t understand how a Senate might be a good thing.
The whole Go^*(6%(&)* point of the Senate and the appointment of Senators by member States Houses was to be a firewall against a tyrannical central government and an irrational House.
Those were motivations for having a Senate, but not for giving every state the same number of senators. Giving small states Senate seats out of proportion to their populations was just a political payoff.
Small states don’t have equal representation in the Senate because of some rational principle, they have it because they threatened to secede and ally themselves with foreign powers.
Exactly what others have been telling you Jim. Our founders had the wisdom to agree.
Call it a power grab if you like. All arguments can be described as such. Doesn’t change a thing.
Yes, Jim’s hero must be Woodrow Wilson, who began the dismantling of Federalism. It is no surprise that he was the first President to put people in internment camps and instituted state-run propaganda with his Committee on Public Information.
As Hamilton put it, “As states are a collection of individual men, which ought we to respect most, the rights of the people composing them, or of the artificial beings resulting from the composition? Nothing could be more preposterous or absurd than to sacrifice the former to the latter.”
You only quote Hamilton. I find that amusing, as he was the most vocal proponent for the State. He also wanted a central bank.
Yep, all of the words founding fathers can be distilled into Hamilton quotes.
Would you prefer I quote Madison?
Or, more succinctly: “the vital principle of republican government is the lex majoris parties, the will of the majority.”
Can you answer Madison’s challenge, and make the case for why minority government is better than majority rule?
Come on. Let’s give Jim his due. He admits the left is the problem…
…it’s artificially empowered minorities that have a particularly bad track record in our history.
Artificially empowered by having judges that should be impeached reversing laws of the people and by funneling tons of taxpayer money to democrat campaigns.
Can you answer Madison’s challenge, and make the case for why minority government is better than majority rule?
With ease… any government that secures the liberty of its citizens. In that case a king that cares is best, but kings die and are replaced by those that don’t care.
So best would be a good king that never dies… I’ve heard of one.