January 6th Committee Hearings

[homersapien 11,367]

1 hour ago, autigeremt said:

You have a choice Mr. All That's Leftist. There's nothing fascist about it. YOU don't believe in the Republic and therefore do not believe in the United States or the COTUS. Thanks for playing. 

First, I am not "all that's leftist".   That's a stupid manichaean perspective and simple-minded.

Second, I do believe in a republic (a pure democracy is unworkable) and I believe in our republic. But that doesn't mean I think minority governments are OK. 

Nor is my belief blind to the problems that remain from artifacts in our constitution - such as the electoral college. (And in case you didn't know, there are many serious political scientists that agree with me.  That doesn't mean they - or I - are not patriotic.)

The Republican party is trending strongly toward fascism, as their recent activities to dictate the outcome of elections indicate.  They seem more focused on controlling the available levers of power then they are in obtaining a majority of the vote.  This is only possible because of our archaic electoral system.

But even if possible, establishing and maintaining such minority rule is not a healthy trend for our country, regardless if it happens to suit you as an individual (for the present).  It has already caused one civil war.

We have a long history of abusing our representational system and it has always led to strife and discord.  We need to overhaul our electoral system to prioritize what's in our country's best long term interest instead of what's in a given party's best interest.  Minority governments are not in the country's best interest.

Nor are minority governments in any republic's best interest, as the below argument clearly states (in red).

Minority governments are not - as you seem to think - a feature of republics, they are a problem for them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/minority-rule-cannot-last-america/617272/

Minority Rule Cannot Last in America

It never has.

By Kenneth Owen

 

Minority rule is fast becoming the defining feature of the American republic. In 2000 and 2016, presidential candidates who received fewer votes than their opponents were nevertheless sent to the White House. Joe Biden’s 2020 victory came not because he won nearly 7 million more votes nationally than President Donald Trump, but rather because he won about 200,000 votes more in a handful of swing states. Congress has seen a similar dynamic: Though Republican senators make up the majority in the chamber, they represent more than 20 million fewer Americans than Democratic senators do. Such lopsided electoral calculus seems to fly in the face of both parties’ principles. It cannot last.

Though this period of minority rule is new since World War II, it is far from unprecedented. Unequal legislative apportionment has been a recurring quality of American government since its establishment. Parties who have found themselves in power by institutional oddities rather than overall weight of vote have refused to reach across the aisle, instead using their institutional advantage to further consolidate their hold on power. Although such tactics have been successful in the short term, they have ultimately been only temporary expedients. When the minority parties were finally removed from power, the backlash against them was swift and strong.

Begin at the nation’s founding. At the time when American colonists started actively considering independence from Britain, Pennsylvania’s legislature no longer proportionally represented its population. The Pennsylvania Assembly had proved efficient and professional throughout the 18th century, defending the interests of the colonial population against British imperial officials, but as the colony’s population expanded westward, eastern elites refused to extend representation to the predominantly Scotch-Irish and German immigrants living in the new settlements. Additionally, while Philadelphia had grown to become the most populous city in North America, political leaders from the surrounding counties refused to increase the city’s number of representatives. By the early 1770s, the state’s most radical voices in favor of revolution—Philadelphians and westerners—were systematically underrepresented in the legislature.

In the short term, the denial of proportional representation worked: Pennsylvania’s government, designed to amplify moderate and conservative voices, was notoriously slow to endorse resistance to Britain, and in 1776 refused to allow its delegates in the Continental Congress to vote for independence. By this point, though, Pennsylvania’s radicals had taken matters into their own hands. Drawing on protest movements that had gathered pace in 1774 and 1775, they organized a series of conventions giving greater voice to the marginalized. When, in May 1776, the Continental Congress called on states to form their own governments, Pennsylvanians bypassed the colonial assembly entirely, and used the convention and committee movements to send pro-independence delegates to Congress and to write their own state constitution.

In September 1776, Pennsylvania’s radicals took their revenge. Each county was given more or less equal representation in the first legislature. This measure was about as biased toward the western counties as the previous arrangements had been toward eastern ones. But having been shut out of power for so long, the radicals were keen to ensure they held the reins. Pennsylvania’s first constitution, by a long shot the most radically democratic of all the original 13 states’, was bitterly contested for the next decade. Conservative opponents tried, and failed, to revise the state constitution four times from 1776 until 1783. Though they finally succeeded in writing a new constitution in 1790, it came at the cost of 14 years of unstable and rancorous government.

Just decades later, in the antebellum period, similar dynamics played out once again. Slaveholding states sought to use constitutional arrangements to maintain minority power. The Missouri Compromise of 1820, which admitted slaveholding Missouri to the union at the same time as free Maine, maintained balance in the Senate between free and slave states. Southern politicians considered this balance vital, as it gave a de facto veto to slaveholding states. But demographic change over the ensuing decades quickly meant that northerners outnumbered southerners. Yet only in the aftermath of the notorious Compromise of 1850, and the admission of California as a free state,  did the balance between free and slave states snap—at a time when the population of free states was 13.4 million, well exceeding the 9.7 million inhabitants of slave states (of whom 3.2 million were enslaved and couldn’t vote). In the decade that followed, the South attempted to re-create its minority veto, with disastrous results.

The politics of the 1850s became consumed with the question of slavery. Southern slaveowners insisted on a new Fugitive Slave Act in 1850, which compelled northern authorities and other residents to actively participate in arresting and returning fugitive slaves to their enslavers. Northerners responded furiously, adopting antislavery politics in greater numbers. Southerners, fearful of the growing strength of the abolitionist movement and the specter of a permanent electoral minority, demanded more slaveholding territory as the nation expanded westward—many called for slavery to be legal in all federal territories, and advocated foreign war to annex new slaveholding territory, such as Cuba.

In 1854, Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois attempted to broker a compromise between North and South with his Kansas-Nebraska Act. Allowing residents of the Kansas and Nebraska territories to vote on whether to allow slavery within their borders, the act was seen in the North as a naked attempt to extend slavery beyond the Missouri Compromise line and give greater weight to slaveholders in the Senate. Voters in the North turned out in force, leading to the creation of the Republican Party and, ultimately, the election of Abraham Lincoln as president. The South’s attempts to continually impose minority rule on the North failed, leading to secession, the Civil War, and the greatest number of military casualties for a single war in American history.

Population shifts contributed to a third episode of minority rule in the early 20th century. Rapid industrialization in the years after the Civil War saw the growth of megacities that fundamentally transformed the demographics of several states. In Illinois, Chicago’s population grew from 112,000 in 1860—6 percent of total state residents—to 2.7 million in 1920, or 40 percent of total state residents. According to the state’s constitution, the state legislature should have reapportioned following each decennial census; from 1900 onwards, downstate leaders refused to do so, leaving Chicago heavily underrepresented and overtaxed.

In the 1920s, the repeated refusal of the downstate minority to reapportion the legislature was met with increasing frustration from Chicago representatives. Throughout the decade, the city council passed angry resolutions condemning the malapportionment. In 1925, with more and more time at council meetings devoted to the topic, the council passed a resolution calling for the city to secede from Illinois, and to form the State of Chicago.

Downstate defenders of the status quo continued to dig their heels in, even forming organizations such as the League for the Defense of Downstate Voters. Only in 1955 did the Illinois legislature finally bow to the inevitable, redistricting for the first time since 1901. Even then, downstate leaders struck a deal to maintain control in the state Senate, until Supreme Court rulings in Baker v. Carr (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964) decreed that state legislative-district populations be “of roughly equal size.” Ever since, Chicago and Cook County politicians have dominated Illinois elections.

What, then, of the prospects of minority rule at the federal level in the coming years? The coming years seem likely to see Republicans attempt to strengthen their grip on power despite their weakness at the ballot box. With the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, conservatives have a 6–3 majority on the bench, and important rulings loom on issues such as health care, abortion rights, and gay marriage. Policies supported by a majority of Americans in opinion polls could be ruled unconstitutional, all because a president who lost the popular vote nominated three justices, and senators representing a minority of the American population confirmed them. With President-elect Biden likely facing a divided Congress, Democrats have no institutional means of turning electoral support into legislative action, to say nothing of fixing underlying representation issues.

But Republicans may not be able to sustain their power for long—at least not peacefully. As the cases above show, when parties commit themselves to minority rule, the backlash can be severe. While the letter of the law allows Republicans to control the Senate and the judiciary, the spirit of republican government demands otherwise. The two cannot long exist in tension with each other. Though the 2020 election did not result in a blue tidal wave, it did suggest emerging Democratic majorities in formerly red states such as Arizona and Georgia. If, eventually, demographic change adds North Carolina and Texas to the mix, national elections would more accurately reflect the national popular vote. History suggests that Republicans would then pay—dearly—for their years of minority rule. If Republicans hope for greater success than their historical counterparts, they would do well to heed the message that a party cannot maintain power forever, and embark on a more genuinely collaborative and bipartisan approach to government. Short of that, they risk much more than their political careers.

 

This story is part of the project “The Battle for the Constitution,” in partnership with the National Constitution Center.

Kenneth Owen is an associate professor of history at the University of Illinois at Springfield.

Edited June 15, 2022 by homersapien

[autigeremt 6,599]

3 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

You should feel the same about those uninformed lost souls that wanted to wreck that same Republic on Jan 6th, 2021 and about those still ignorantly proclaiming election fraud today.

I feel this way about both sides...they are responsible for everything. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 hour ago, autigeremt said:

You have a choice Mr. All That's Leftist. There's nothing fascist about it. YOU don't believe in the Republic and therefore do not believe in the United States or the COTUS. Thanks for playing. 

Right.  The constitution and the republic are the country, not the people.  The "government of the people" was never a serious endeavor.  We are here to serve power, tradition, capital, self.  There is no common good, only the common interests of capital.

It is a shame we erased Thomas Paine.

 

 

 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

31 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

I feel this way about both sides...they are responsible for everything. 

There are obviously differences or,,, you wouldn't bother to argue. 

I suggest you think in terms of power, equality, humanity, balance.  Do you believe in capitalism or, simply believe the true capitalists?  The capitalists (400 individuals) control it all, media, entertainment, education, government means of production.

Do you want concentrating power or, relative equality?

[AUFAN78 3,894]

On 6/14/2022 at 9:29 AM, AU9377 said:

You still want me to believe that the problem was the lack of enough security and not the people pushing their way into a building and breaching every barrier.  The doors to the House chamber were barricaded closed.  They eventually pushed their way in and rummaged through the belongings of elected representatives.  There would have been no crime committed had every one of them been shot dead before they entered.

Nobody crawling thru a busted window believes they have been invited inside.

It should be obvious to all security was lacking. Seriously consider 10,000 additional troops with riot gear and the difference that would have made. This isn't complicated.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

We should also find out why Trump and Brooks did not intervene and, stop what they began.

[aubiefifty 16,761]

2 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

It should be obvious to all security was lacking. Seriously consider 10,000 additional troops with riot gear and the difference that would have made. This isn't complicated.

they claim a couple of pols took some of the pre insurrectionists around and showed them how to find others offices. i want to know who that was if it really happened. if it happened and they did it they are worse in my book than the folks storming the place.

[GoAU 1,600]

6 hours ago, AU9377 said:

At some point, if that popular vote differential continues to be in the millions, a real conversation will need to be had about the purpose of the electoral college system in modern times.  The constitution has competing and contradicting parts. 

The only two people not elected based on one man one vote majority are the President and Vice President.  Every other state official and every Senator and Congressman win or lose their elections based on receiving the majority of the votes cast in their election.  I would bet my life on the fact that if Donald Trump won the popular vote by over 3 million votes, all half of the country would be discussing is how urgently we need to change the system.

I guess you are claiming that someone living in a poor inner city neighborhood's vote should count less than someone's vote in rural Iowa.  I'm not sure how that makes sense.  Does it matter that one person is living in public housing while the other lives off publicly funded crop insurance programs?  They are both living on taxpayer money.  There are a lot of ways to get a government check in one form or another.  We often just describe one check as a subsidy and the other welfare.

Actually, you are missing something in your analogy.  As you mention, the House of Representatives is based on population, as you know larger population states wield more power.   However, in the Senate, it is appropriated evenly regardless of population.  The Electoral College is intended to be a hybrid of those systems.  The “power” of the urban masses certainly exists - it is directly represented by the number of electoral votes the state in question receives.  
 

Your argument is no more  valid than saying states like North Dakota don’t matter because they aren’t home to a major urban city.  

[icanthearyou 4,462]

25 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Your argument is no more  valid than saying states like North Dakota don’t matter because they aren’t home to a major urban city.  

I doubt anyone is disputing the founders put their thumbs on the scales.  I think many understand why.  I think the most casual observation would indicate they erred.  They were naive.  They believed the wealthy were more morally equipped to lead.

The question now is,,, do we live with the mistake or, correct it.

I hope you aren't suggesting that millions of acres of vacant land should have the same representation as million of human beings.  That really shouldn't be an argument.  It isn't the reason for the disproportion of the Senate.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

1 hour ago, aubiefifty said:

they claim a couple of pols took some of the pre insurrectionists around and showed them how to find others offices. i want to know who that was if it really happened. if it happened and they did it they are worse in my book than the folks storming the place.

I found this on YouTube. I think it is what you are describing.

 

[GoAU 1,600]

6 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I doubt anyone is disputing the founders put their thumbs on the scales.  I think many understand why.  I think the most casual observation would indicate they erred.  They were naive.  They believed the wealthy were more morally equipped to lead.

The question now is,,, do we live with the mistake or, correct it.

I hope you aren't suggesting that millions of acres of vacant land should have the same representation as million of human beings.  That really shouldn't be an argument.  It isn't the reason for the disproportion of the Senate.

No, that isn’t what I am suggesting.  If that were the case, each state would have the same number of electoral votes.   That is why California has 55 electoral votes compared to 3 in North Dakota    
 

California alone controls over 10% of the total electoral votes.  That is more than Alaska (3) , Delaware (3) , DC (3) Hawaii (4)  Idaho (4), Maine (4) Montana (3) New Hampshire (4), North Dakota (3), Rhode Island (4), South Dakota (3), Vermont (3), Wyoming (3), Nebraska (5), and West Virginia (5).   
 

By your logic, a handful of large urban areas would essentially control the nation, essentially eliminating anybinput of well over half of the states of our nation.  Essentially forcing them into the roles of share croppers just sending food to the cities.  
 

6 states alone (CA (55), TX (38), NY (29), FL (29) PA (20) and IL (20))  control 36% of the electoral college.  The founders were very intentional in giving states autonomy and significant ability to govern themselves.  The Federal government was never intended to wield all of the power, yet people continue to reduce the role of states rights.  The current electoral college does a reasonable job of reflecting both the population sizes and the autonomy of individual states. 
 

And yes, equal representation of all states equally, regardless of population is exactly the reason all states were given the same number of senate votes.  
 

 

[autigeremt 6,599]

19 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

There are obviously differences or,,, you wouldn't bother to argue. 

I suggest you think in terms of power, equality, humanity, balance.  Do you believe in capitalism or, simply believe the true capitalists?  The capitalists (400 individuals) control it all, media, entertainment, education, government means of production.

Do you want concentrating power or, relative equality?

I want true free markets, capitalism that is advancing access to the American dream and available for everyone willing to put in the work and achieve success based on their individual desires and hard work. No, I do not like the current mega monsters of capitalism but I do not want/support socialism either. I do not believe in equity but in equal access. One day I will die and none of this will matter but until then I will continue to advance the individuals access to freedom and a personal pursuit of happiness. 

[autigeremt 6,599]

13 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I doubt anyone is disputing the founders put their thumbs on the scales.  I think many understand why.  I think the most casual observation would indicate they erred.  They were naive.  They believed the wealthy were more morally equipped to lead.

The question now is,,, do we live with the mistake or, correct it.

I hope you aren't suggesting that millions of acres of vacant land should have the same representation as million of human beings.  That really shouldn't be an argument.  It isn't the reason for the disproportion of the Senate.

In other words you believe the cities should be able to tell the country how to live, the laws they should abide by and the taxes they should pay to fund their way of life. ooooook

[icanthearyou 4,462]

2 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

I want true free markets, capitalism that is advancing access to the American dream and available for everyone willing to put in the work and achieve success based on their individual desires and hard work. No, I do not like the current mega monsters of capitalism but I do not want/support socialism either. I do not believe in equity but in equal access. One day I will die and none of this will matter but until then I will continue to advance the individuals access to freedom and a personal pursuit of happiness. 

I am sorry, but that is ignorant.  The choice is not, has never been binary.  You have been trained, not educated.

I do not want to insult you.  I really don't.

Concentrating power is a greater issue than some silly ideological debate.

[autigeremt 6,599]

Just now, icanthearyou said:

I am sorry, but that is ignorant.  The choice is not, has never been binary.  You have been trained, not educated.

I do not want to insult you.  I really don't.

Concentrating power is a greater issue than some silly ideological debate.

I'm going to take the high road here....but you could imagine what I'd "like" to say. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

2 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

In other words you believe the cities should be able to tell the country how to live, the laws they should abide by and the taxes they should pay to fund their way of life. ooooook

Yes.  And, those interests should be balanced.  Democracy is good. 

I do not believe you understand the power argument you are making.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

3 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

I'm going to take the high road here....but you could imagine what I'd "like" to say. 

I know you are very angry.  I am sorry.

[autigeremt 6,599]

1 minute ago, icanthearyou said:

I know you are very angry.  I am sorry.

No you aren't...and if I were angry everyone would see it here. I'll let you show your true colors to the world while I sit and smile.

[AU9377 4,926]

15 hours ago, GoAU said:

Actually, you are missing something in your analogy.  As you mention, the House of Representatives is based on population, as you know larger population states wield more power.   However, in the Senate, it is appropriated evenly regardless of population.  The Electoral College is intended to be a hybrid of those systems.  The “power” of the urban masses certainly exists - it is directly represented by the number of electoral votes the state in question receives.  
 

Your argument is no more  valid than saying states like North Dakota don’t matter because they aren’t home to a major urban city.  

Once upon a time, the electoral college process made sense.  It doesn't today.  The only reason that it is used is that it happens to have been provided for when the Republic was formed.  It is no more needed today than the House of Lords being appointed by the Queen was in England prior to their reforms.

[AU9377 4,926]

47 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

In other words you believe the cities should be able to tell the country how to live, the laws they should abide by and the taxes they should pay to fund their way of life. ooooook

One person one vote isn't a difficult process to understand.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

2 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

One person one vote isn't a difficult process to understand.

The hallmark of democracy, the government of the people.  Allowing money into this system is the means by which to destroy America, freedom, opportunity for all.

 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

8 hours ago, GoAU said:

No, that isn’t what I am suggesting.  If that were the case, each state would have the same number of electoral votes.   That is why California has 55 electoral votes compared to 3 in North Dakota    
 

California alone controls over 10% of the total electoral votes.  That is more than Alaska (3) , Delaware (3) , DC (3) Hawaii (4)  Idaho (4), Maine (4) Montana (3) New Hampshire (4), North Dakota (3), Rhode Island (4), South Dakota (3), Vermont (3), Wyoming (3), Nebraska (5), and West Virginia (5).   
 

By your logic, a handful of large urban areas would essentially control the nation, essentially eliminating anybinput of well over half of the states of our nation.  Essentially forcing them into the roles of share croppers just sending food to the cities.  
 

6 states alone (CA (55), TX (38), NY (29), FL (29) PA (20) and IL (20))  control 36% of the electoral college.  The founders were very intentional in giving states autonomy and significant ability to govern themselves.  The Federal government was never intended to wield all of the power, yet people continue to reduce the role of states rights.  The current electoral college does a reasonable job of reflecting both the population sizes and the autonomy of individual states. 
 

And yes, equal representation of all states equally, regardless of population is exactly the reason all states were given the same number of senate votes.  
 

 

I am sorry but,,, this is incorrect.  States rights had nothing to do with it.  You should read more on the debates at the time.  States votes to ratify had more to do with it.

The founders mistakenly distrusted the masses.  They genuinely believed the mob would get the government.  After all, it hadn't been that long since they themselves were the "mob".  They believed the wealthy were more morally equipped to lead society.  They forgot about the nature power.

My greatest problem with Jefferson is, he went along with this nonsense believing that violence would always prevent tyranny.  Either really stupid or, really disingenuous for a slave owner.

[autigeremt 6,599]

In the Republic system, laws are made by the elected representatives of the people. In a democracy, the will of the majority has the right to override the existing rights. In the Republic system, the will of the majority cannot be overridden since the constitution will protect those rights.

I'll take a Republic any day. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

53 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

In the Republic system, laws are made by the elected representatives of the people. In a democracy, the will of the majority has the right to override the existing rights. In the Republic system, the will of the majority cannot be overridden since the constitution will protect those rights.

I'll take a Republic any day. 

The choice is not binary.  Do you understand?

[GoAU 1,600]

7 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Once upon a time, the electoral college process made sense.  It doesn't today.  The only reason that it is used is that it happens to have been provided for when the Republic was formed.  It is no more needed today than the House of Lords being appointed by the Queen was in England prior to their reforms.

I completely disagree.  - having the 20-30 biggest metropolitan areas decide the presidency is ludicrous.   I would say the electoral system (regarding the votes being proportioned based on population is even more relevant today than it was in 1776.  The cultural divide between urban and rural areas is just as if not more pronounced now than it was then.