I’ve never heard one state one vote. If it was the senate, 2 votes 2 states would make sense, but the House of Representatives never runs on a per state basis that I know of (maybe ratifying the constitution I guess, but that’s not a House only process).
It was designed to be specifically undemocratic in a couple of situations. The intent, of course, is that Congress could block populist or extremist candidates from the presidency. But that depends on the legislature not being composed of complete imbeciles.
We should think about it in the context of the US being the first modern democracy, and they had to fight off criticism from royalists that democracy would lead to mob rule by uneducated peasants.
That, plus the fact that at least half the people involved in writing it wanted to make sure the institution of slavery was protected.
It makes a lot more sense from those perspectives. Given that neither of these premises are true today, there’s a very good reason to question the validity of the whole thing.
Believe it or not, no. It could be a lot worse. The government is a thin layer protecting us from corporitocracy. It often fails, but getting rid of it isn’t going to make things any better.
It isn’t a flaw, it is by design. The constitution was designed to bring states together, not people. The things in it that give favor to states with larger populations were only put in to appease the states with larger populations. so it is only as much as was needed.
Also, to ratify the constitution they voted… one vote per colony. Only needed 9 of 13.
Thanks, TIL, though it’s actually superseded by the 12th amendment as another commenter noted, but contains the same text.
Looks like the Blue states could not show up to the vote and prevent a quorum, which should stop the vote:
in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. [emphasis Wikipedia’s]
So we could end up with a President Harris. If the Dems have the courage to stand up to an attempted highjack of electoral votes by the house.
Source?
I’ve never heard one state one vote. If it was the senate, 2 votes 2 states would make sense, but the House of Representatives never runs on a per state basis that I know of (maybe ratifying the constitution I guess, but that’s not a House only process).
12th amendment
Thanks, it looks like the blue states might be able to stop it by denying a quorum (2/3rds of states). Unless there 34 red states?
I posted the citation in this comment.
US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 3.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_3:_Electoral_College
But in chusing [sic] the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote;
Jesus fucking Christ, our constitution is so flawed, it’s not even funny.
What an antiquated, garbage document. It needs some thorough updating or we need to start from scratch.
It was designed to be specifically undemocratic in a couple of situations. The intent, of course, is that Congress could block populist or extremist candidates from the presidency. But that depends on the legislature not being composed of complete imbeciles.
We should think about it in the context of the US being the first modern democracy, and they had to fight off criticism from royalists that democracy would lead to mob rule by uneducated peasants.
That, plus the fact that at least half the people involved in writing it wanted to make sure the institution of slavery was protected.
It makes a lot more sense from those perspectives. Given that neither of these premises are true today, there’s a very good reason to question the validity of the whole thing.
Except that if we started over and wrote the Constitution from scratch, we’d be the United States of Walmart.
Aren’t we already there? We need to start over.
Believe it or not, no. It could be a lot worse. The government is a thin layer protecting us from corporitocracy. It often fails, but getting rid of it isn’t going to make things any better.
We’re still several steps above Russia, for now.
Which CAN be done. It takes 34 states to call for a convwntion, and IIRC 27 or 28 already have… buuut… they’re red states.
So if you want a Christo-Fascist constitution, you’re in luck!
THEN it has to be RATIFIED by 38 states to take effect.
I don’t disagree with you in principle, but I also do not trust our elected officials anywhere to amend it at this point in history
It isn’t a flaw, it is by design. The constitution was designed to bring states together, not people. The things in it that give favor to states with larger populations were only put in to appease the states with larger populations. so it is only as much as was needed. Also, to ratify the constitution they voted… one vote per colony. Only needed 9 of 13.
Yep. Was always a deal with the devil.
Thanks, TIL, though it’s actually superseded by the 12th amendment as another commenter noted, but contains the same text.
Looks like the Blue states could not show up to the vote and prevent a quorum, which should stop the vote:
So we could end up with a President Harris. If the Dems have the courage to stand up to an attempted highjack of electoral votes by the house.
That indicates that a quorum can be reached with just one member from each state. Every state has a derpy representative from cookoo-land.