This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1prosfilaes
From the time Republican voters sealed Trump's nomination to the point where he became the official nominee, there were plans to derail his nomination, for example by changing the rules so delegates didn't have to vote for who they were pledged for. As far as I've heard, the rules of the convention are malleable enough that such things could have been done. But would it have been right?
Democracy depends on the will of the people not being egregiously overturned. The Republicans voted, in a convoluted and overcomplex system, for Trump. They voted with the understanding that this voting mattered. Given that basically either the Republican or the Democratic candidate is going to win the presidency, it not only hurts the Republicans, it hurts the nation as a whole to have that vote ignored.
Democracy depends on the will of the people not being egregiously overturned. The Republicans voted, in a convoluted and overcomplex system, for Trump. They voted with the understanding that this voting mattered. Given that basically either the Republican or the Democratic candidate is going to win the presidency, it not only hurts the Republicans, it hurts the nation as a whole to have that vote ignored.
2lriley
The party of morals hasn't really had an idea about morality since Eisenhower. No---it wouldn't have been right. Their electorate resoundingly chose who they chose. Wasn't even close in any respect.
3timspalding
It's characteristic of the US system that elections are mediated in various ways, including calculating things by state and using delegates. The founders instituted the Electoral College as a final brake on populism. It will never happen, but I think they're be okay using it to stop Trump.
4LolaWalser
What a curious question--who is supposed to care? Whose morality are we invoking here?
Why did they try to obstruct his nomination? Because he is a danger to the party (but hasn't that iceberg already gone through the ship well and good) or because of a deeper moral concern of their own for the lot of everyone should Trump win?
Democracies aren't magic. This isn't a reason not to obey their rules, but it may be reason enough to welcome revolt when they democratically elect to go to hell. What, are we supposed to cross our arms politely and mutter "told you so" as lemmings swan dive over a cliff... pulling us along?
I wouldn't try to stop all suicides on principle. But some I most certainly would try to stop, nevertheless. And you can bet I'd feel it my moral right to do so.
It seems reasonable to accept the requirement that nobody elected democratically can be allowed to diminish the very freedom that placed him in power. Similar to how, for the very sake of tolerance, one can't unconditionally tolerate the intolerant.
Why did they try to obstruct his nomination? Because he is a danger to the party (but hasn't that iceberg already gone through the ship well and good) or because of a deeper moral concern of their own for the lot of everyone should Trump win?
Democracies aren't magic. This isn't a reason not to obey their rules, but it may be reason enough to welcome revolt when they democratically elect to go to hell. What, are we supposed to cross our arms politely and mutter "told you so" as lemmings swan dive over a cliff... pulling us along?
I wouldn't try to stop all suicides on principle. But some I most certainly would try to stop, nevertheless. And you can bet I'd feel it my moral right to do so.
It seems reasonable to accept the requirement that nobody elected democratically can be allowed to diminish the very freedom that placed him in power. Similar to how, for the very sake of tolerance, one can't unconditionally tolerate the intolerant.
5prosfilaes
Faithless electors are illegal in many states, and their votes are void in a few. Trump might be destructive as president, but I think using the Electoral College to stop the presidential candidate who won the 270 needed delegates would be worse. Once it's been done, it will be a standard tool and used in less urgent cases. Secondly, faith in our democracy is not exactly high. A lot of people will drop out of democracy; why vote if your vote is just going to be ignored? Nothing is going to regain that trust for decades; they may have panicked and had to act publically in 2016, but they'll be more prepared to keep their manipulations quiet later.* A lot of others are going to get restless; any group that's been crying out about how democracy is rigged is going to collect members, and anti-government violence and open resistance to governmental authority is going to get worse. A military coup? I doubt it, but with Hillary Clinton's right to act as president impeached to start with, I'm not sure I'd put it out of possibility. I think it would be very bad for our democracy.
* Frankly, that's going to be true no matter how this comes out; the Republican Party is likely to make sure a candidate like Trump doesn't have a chance in the future, and I bet some states won't have Democratic Caucuses any more.
* Frankly, that's going to be true no matter how this comes out; the Republican Party is likely to make sure a candidate like Trump doesn't have a chance in the future, and I bet some states won't have Democratic Caucuses any more.
6timspalding
Faithless electors are illegal in many states
The Constitutionality of that hasn't been tested. The law on party delegates is clear--party rules trump state law.
The Constitutionality of that hasn't been tested. The law on party delegates is clear--party rules trump state law.
7LolaWalser
>5 prosfilaes:
I don't mean to play a devil's advocate or some such (and my feelings about the Republicans have been made plenty clear in the past) but, illegal does not necessarily mean immoral. Again, without a context for "moral right", it's all moot.
So sure, it IS, or may be, probably is (depending on whatever laws, of which I'm ignorant, pertain here), illegal, but that doesn't answer your question.
I don't mean to play a devil's advocate or some such (and my feelings about the Republicans have been made plenty clear in the past) but, illegal does not necessarily mean immoral. Again, without a context for "moral right", it's all moot.
So sure, it IS, or may be, probably is (depending on whatever laws, of which I'm ignorant, pertain here), illegal, but that doesn't answer your question.
8proximity1
> 3
"The founders instituted the Electoral College as a final brake on populism."
"final brake", my ass! They were quite divided over the virtues and vices of what you disparagingly refer to as "populism."
What is Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission other than a formal codification of the rankest kind of "populism for the obscenely wealthy"?
And now we're suffering from both of these decisions. We ought to eliminate the electoral college and we may do that. I could as easily point out that the Founders left us the ways and means to revise and correct their work because --unlike us!--they did not regard themselves as either omniscient or infallibly prescient!
----------
Citizens United, Appellant
~~~~~~~ v. ~~~~~~~
Federal Election Commission
Docketed: August 18, 2008
Lower Ct: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Case Nos.: (07-2240)
Decision Date: July 18, 2008
"The founders instituted the Electoral College as a final brake on populism."
"final brake", my ass! They were quite divided over the virtues and vices of what you disparagingly refer to as "populism."
What is Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission other than a formal codification of the rankest kind of "populism for the obscenely wealthy"?
And now we're suffering from both of these decisions. We ought to eliminate the electoral college and we may do that. I could as easily point out that the Founders left us the ways and means to revise and correct their work because --unlike us!--they did not regard themselves as either omniscient or infallibly prescient!
----------
Citizens United, Appellant
~~~~~~~ v. ~~~~~~~
Federal Election Commission
Docketed: August 18, 2008
Lower Ct: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Case Nos.: (07-2240)
Decision Date: July 18, 2008
9RickHarsch
>shouldn't it be "final crack, my ass"?
10LibraryPerilous
Using the states' popular votes to mean something at the conventions is a relatively new thing.
"Democracy depends on the will of the people not being egregiously overturned"
Yet democracy requires checks and balances to function at its best. People are elected both to represent their constituents and/or the larger population as a whole and also to do what is best for their constituents and/or the larger population at whole. Too far ignoring the will of the people is fascism. Too far caving to the baser or more idiotic ideas of the populace is populism.
I think a Trump presidency would hurt the nation, and democracy in toto, far more than overturning the selection of Trump as the Republicans' candidate at the convention would have. But I don't think a Trump presidency is likely, so by that metric, I agree intervention would have been overkill. Rumors of a Never Trump takeover were just that, and the roll call vote did not deliver on its promised fireworks. If HRC is savvy, she'll let the Sanders holdouts have their moment in the sun at the Dem convention to highlight yet another difference in the way the parties are run.
I will also say that it's hard to muster any sympathy for the party of Dr. Frankensteins who have created this monster and then repeatedly disavowed responsibility for their ridiculous political science experiment gone to Hades. If I dig deeply enough, I can remember that it's better, in a two-party system, for neither party to be so inept and craven. But it requires a large shovel and lots of flying dirt.
"Democracy depends on the will of the people not being egregiously overturned"
Yet democracy requires checks and balances to function at its best. People are elected both to represent their constituents and/or the larger population as a whole and also to do what is best for their constituents and/or the larger population at whole. Too far ignoring the will of the people is fascism. Too far caving to the baser or more idiotic ideas of the populace is populism.
I think a Trump presidency would hurt the nation, and democracy in toto, far more than overturning the selection of Trump as the Republicans' candidate at the convention would have. But I don't think a Trump presidency is likely, so by that metric, I agree intervention would have been overkill. Rumors of a Never Trump takeover were just that, and the roll call vote did not deliver on its promised fireworks. If HRC is savvy, she'll let the Sanders holdouts have their moment in the sun at the Dem convention to highlight yet another difference in the way the parties are run.
I will also say that it's hard to muster any sympathy for the party of Dr. Frankensteins who have created this monster and then repeatedly disavowed responsibility for their ridiculous political science experiment gone to Hades. If I dig deeply enough, I can remember that it's better, in a two-party system, for neither party to be so inept and craven. But it requires a large shovel and lots of flying dirt.
11proximity1
>10 LibraryPerilous:
"Too far caving to the baser or more idiotic ideas of the populace is populism."
Unfortunately, ideas don't come conveniently labelled "Danger : base & idiotic idea of the populace."
"Yet democracy requires checks and balances to function at its best."
There's an all-important nuance that your observation misses. Yes, it's true that some very bright people understood that democracy requires checks and balances to function at its best and so they devised a government of separate branches--or so the theory goes. It's there, between these branches, that the "checks and balances" were supposed to operate: on the institutions where power is mediated -- the House of Representatives, the Senate, the White House and the Supreme Court, not on the electorate (as we have decided to define that).
The legislative, executive and judicial branches share in the exercise of the power conferred on them. They "check" each other's use of power-- not that of the voters.
If the electorate is forbidden from ever "making a mistake" in the exercise of its judgment, then having a democratic form of republic is a waste of time and effort and you might as well install a monarchy or some other plutocracy--which, as it happens, we have, since people do not know how to value the importance of "populism"--even their own.
12barney67
The premise of the original post is wrong. There wasn't any talk about "changing the rules of the convention." The talk was about the possibility of a brokered convention, which not only fits into the rules but was the norm at conventions for decades.
As you learned, brokered conventions happen when no candidates receives enough delegates during the primary to win the election. Not the case here.
A more interesting point: delegates are always free to vote for whomever they want, even if the candidate has won the necessary delegates. It's never happened, but not because it's illegal or improper.
That's a loophole not few people realize. If you call that "thwarting the will of the American people", that's probably because: you didn't pay attention in high-school government class, so you don't know what the rules are; you don't know what democracy or representative democracy are; you place blind faith in democracy and you romanticize The People, although your own life has been spent among a homogenous crowd; and, like other liberal minds, yours is so soaked through with bogus ideas of equality that you will never learn from the errors I've just listed here.
As you learned, brokered conventions happen when no candidates receives enough delegates during the primary to win the election. Not the case here.
A more interesting point: delegates are always free to vote for whomever they want, even if the candidate has won the necessary delegates. It's never happened, but not because it's illegal or improper.
That's a loophole not few people realize. If you call that "thwarting the will of the American people", that's probably because: you didn't pay attention in high-school government class, so you don't know what the rules are; you don't know what democracy or representative democracy are; you place blind faith in democracy and you romanticize The People, although your own life has been spent among a homogenous crowd; and, like other liberal minds, yours is so soaked through with bogus ideas of equality that you will never learn from the errors I've just listed here.
13barney67
>1 prosfilaes: "plans to derail his nomination"
What plans? Anything illegal? Or even unethical?
People voted against him. They wrote editorials. They went on TV. They debated. But you prefer to see these actions as a conspiracy to "derail" Trump's nomination.
It's hypocritical, moreover, to be outraged at imaginary conspiracies when you know that you yourself would participate in one if you had the chance, if it were your party and you had the power to do so. You have, in fact, spent plenty of time here discouraging people from voting for Trump.
I wish there had been a conspiracy. I wish someone had found a way to derail the Trump campaign. So do you. So get off it, okay? Spend some time looking in the mirror.
What plans? Anything illegal? Or even unethical?
People voted against him. They wrote editorials. They went on TV. They debated. But you prefer to see these actions as a conspiracy to "derail" Trump's nomination.
It's hypocritical, moreover, to be outraged at imaginary conspiracies when you know that you yourself would participate in one if you had the chance, if it were your party and you had the power to do so. You have, in fact, spent plenty of time here discouraging people from voting for Trump.
I wish there had been a conspiracy. I wish someone had found a way to derail the Trump campaign. So do you. So get off it, okay? Spend some time looking in the mirror.
14barney67
Ah yes, the Founders.
When the Founders said "The People," they were talking about 18th century white, aristocratic gentlemen like themselves living in tiny colonies in the northeastern part of the United States.
It ought to be obvious that The People today are not at all like The People of those times.
When the Founders said "The People," they were talking about 18th century white, aristocratic gentlemen like themselves living in tiny colonies in the northeastern part of the United States.
It ought to be obvious that The People today are not at all like The People of those times.
15prosfilaes
>10 LibraryPerilous: Yet democracy requires checks and balances to function at its best.
I don't believe that a group of unelected people vetoing the will of the people expressed by asking them is a good thing. Giving people a choice and then refusing their answer is a bad idea. (Note that with children, the best advice seems to be, when giving them a choice, to make sure you give them only options you can live with, so whatever they choose they can get.) Making a multimonth voting system, spending millions of dollars on the process, and then vetoing their choice, is rightfully going to upset people and make them feel that they don't have any real power in the democracy.
John McCain was not eligible to be President of the US, one line of legal argument holds. (People born in the Panama Canal Zone when he was were American nationals, never citizens; he did not become a citizen until a bill of Congress 18 months later.) Congress certified this was not a problem, and had he won, the advantages of being technically correct in overturning it would have been overwhelmed by the disadvantages of overturning the popular will.
>12 barney67: There wasn't any talk about "changing the rules of the convention."
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dumptrump-is-doomed-but-we-cant-take-our-eye...
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/ted-cruz-donald-trump-ken-cuccinelli-conscience-...
As for the rest of your talk, if a small unelected group decides who is going to be president, that's not democratic, arguments to authority notwithstanding.
I don't believe that a group of unelected people vetoing the will of the people expressed by asking them is a good thing. Giving people a choice and then refusing their answer is a bad idea. (Note that with children, the best advice seems to be, when giving them a choice, to make sure you give them only options you can live with, so whatever they choose they can get.) Making a multimonth voting system, spending millions of dollars on the process, and then vetoing their choice, is rightfully going to upset people and make them feel that they don't have any real power in the democracy.
John McCain was not eligible to be President of the US, one line of legal argument holds. (People born in the Panama Canal Zone when he was were American nationals, never citizens; he did not become a citizen until a bill of Congress 18 months later.) Congress certified this was not a problem, and had he won, the advantages of being technically correct in overturning it would have been overwhelmed by the disadvantages of overturning the popular will.
>12 barney67: There wasn't any talk about "changing the rules of the convention."
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dumptrump-is-doomed-but-we-cant-take-our-eye...
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/ted-cruz-donald-trump-ken-cuccinelli-conscience-...
As for the rest of your talk, if a small unelected group decides who is going to be president, that's not democratic, arguments to authority notwithstanding.
16barney67
>15 prosfilaes: "I don't believe that a group of unelected people vetoing the will of the people expressed by asking them is a good thing."
Then you don't like our system. Find a country that has the kind of direct democracy that you want and move there.
Then you don't like our system. Find a country that has the kind of direct democracy that you want and move there.
17prosfilaes
>16 barney67: Wow. If I think that something happening that would be unprecedented and against the general trend of our electoral system would be bad, I don't like our system and should move. I think that's a little excessive.
18gilroy
There was a report on the local DC news, can't find a link to it at the moment, where the 19 delegates for DC were pledged to Trump, though the delegates said it was supposed to be 10 to Cruz and 9 to Kaisch. And they were rather perturbed about the change of their votes.
19artturnerjr
>7 LolaWalser:
illegal does not necessarily mean immoral
An important point. That's one of the central ideas behind civil disobedience, right? Invalidate civil disobedience, and you invalidate the work of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Thoreau, and many others who I would count among the most moral and beneficent figures in history.
illegal does not necessarily mean immoral
An important point. That's one of the central ideas behind civil disobedience, right? Invalidate civil disobedience, and you invalidate the work of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Thoreau, and many others who I would count among the most moral and beneficent figures in history.
