(01-15-2019, 11:01 PM)Last42min Wrote:

(01-15-2019, 01:18 PM)jradMITEX Wrote: Joined the discussion late, but this is purely hypothetical because nothing will change, but I think it would be a much better system to proportionally assign the electoral votes in each state instead of the all or nothing.  This way everyone's voice is heard and state's don't lose their individual power.  Like I said this is hypothetical, a real discussion with actual ramifications that could actually change and IMHO change the course of our politics is redistricting.  If districts were drawn without partisan advantage in mind you would get a lot more centrist lawmakers and therefore more willingness to compromise and actually address issues.   One last point, the tyranny of the majority concept is not about elections but about laws and the purpose of the judicial branch.  The judicial branch guards against the tyranny of the majority, such that a law can't be passed unfairly targeting the minority.  The judicial branch specifically protects the tyranny of the majority by ensuring the rights of the minority are upheld.

I have no problem with States implementing that system if they choose. It would give advantage to democrats if every state did that, so I don't see it happening for obvious political reasons. I would think it was unwise if it became a federal law or constitutional amendment (though I would not object it were really done through the proper means).

Gerrymandering is an interesting dilemma. It's difficult to figure out how to redraw districts (which needs to be done). Sure, there are some ideas, but nothing that I feel is a great solution. Here's a great article on 538 if you want to read more about it, but they will make the case that there isn't really a great solution. The best case for me would be to have a non-partisan group draw up the most competitive districts. This has it's own flaws, but would accomplish (I believe) some of what you suggest. Keeping committees non-partisan is an issue altogether.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hat...is-harder/

As to your last point, you might be splitting hairs a bit. Technically, I don't disagree with the notion that tyranny of the majority being about laws, but in a republic, those you elect make the laws. To put it simply, tyranny of the majority was a phrase coined by Tocqueville, which came years after the US Constitution had already been established. The concept, however, was heatedly discussed during the drafting of the Constitution, and Madison was the one that was instrumental in developing the electoral college. He, like others, had concerns about a direct democracy, and wanted a system that would prevent majority rule and unfit demagogues. The electoral college was the solution. I feel we could go back to the drawing board, but I don't like the idea of a direct election.

The EC also prevented individual citizens from voting directly in federal elections. The States were voting, not the people. The same as the Senate was supposed to represent those States, not the people who are rep'd directly by the House. Federalism was the intent through a Constitutional Republic to create a nation of Law not Men. This is only controversial when a State wants to use its 10th Amendment right to tell the Feds to [BLEEP] off, when the Democrats lose an election, or when Mikey wants to argue.

---