Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: What the Deuce - We're all doing porn logic now

  1. #21
    Senior Member Manalysis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    4,624
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by simpleman View Post
    OK... if I understood this right, the point of the electoral college is to allow blacks to vote but making sure they don't actually get to make any decision about the leadership?
    I'm not an expert on he US constitution and its history, but as far as I understand the quote, Madison is saying that there are more voters in the north, because so much of the population in the south were negros who didn't have a vote, and that therefore the idea of being ruled by a simple majority of votes was unpopular in the south, because they would always be outvoted by the north.

    Getting the south to go along required some kind of compromise between "equal state representation" (as in the present US Senate), which gives small states the same powers and rights as big ones, and a "proportional state representation" (as in the present US House of representatives), which favours big states with high populations over small states with lower populations.

    The realities of politics started to change rapidly, though, within a few decades, e.g. with the introduction of political parties; and the political landscape has been changing ever since, while the map has remained unchanged. There is much to say about the US constitution, but present day USA has little in common with what is described in it.

    M

  2. #22
    Senior Member Manalysis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    4,624
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by simpleman View Post
    I read here, that the founders basically did not trust the people...
    It's a reasonable attempt to handle the problem of 'the will of the people' when that will is divided, and divided unequally between a majority and a minority.
    The rule of law then means that there simply exist some things that he majority cannot vote away from you. Their political experience included a lot of countries where such deprivation of rights was commonplace, under the traditional system of one vote for one man (the king).

    Both proposals have their pros and the cons... I personally like the democracy solution better. From the school of Simon Rodriguez... instead of putting barriers in place to prevent the people to do something stupid, we will be better of if the effort was made to better educate the people, instead... probably the main reason why Rodriguez opted for a career as an educator instead of a politician.
    Agreed.

    M

  3. #23
    Administrator Grumpy Old Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Pacific North West
    Posts
    5,048
    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by simpleman View Post
    I read here, that the founders basically did not trust the people...

    Anyway, in my opinion, the tyranny of the masses is much better than the tyranny of the elites... but what do I know?

    I think the problem here is on timing... The US is modeled after Locke's Social contract, though Rousseau made a much better proposal, by the time Rousseau came into place Locke influence was already an institution in North America, for instance, his participation on the Constitutions of Carolina and the Grand Model...

    For those who don't know... Locke's proposal is that the leadership should be an intellectual aristocracy, or of the smartest members of the society should lead the rest, while Rousseau proposal is a democratic solution; every person is an equal vote.

    Both proposals have their pros and the cons... I personally like the democracy solution better. From the school of Simon Rodriguez... instead of putting barriers in place to prevent the people to do something stupid, we will be better off if the effort was made to better educate the people, instead... probably the main reason why Rodriguez opted for a career as an educator instead of a politician.

    There were two reasons for establishing the Electoral system; one had to do with the buffer between the electorate and elected with the argument being that the electorate may not be informed..your Lock vs Rousseau. This argument probably has been overcome by events with technology and tenable at best. The second revolved around the large state small state representations in the Federal System. The Electoral college is a compromise for the first and essential for the second.
    ethikē aretē--phronesis--eudaimonia
    virtue of character--practical/ethical wisdom--human flourishing

    It is not a battle to win but an attitude to share.
    AVFM Mission Statement

  4. #24
    Administrator Grumpy Old Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Pacific North West
    Posts
    5,048
    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by simpleman View Post
    OK, I was asking the questions, because I don't really understand the point of the electoral college...

    I basically see it as bureaucracy...

    I will read the link later on, today I have not more time.
    The "slavery problem" which was quoted had to do with representation in the South. Counterintuitively the North proposed not including the Slaves and the South obviously wanted to count them to increase power in the House. Knowing slaves were not enfranchized this gave the Southern landowners disproportionate representation in both the House and the electoral college. The compromise was the 3/5 rule which was established earlier as a method of taxation. There was also discussion about not wanting to encourage more slave ownership by allowing Slaves in the census for representation. It was a bit of a double edged sword for the anti slavery folks in the North.

    Of course, this all become mute when the 13th and 14th Amendments were passed 150 years ago. The Representation is evenly distributed over the population and Blacks are fully accounted in the process.


    The point of the electoral college is to ensure that any single state cannot establish hegemony over the others. Something I think the European countries might want to learn from with Germany's dominance in the EU, and Brexit.
    ethikē aretē--phronesis--eudaimonia
    virtue of character--practical/ethical wisdom--human flourishing

    It is not a battle to win but an attitude to share.
    AVFM Mission Statement

  5. #25
    Senior Member voidspawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,167
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
    The point of the electoral college is to ensure that any single state cannot establish hegemony over the others. Something I think the European countries might want to learn from with Germany's dominance in the EU, and Brexit.
    How I wish people would listen to this point. It's been unbelievable how people in the EU just ignore this. The old British phrase for the attitude is "I'm alright Jack". EU was a first members hegemony to start with, UK joined late in 1973 alongside Denmark and Ireland, it then had enough clout to lever a position. Basically UK was still a major military force in European defence and a major player in NATO. Post collapse of the Soviet Union that aspect has gone. EU expansions have had two effects the consolidation of the core EU states the true believers in an EU superstate led by Germany, this has shifted EU away from being a common market economic entity to the single market being bait to cede political power and sovereignty, the second effect is the poorer new EU states forming voting blocs. They have a very different attitude, they are post Soviet, they see EU core as fat, stupid, corrupt and lazy. They'll ignore directives they don't like and just take the advantages, EU core being fat stupid corrupt and lazy won't do a thing about it and will cover it up to protect their dream of an EU superstate. It's a mess brewing, UK could have done a lot better for itself as a ill behaved and selfish member state that formed blocs with others. But UK has always been crap at European politics, in a good part I'd guess because our language links us more strongly with Anglosphere nations and we have a poor understanding of continental European culture. Being part of the EU has caused the UK to not only become lax at EU politics but ignorant, even to the point that the expected level of intelligence operations are done in a bewilderingly futile way.

    Leaving the EU is a direct result of ignoring the practicalities of what you point out. EU 'believed' it could write a principle of subsidiarity and have a numbers formula for Parliament, that is / was futile and foolish, it never created a system by which states guaranteed their sovereignty, and that results in a hegemonic superstate, regardless of any original intentions.

    The US system shows a lot of foresight, things that even with hindsight, the weight of history, the diversity of cultures the EU manages to cock up.
    "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
    Quote Originally Posted by menrppl2 View Post
    Can't live with em, life is great without them.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Manalysis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    4,624
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by voidspawn View Post
    How I wish people would listen to this point. It's been unbelievable how people in the EU just ignore this. The old British phrase for the attitude is "I'm alright Jack". EU was a first members hegemony to start with, UK joined late in 1973 alongside Denmark and Ireland, it then had enough clout to lever a position. Basically UK was still a major military force in European defence and a major player in NATO. Post collapse of the Soviet Union that aspect has gone. EU expansions have had two effects the consolidation of the core EU states the true believers in an EU superstate led by Germany, this has shifted EU away from being a common market economic entity to the single market being bait to cede political power and sovereignty, the second effect is the poorer new EU states forming voting blocs. They have a very different attitude, they are post Soviet, they see EU core as fat, stupid, corrupt and lazy. They'll ignore directives they don't like and just take the advantages, EU core being fat stupid corrupt and lazy won't do a thing about it and will cover it up to protect their dream of an EU superstate. It's a mess brewing, UK could have done a lot better for itself as a ill behaved and selfish member state that formed blocs with others. But UK has always been crap at European politics, in a good part I'd guess because our language links us more strongly with Anglosphere nations and we have a poor understanding of continental European culture. Being part of the EU has caused the UK to not only become lax at EU politics but ignorant, even to the point that the expected level of intelligence operations are done in a bewilderingly futile way.

    Leaving the EU is a direct result of ignoring the practicalities of what you point out. EU 'believed' it could write a principle of subsidiarity and have a numbers formula for Parliament, that is / was futile and foolish, it never created a system by which states guaranteed their sovereignty, and that results in a hegemonic superstate, regardless of any original intentions.

    The US system shows a lot of foresight, things that even with hindsight, the weight of history, the diversity of cultures the EU manages to cock up.
    The funny thing is that they've had this thing before; another monster-state, the HRE. That ended in the Thirty Year War.

    Looking at medieval history as a black box, just considering input and output, what you see is a hopperfull of small tribal communities going in, and the nation states of today emerging at the other end ... with some teething problems and adjustments, of course. But even those events, wars, etc., were now carried out between nationstates or wannabe nation states.

    It's hard to identify causes in history, but I would not be surprised if there is a correlation between higher population, i.e. higher population density, and a trend towards larger political units. When an area fills up chock-a-block with people, suddenly borders and restrictions make no sense, the walls no longer protect, but imprison.

    And with populations growing, I'm fairly certain that "empire" is going to be tried again (and again), until it succeeds,or at least manages to achieve some cohesion, because those who fail to do so will be losers in the larger game, which is played by the "empire-like" superstates, e.g. India, China, Russia and the USA, who, incidentally, managed to be "empires" for most of their history (so ... why? And why them?). The last one to fail to achieve, if not "greatness", then at least a lot of volume, was the British Empire, and going back thorugh time you find France, Turkey, Germany and scores of others lying fallen besides the road on which Time marches.

    Europe as a bloc would be half the size of China, or double the size of e.g. the USA, full of people with high education, productivity, industry, know-how, creativity, innovation, capital ... and joined to the long east-west axis through Russia to China, this would be the largest economic bloc that is possible in the world, if Jared Diamond is to be believed.

    China and Russia making peace over the Ussuri river border line (after 400 years of war ...) must mean something, as well as China sponsoring the Beijing - London railway line. That the new, oil-rich -stan countries, liberated from the former USSR, all lie along that line is certainly a plus, too.

    The question isn't if there is going to be a EU, but merely which EU there will be. Will it be this one?
    EU is struggling with legitimacy, and many other problems; but going by history, people just revising mistakes, doing the right thing and getting it right, especially when it comes to such a byzantine jungle of bureaucracy, has very, very little precedent.

    Much will depend on the outcome of the changing relationship between China and the world. If China comes out the new world top dog, and Europe no longer has US political and military backing, it will find itself a mere geographical appendix to Putin's Russia.

    Interesting times.

    M
    Last edited by Manalysis; 09-13-2017 at 03:17 PM.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
    The point of the electoral college is to ensure that any single state cannot establish hegemony over the others. Something I think the European countries might want to learn from with Germany's dominance in the EU, and Brexit.
    I though the EU have a college too... the European Commision?

    And Britain had a leadership role within the union, they are just a bunch of snowflakes that feel they were getting a bad deal, but they were actually at the top of the game. But they think they are better off out of the union... so what else?, let them walk, then let Turkey in, and in 2 decades we compare the 2 of them and see how they doing...

  8. #28
    Administrator Grumpy Old Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Pacific North West
    Posts
    5,048
    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by simpleman View Post
    I though the EU have a college too... the European Commision?

    And Britain had a leadership role within the union, they are just a bunch of snowflakes that feel they were getting a bad deal, but they were actually at the top of the game. But they think they are better off out of the union... so what else?, let them walk, then let Turkey in, and in 2 decades we compare the 2 of them and see how they doing...
    But see this is a faulty representation of what is happening in the EU as I understand it. You may be able to help on this. Does each state have direct representatives proportionate to their population in the lower house where the law is established, and do they have equal representation in the upper house where the law is approved. Is the legislature functional in that they can establish bills/law or do they get their direction from unelected bureaucrats (European Commission)? I'm not the expert on the EU but my understanding is it does not function like the US Federal system and most folks have no clue who their representatives are.

    Establishing members of the electoral college is a state function, and its membership is proportional to our federal legislature. There is no requirement for states to let the winner take all or delegate electorates proportional to a vote. A different function from our governments three branches even though the numbers are based on the functional representation of our Legislature. Keep in mind, the Electoral college is only a function of our Federal elections, specifically the president and vice president. All others are managed at the state level. My point here is it is not an equivalent of the European Commission.

    On the UK I am inclined to agree with you. But let them go in peace, bad blood serves no one.
    ethikē aretē--phronesis--eudaimonia
    virtue of character--practical/ethical wisdom--human flourishing

    It is not a battle to win but an attitude to share.
    AVFM Mission Statement

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
    But see this is a faulty representation of what is happening in the EU as I understand it. You may be able to help on this. Does each state have direct representatives proportionate to their population in the lower house where the law is established, and do they have equal representation in the upper house where the law is approved. Is the legislature functional in that they can establish bills/law or do they get their direction from unelected bureaucrats (European Commission)? I'm not the expert on the EU but my understanding is it does not function like the US Federal system and most folks have no clue who their representatives are.

    Establishing members of the electoral college is a state function, and its membership is proportional to our federal legislature. There is no requirement for states to let the winner take all or delegate electorates proportional to a vote. A different function from our governments three branches even though the numbers are based on the functional representation of our Legislature. Keep in mind, the Electoral college is only a function of our Federal elections, specifically the president and vice president. All others are managed at the state level. My point here is it is not an equivalent of the European Commission.
    There is not lower and upper houses in the EU...

    The body that goes by population is the European Parliament. they make the laws for the union.

    The Council make some political decisions.

    The commision take some economical decision.

    There is also no constitution for the EU... as a matter of fact what you call the EU, is just an overlapping of a lot of different treaties...

    So for instance, there is the Eurozone, that is the countries that adopted the Euro coin, UK is not part of it.

    There is the European Economic Area. This is the 28 EU countries, plus the 4 countries that form the European Free Trade Association.

    Anyway... the United Kingdom is in itself a union of 4 countries. so they as an union where part of the larger european union... but some of these countries might find more beneficial for their interests if they separate from the UK and stay with the EU... while England probably will now try to join the EFTA... If this plays this way... then brexit was nothing but England killing the UK.

    On this respect UK is like the EU, but in smaller scale... for instance they have the British-Irish Council... and so on and go on... It is almost like if the EU was modeled after UK. Though you say they would have being better off if they used the US as a model instead?

    Here is the thing in US, the states are kind of a weird thing... because they are more like Departments of a country than actual countries... let me rephrase that... they are something in between a Country and a Department.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depart...y_subdivision)

    Of course the leader of a department is the Governor... While the leader of a country is the President or the prime minister, or the king...

    Countries in Europe are not ready to make a constitution and then become departments of a bigger new country... or states in a big new country.

    As Manalisys point out, European countries are just union of smaller parts... no only UK.

    For instance in Spain there are separatist movements for a Catalan Nation... and this is in fact one of the concessions that Spain had to do in order to stay as part of the EU, to grant more autonomy to Cataluña, and to stop trying to exterminate their culture, so they are now an autonomous community... similar situation for Euskadi, the Canarian Islands, Galicia... this is getting to the point that when we talk about Spain, we basically mean Castilla... sometimes it is just Madrid.

  10. #30
    Senior Member voidspawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,167
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
    But see this is a faulty representation of what is happening in the EU as I understand it. You may be able to help on this. Does each state have direct representatives proportionate to their population in the lower house where the law is established, and do they have equal representation in the upper house where the law is approved. Is the legislature functional in that they can establish bills/law or do they get their direction from unelected bureaucrats (European Commission)? I'm not the expert on the EU but my understanding is it does not function like the US Federal system and most folks have no clue who their representatives are.

    Establishing members of the electoral college is a state function, and its membership is proportional to our federal legislature. There is no requirement for states to let the winner take all or delegate electorates proportional to a vote. A different function from our governments three branches even though the numbers are based on the functional representation of our Legislature. Keep in mind, the Electoral college is only a function of our Federal elections, specifically the president and vice president. All others are managed at the state level. My point here is it is not an equivalent of the European Commission.

    On the UK I am inclined to agree with you. But let them go in peace, bad blood serves no one.
    There are seven leading institutions of the EU and they can get confusing because of similar names.

    European Council: This the summit of heads of state. It's not a legislature but exists to make sure the individual states are on the same page when it comes to the EU agenda.

    Council of the European Union aka Council of Ministers: Each state sends ministers to meetings, there is no fixed positions or appointments, so like the European Council it's ad hoc formed by government selections.

    European Parliament: Is part of the legislature, formed by population based constituencies. It does not propose law, but votes on law and budgets. It is meant to be the people's voice to the EU, but in every nation it's made up of politicians who take second place to national parliament members, it's used as a party political stepping stone. The constituencies also are not representative but formed by proportional representation from party lists. In effect independents are never going to elected to European Parliament. Each national party then forms alliances with a EU level supra-party that becomes a voting block in the EU. That way the EU Parliament is wholly divided along party political and ideological divides. Ergo not representative at all.

    European Commission: This is unelected and not democratically accountable, it creates the policy and legislation that is discussed within the other two (meeting only based councils) Council of Ministers are supposed to work with it, European Parliament then votes to accept, request amendments to laws. Rejecting proposals of the European Commissions is in fact very hard to do. A good example is TTIP the EU version of TPP with the US, the MEP's (Members of European Parliament) had to process the legislation piecemeal whilst not being allowed access to the treaty, only after a huge public campaign were the MEP's allowed to see it - that is one at a time in a secret room after being checked that they were carrying no recording devices.

    Court of Justice of the European Union: Acts as a supreme court and can overule national courts and governments.

    European Central Bank: A German controlled hegemony no democratic or national level accountability, that creates and governs the Euro. As was shown in Greece, the ECB can take direct control over a country. You may think there are problems with the Federal Reserve, but I've never heard of the Federal Reserve taking control over a US state.

    European Court of Auditors: Budget auditors, kept permanently busy chasing their tails with the massively complex EU spending.

    There won't be any letting the UK leave in peace. The EU will not abide a successful non EU UK next door. Merkel was already making plans with Obama, that had Obama agreeing to put off any trade deal with the UK. Those dealings extended to Clinton. One of the reasons Merkel didn't like Trump is because he didn't immediately agree to assist in throwing the UK into a trade limbo state. However jury is still out on what he will do, and it can't even be known if he will be POTUS when UK is free to negotiate its own trade deals.

    It was only because of the EU referendum and TTIP / CETA / TISA / BITA treaties that some of us started looking a bit more into the EU. All of those treaties are based on the ISDS system, that usurps national courts in favour corporate friendly tribunals - that operate on the basis that national priorities can't interfere with corporate access to markets. When the UK was part of TTIP negotiations it had to make special clause to protect the NHS (National Health Service) - that isn't to protect the NHS from competition, there is already a large private health sector in the UK, it was stop the UK from being sued for having an NHS as under ISDS courts the presence of the NHS affects the possible profits and the ISDS could be used pre-emptively by a corporation that argues that UK's NHS makes it less profitable for their health related services - that means they can sue for cash before they've even invested or attempted to provide services in the UK or any other EU state. This is what you get when trade deals are negotiated in secret, and even the flimsiest layer of public accountability is not allowed to review them.

    I don't think people in the rest of the world have any idea of what the EU is. It is not a democracy, it is not built on democratic lines, it is not a union of nations it is a supra-national structure that is imposed on nations that takes over powers from national and local governments feeding them into the control of unelected, unaccountable and impossible to understand bodies that have extremely close ties to corporations and banks.
    Last edited by voidspawn; 09-14-2017 at 03:30 PM.
    "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
    Quote Originally Posted by menrppl2 View Post
    Can't live with em, life is great without them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •