General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould California Threaten Secession To Abolish Electoral College?
Last edited Mon Dec 19, 2016, 09:56 PM - Edit history (1)
PROBLEM 1: The standard for morally legitimate government was best summed up in the Declaration Of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The Electoral College system now twice in 16 years has imposed on the nation a president who was REJECTED by the People. The EC makes a mockery of the very concept of self-determination. Like Bush2, Trump will do immense damage to the nation and further entrench the power of a toxic GOP into the fabric of government.
PROBLEM 2: The EC is unlikely to ever be abolished constitutionally. The GOP has a well documented contempt for democracy and now that the EC has a clear GOP bias, no proposed amendment will ever get out of Congress. In the Senate a mere 18% of the US population gets 52% of the seats.
PROBLEM 3: Even if a proposed amendment made it out of Congress... states with as little as 4% of the US population can block any reform. The Popular Vote interstate pact is a clever workaround but it is unlikely to ever become reality and the first time a state has to vote against its own election results, there will be a revolt in that state to leave the pact. The only solution is to abolish the EC not put bandaids over it.
QUESTION: How do citizens reform a system that is both antidemocratic and virtually reformproof? One can imagine a 50-100 year campaign to overcome all the obstacles. But how many more morally illegitimate presidents will be imposed on the nation in that time determined to make reform more difficult?
PROPOSAL: I can think of no way to reform the system internally. If you can... I'd like to hear it. The only way I can envision the EC being abolished is if a state like California threatens secession unless democratic reforms are made to the Constitution... thus creating a constitutional crisis.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
rusty fender
(3,428 posts)
Calculating
(2,955 posts)Beats living under the tyranny of the minority. Trump and company haven't shown even an ounce of bipartisanship or compromise despite losing by the popular vote. Rather than trying to heal the divide, they've ripped it open wider and poured salt in. We have a government full of bigots, science denying morons, and old white billionaires now. These people are NOT representative of the population and deserve little respect.
The founders set our country up with a rigged system, which was also rigged to be unfixable because those it benefits would need to vote to repeal it.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)For a while I'd considered Hamilton's arguments in Federalist 68 to be the reason for the EC. But after much reflection I think it was designed to conceal the reason for creating an antidemocratic method of electing presidents . The real reason can be found in the minutes of the so-called Constitutional Convention. Here's Madison on July 19th 1787. He says the popular vote is best but there's a problem with it...
MADISON: The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_719.asp
MovingForward2020
(24 posts)You might appreciate this article, "THE PROSLAVERY ORIGINS OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE", by Paul Finkelman. http://people.uncw.edu/lowery/pls101/wilson_chapter_outlines/The%20Proslavery%20Origins%20of%20the%20Electoral%20College.pdf
malchickiwick
(1,474 posts)Secession is ripe with its own set of problems. Just ask the folks at Fort Sumter....
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)malchickiwick
(1,474 posts)
Response to malchickiwick (Reply #7)
WillowTree This message was self-deleted by its author.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)What possible good would that do?
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Look... I don't see why you're having problems with this. Secession is... we're gone. If you reform the Constitution... we'll come back.
A THREAT is all measures short of actual secession. But obviously the People of have to be willing to secede if they're not treated with respect. This can NOT be an empty threat.
OK... you don't like this idea... and your idea... drum roll.... for abolishing the EC is????
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)Just go ahead with your action. You don't threaten to quit your job, you quit. They can try to talk you back and you may agree to, but that would be after the fact.
Threatening looks cheap. Your earlier response seemed to indicate that you were suggesting to just threaten to secede is all I was saying.
Having said that, we all thought it was silly when Texas was threatening secession and I don't necessarily think it's less so when it's a left-leaning state. But that's only my opinion.
pbmus
(12,422 posts)[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
Missn-Hitch
(1,383 posts)Think of it like a divorce. We can do this without a bloody war.
North/South, East/West. Divide all assets and debts, people have two years to move to the area they want to live in.
To make it easy: One side will be led by the Obamas, Clintons, Warren, Sanders. The other side will be Trump, Pence, Palin, Ryan.
Ready, set......GO!
Hekate
(90,617 posts)Missn-Hitch
(1,383 posts)
sweetapogee
(1,168 posts)First of all, there is the above mentioned federal property. Then, while CA is a large state it would become a small country. It would need to fund it's Coast Guard, it's standing military, it would have to fund it's ports operational expenses, provide it's own border security, on and on.
Missn-Hitch
(1,383 posts)It is not silly. Just ~250 years ago, there was no United States.
sweetapogee
(1,168 posts)about a war over this. What I did say is that if CA were to leave then they would have to defend themselves just like any other country. They would have operating expenses just like any other country. on and on. The leaving would be easy, it's paying for the staying left that's difficult.
It is currently very fashionable to make the mid-west bubba into some kind of rube, but they pay just as much federal taxes as those in CA to keep things like federal highways, FAA infrastructure and coastal defense systems operating as those who live in coastal urban areas. I'm not saying it cannot be done but I seriously doubt that the state of CA has the resources to buy out federal tax-payer interests and assume costs of same going forward. The EC isn't an issue that would bring this to a head, at least in my opinion. I seriously doubt that the lawmakers in CA could come up with a plan to leave that would be palatable even to the citizens of CA.
I think as long as CA could guarantee that it can keep itself secure, pay the federal government to lease federal property and guarantee access to the ports then I would imagine the rest of the country would be fine with CA leaving. But all of this is a pipe dream so that's why it's silly.
Missn-Hitch
(1,383 posts)I was referring to my original response to another poster on this thread.
Again - not just California. Oregon and Washington can come along. All is negotiable pertaining to your concerns. My suggestion is just a very, very simple foundation to get things started.
We will see if this is just a pipe dream. You are probably right. It's going to be an interesting 4 years, probably 8.
Cheers.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)While my intent is NOT to have CA leave... only to use its leverage to demand reforms... like most "blue" states, CA loses a large percentage of what it pays in federal taxes to other states... about 13%. In that 87% that IS sent back to CA... already includes those services you're referring to.
That means that if CA wasn't paying those taxes... CA could keep most of that money and repurpose it for for it's own needs.
I say most... because IF it came to true secession, there would be many accounts to be settled... such as CA's share of the national debt, what it's owed from the SS trust fund, etc.
But AGAIN, my intent is to leverage CA's power... and I suspect many other states would join in... to demand some commonsense reforms to the federal system that will never get changed otherwise.
brush
(53,759 posts)California's GNP is the sixth largest in the world. Its population is larger than many other countries, it grows its own food, has ports, manufacturing, infrastructure, financial exchanges, — it would be a complicated process that would take years and require negotiations as to how to handle government property, but it could make it.
And it would save all those funds send to the Feds that goes to support little states like Wyoming who get much stronger representation in the Electoral College than California.
Putting equalizing the EC or getting rid of it on the table would make everyone sit up and take notice of the urgency of a problem that need addressing.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Were California to attempt succession, Washington would likely force reintegration through a military solution and I doubt the terms would be kind.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Hell, we lease Gitmo from Cuba... but CA can't come to some mutual defense pact with the rest of the US? There's also the matter of CA's share of the national debt. Obviously any credible threat has to consider all these ramifications. But AGAIN... the idea is to leverage CA's power to force democratic reforms. And your ideas for abolishing the EC in an antidemocratic and virtually reformproof system are???
Marengo
(3,477 posts)To leverage.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)The idea that there'd ever be a military conflict is laughable. California would have the moral highground and plenty of support from tens of millions around the nation. Should it actually come to secession, something that's highly doubtful... all your details could be negotiated.
From my OP... I ask AGAIN...
I can think of no way to reform the system internally. If you can... I'd like to hear it. The only way I can envision the EC being abolished is if a state like California threatens secession unless democratic reforms are made to the Constitution... thus creating a constitutional crisis.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Is.
The governors of the west coast including mine... Jay Inslee have vowed to do as much obstructing as they can. Especially when it comes to the environment.
Keep watching our poor powerless states.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Be successful and unchallenged by the federal government? Where does the right of secession exist in the constitution?
I said what I mean
He said he will challenge the feds in COURT if they try to force dirty environmental laws on my state.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)
onenote
(42,661 posts)
sl8
(13,713 posts)Here’s Where the Federal Government Owns the Most Land :
http://time.com/4167983/federal-government-land-oregon/
.........
onenote
(42,661 posts)The World Court?
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)in life...
Never threaten anything...never give an ultimatum... unless you are completely prepared to follow through on it.
Otherwise it's just empty words.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)The People of CA have to be determined to reform the system...
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)You didn't even attempt to answer. What's the matter? Haven't thought it through?
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Oh... that's right, you have none.
I don't know what more I can say then I agreed with the person who said it should be an ultimatum. I assumed that was inherent in the idea of a threat to secede but the ultimatum phrasing is preferable.
Now for your ideas?
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)I didn't start the thread, you did. There were some questions about your proposal, which you refuse to answer. I guess you haven't really thought this through. That's OK. I'll just take your ideas for what they are worth.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Part of my OP was asking for other people's ideas for abolishing the EC given the system is antidemocratic and virtually reformproof.
Obviously you have no ideas... and prefer to be a pissant.
LeftInTX
(25,202 posts)Texas did this a few years. It was an attention getter. It will draw attention to California's economy.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)If you have no intention of following through.
Especially, something that is discussed and agreed up by thousand and thousands of people.
onenote
(42,661 posts)Why would anyone think the people of California would want to secede, especially after it was made clear what they'd be losing, such as social security, and what steps the Federal Government would take to stop it, such as imposing travel and economic sanctions against the state, effectively starving it.
Who is going to lend this new nation of California money? No one.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)California and New York both pay the bills for all those rural states.
Hekate
(90,617 posts)It Being the nerve center of electronics for the military. Or so it was during Dubya's years.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)malchickiwick
(1,474 posts)TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)
Merlot
(9,696 posts)Not the first time the US has paid rent to set up shop in a foreign country.
Yosemite & Redwoods would continue to be protected, now by the Republic of California since they are on California land.
These are not hard to figure out.
malchickiwick
(1,474 posts)...you could have saved 1.1 million lives.
Merlot
(9,696 posts)I'm not saying Calexit will work or is viable, but most objections are garden variety bookkeeping issues that the US has already figured out in it's relations with expats throughout the world. The real questions are how would California create a foreign policy, make alliances, trade policies, immigration, would they use the dollar, etc.
The_Casual_Observer
(27,742 posts)malchickiwick
(1,474 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)You'd have noticed that 7 states seceded without the rest of the states taking action. SC seceded in Dec 1860... It was only when Sumter was attacked on April 12th, nearly 5 MONTHS later, did this provoke a military response.
http://www.confederatelegion.com/Dates_of_Secession.html
But the South seceded to preserve slavery. They had no intention of rejoining the US. Where have I EVER suggested this was my intent? I merely recognize that our system is set in cement and democratic reforms in the US are held hostage to 12 states that make up a mere 4% of the US population. There is no way to bring on even the most desirable of reforms under the current formula... and yet if we don't demographics will continue to make the system more reformproof. I can think of NO other way to bring on reforms than what happened in 1787... the Articles were then failing but also essentially reformproof. The Framers were essentially involved in a backdoor coup... negating what was then the supreme law of the land to push for ratification of a new system. I have no desire for a new system... only a reformed system that abolishes state suffrage so ALL decisions are made in the name of the People... not states that vary in size by a factor of about 70:1. The only way I can see to break the logjam is to force a constitutional crisis.
malchickiwick
(1,474 posts)And you should note that SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, Al, and TX seceded in response to the election of Abraham Lincoln, who didn't become president until March -- well after those first seven states had seceded. Meanwhile, James Buchanan had tried to peacefully negotiate a return. Lincoln knew it would take a military struggle to restore the Union, which is why he sent a resupply convoy to Ft. Sumter, to force the South to take the first shots.
...now if I could only figure out why you are replying to a four-month-old post...
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)But I object to the silly claim that if Cal threatened secession hoping to force democratic reforms... there would be no choice but another armed conflict. Even Lincoln had a choice. Demanding democratic reform is hardly an immoral goal as was slavery and while CA is the most egregious it also affects red states like TX. I don't believe the nation would tolerate an attack on CA... but it very well might be the spark that forces reform in a system that is virtually reform proof.
brush
(53,759 posts)could fend for themselves as their own nation.
California would have to weigh if putting secession on the table is worth it, as much more in funds are contributed to the federal government than returned in benefits, one being equal representation in the Electoral College.
It grows its own food, has ports, manufacturing, infrastructure, financial exchanges, GNP larger than most countries, population too — would be a complicated process that would take years but it could make it.
What was that old revolutionary war phrase — "taxation without representation . . ."
I know one thing, floating such a move would bring fixing or getting rid of the EC, a relic from slavery, to the forefront.
spin
(17,493 posts)really would not be upset if California were to leave the union.
The same is true if Texas were to decide to leave.
But they sure would feel it after they left.
onecaliberal
(32,812 posts)
MFM008
(19,803 posts)Will stand together to defeat the maggots agenda even if the states that voted for him are as stupid as he is.
I am proud of California, Oregons, and Washington's records of being pure heartburn for republicans.
Tikki
(14,555 posts)They are BLUE STATES that will benefit from a Pac Coast Alliance.
Tikki
MFM008
(19,803 posts)Sorry ...
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Political partisans on both sides certainly might want this... but both the PEOPLE in TX and CA are not served well in a federalist system and have reason to want democratic reforms. That being said I look at how PEOPLE are represented in our system... not how states are.
spin
(17,493 posts)I don't believe that the threat of that happening would cause the less populated states to support doing away with the electoral college.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)We've all be brought up to understand the rationale for the Constitution... never to question it. And let's face it, there were numerous compromises made that we'd never make today. We're brought up to largely consider how states are represented. And this is what you always hear from the right... NO... we can't have CA and NY decide our president. It's nonsense of course... and it makes a mockery of the idea that there should be civic equality in the vote... where we have one person, one vote, and all votes weigh the same in terms of representation. Right now the weight of ones vote depends on one's choice of state residence. Someone in WY has a 3.3x bigger vote for president than if that same person moved to CA.
At some point anyone who values democratic principles has to look at how PEOPLE are represented... not states... because we see the absurdity of state suffrage when states with a mere 4% of the US population can hold hostage all reforms... yet states with 40% of the population can ratify any amendment.
As for any legitimate interests those small states have... they can be dealt with in way other than these antidemocratic approaches. The Bill Of Rights proves that.
spin
(17,493 posts)who live in the lower populated states to go along with your idea. To top that off a number of conservative voters realize that without the electoral college neither Bush the Younger or Trump would have been elected.
In my opinion attempting to do away with the Electoral College is somewhat like tilting at windmills. It's a noble but futile undertaking.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)The Articles of Confederation was to be a permanent union and all states had to be unanimous in making any changes. It turned out to be a straight jacket locking in a dysfunctional and failing system. In similar fashion the current system is both dysfunctional and a straight jacket.
We can't expect any democratic reforms to ever come from the right... but when liberal Dems throw up their hands in despair... despite the fact that the system is incapable of insuring morally legitimate government, then the nation is really in deep shit. The Trump Junta may be the last nail in any number of coffins from global warming, to the war on labor, to setting in cement radical new ideas on corporate personhood and dismantling much of the New Deal and Great Society.
spin
(17,493 posts)and most people who live in large urban areas agree with us.
Unfortunately many of the people who live in lower populated states feel the Electoral College is working just fine.
Reality is a bitch.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I suspect it's the GOPers in those red states that believe the EC is fine... not the forever disenfranchised Dems and independents. Same with any GOPers in my state of MA whose vote counts for nothing.
In the US we have to develop a political belief that one person, one vote isn't enough. All votes must WEIGH the same in terms of representation. This is what our federal system denies citizens. Some are at the top of the heap power wise... like any one in WY who has a 70x bigger vote in the Senate and a 3.3x bigger vote in presidential elections than any person in CA. We're all brought up to believe this all averages out because CA has a bigger congressional delegation. BUT ANY ONE CITIZEN ONLY GETS ONE HOUSE MEMBER... not all of those from the state.
spin
(17,493 posts)The problem is how to convince the GOPers to change their view and stop supporting the Electoral College. That will definitely be a challenge. Rural conservatives do not trust city slickers plus people who live in lower populated states don't want to lose any of their current advantage to people who live in large urban areas.
I don't see any changes to the Electoral College happening in the near future. Perhaps someday in the future if and when a Republican Presidential Candidate doesn't have the necessary electoral votes to win but has won the popular vote by a significant margin. Of course the chances of threat happening are fairly slim.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)We can't expect democratic reforms to ever come from the far right. They have a demonstrated contempt for democracy since they know it threatens the power of the uber-rich and corporations. But the bigger moral and intellectual failure is with liberal Dems who, generally speaking, live in cognitive dissonance... wanting to believe that they are the mighty defenders of democracy when in reality all they do is propose bandaids to a grotesquely antidemocratic system. And this is why these liberal Dems never bother defining just what democratic principles are. If they did, they'd confront their contradiction. I suspect what underlies about all who object here to what I propose is deference to the Civic Religion that we dare not question the Framers. That we have the best system... and if it's not working well... then we're to blame. Others just use that old right wing line "we're not a democracy, we're a republic"... as if republics are REQUIRED to be antidemocratic. Others say we must propose amendments... as if the amendment process has worked. There have been something like 900 proposed amendments to abolish the EC. And in 225 years not ONE of the core antidemocratic features in the federal system has EVER been abolished.
So, ya... when speaking about reforming the federal system... even most liberal Dems aren't that much different from GOPers.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)And they would damn sure miss our tax receipts.
spin
(17,493 posts)that your state might not spit up?
Source: http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_quick.asp?i=1007
I understand there was a movement in California to spit it up into six states but it failed.
I also understand there is a movement for an entirely new state named Jefferson which would be formed from counties in northern California.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Even the GOPers in CA would benefit from a more democratic Constitution since their vote would finally matter in presidential elections. And if those democratic reforms included the Senate... if state state suffrage were abolished, they'd get more representation there as well.
MFM008
(19,803 posts)What's your beef with a blue state that isn't treacherously stupid like the " rusted" brain belt.
spin
(17,493 posts)The original OP was "Should California Threaten Secession?"
I was pointing out that the threat of California leaving the Union would not convince the lower populated states to help overturn the Electoral College.
If California decides to secede than so be it. In my opinion the voters in any state should have the right to decide if the state stays with the Union or not.
In passing I did point out that there is a movement inside California and Oregon for some counties to break away from their home state and form their own new state called "Jefferson." That might complicate the situation as if California did decide to break away, those California counties might decide to stay with the Union.
The State of Jefferson is a proposed U.S. state that would span the contiguous, mostly rural area of southern Oregon and Northern California, where several attempts to separate from Oregon and California, respectively, have taken place.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_state)
yurbud
(39,405 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)and give it to them.
The problem is the things that would do them the most good like breaking the power of ag monopolies or at least splitting the profits more fairly with actual farmers is as unlikely to be done by corporate Democrats as by Republicans.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)Too bad Texas didn't leave years ago.
spin
(17,493 posts)Republicans want California to break away.
I personally doubt that either state will leave.
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)That would certainly be interesting for all.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)But challenge, challenge, challenge and push it exactly to the limits with Agent Orange.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)First we should speak of the PEOPLE in the state... not the state itself. The PEOPLE in Cal simply don't have the power they deserve in a democratic system. So if they don't threaten some action to make the Constitution democratic... their power to be a beacon will continue to be greatly diminished.
ghostsinthemachine
(3,569 posts)It pains me that some redneck,racist Bible thumping,duck dynasty watching idiot from Alabama, Iowa, etc determines things in California.
MFM008
(19,803 posts)......
ailsagirl
(22,893 posts)
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 19, 2016, 04:19 PM - Edit history (2)
http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-russia-separatists-snap-story.html
Should California Threaten Secession? [View all]
PROBLEM 1: The standard for morally legitimate government was best summed up in the Declaration Of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The Electoral College system now twice in 16 years has imposed on the nation a president who was REJECTED by the People. The EC makes a mockery of the very concept of self-determination. Like Bush2, Trump will do immense damage to the nation and further entrench the power of a toxic GOP into the fabric of government.
PROBLEM 2: The EC is unlikely to ever be abolished constitutionally. The GOP has a well documented contempt for democracy and now that the EC has a clear GOP bias, no proposed amendment will ever get out of Congress. In the Senate a mere 18% of the US population gets 52% of the seats.
PROBLEM 3: Even if a proposed amendment made it out of Congress... states with as little as 4% of the US population can block any reform. The Popular Vote interstate pact is a clever workaround but it is unlikely to ever become reality and the first time a state has to vote against its own election results, there will be a revolt in that state to leave the pact. The only solution is to abolish the EC not put bandaids over it.
QUESTION: How do citizens reform a system that is both antidemocratic and virtually reformproof? One can imagine a 50-100 year campaign to overcome all the obstacles. But how many more morally illegitimate presidents will be imposed on the nation in that time determined to make reform more difficult?
PROPOSAL: I can think of no way to reform the system internally. If you can... I'd like to hear it. The only way I can envision the EC being abolished is if a state like California threatens secession unless democratic reforms are made to the Constitution... thus creating a constitutional crisis.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 19, 2016, 04:20 PM - Edit history (2)
http://www.notey.com/blogs/calexithttp://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-russia-separatists-snap-story.html
Should California Threaten Secession? [View all]
PROBLEM 1: The standard for morally legitimate government was best summed up in the Declaration Of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The Electoral College system now twice in 16 years has imposed on the nation a president who was REJECTED by the People. The EC makes a mockery of the very concept of self-determination. Like Bush2, Trump will do immense damage to the nation and further entrench the power of a toxic GOP into the fabric of government.
PROBLEM 2: The EC is unlikely to ever be abolished constitutionally. The GOP has a well documented contempt for democracy and now that the EC has a clear GOP bias, no proposed amendment will ever get out of Congress. In the Senate a mere 18% of the US population gets 52% of the seats.
PROBLEM 3: Even if a proposed amendment made it out of Congress... states with as little as 4% of the US population can block any reform. The Popular Vote interstate pact is a clever workaround but it is unlikely to ever become reality and the first time a state has to vote against its own election results, there will be a revolt in that state to leave the pact. The only solution is to abolish the EC not put bandaids over it.
QUESTION: How do citizens reform a system that is both antidemocratic and virtually reformproof? One can imagine a 50-100 year campaign to overcome all the obstacles. But how many more morally illegitimate presidents will be imposed on the nation in that time determined to make reform more difficult?
PROPOSAL: I can think of no way to reform the system internally. If you can... I'd like to hear it. The only way I can envision the EC being abolished is if a state like California threatens secession unless democratic reforms are made to the Constitution... thus creating a constitutional crisis.
onenote
(42,661 posts)When they involve California or vermont as when then involve Alaska or Texas.
BTW,how would California replace social security for the millions who are now eligible or will be in the future. One of countless questions secessionists don't think about.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)onenote
(42,661 posts)Under the current system since we have zero chance of getting rid of it. In case you don't remember we won under that system four of the six elections preceding this one (five if you count 2000).
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)So you're willing to live with a system that STOLE the election from the People and gave it to an emotionally immature, intellectually dishonest, pathologically narcissistic con man who the People had the good sense to REJECT? In your mind all we have to do is game this system.
Got it!
And no where in your plan is there EVER any attempt to establish what I hoped all Dems would believe in: civic EQUALITY in the vote... where all votes weighed the same in terms of representation.
As long as there are vote weighting/dilution schemes where the weight of one's vote depends on one's state... there's a possibility of a tyranny of the minority.
onenote
(42,661 posts)Because threatening secession is not a realistic threat given that it probably wouldn't have the support of a majority of Californians and would be laughed at by the federal government.
How many Californians will support secession after the federal government announces that if California attempts to secede no airplanes from any state will be allowed to travel to California and no flights originating in California will be
allowed to land anywhere on the US -- one of an endless series of steps the US could threaten to take in response to a secession threat. You'd be better off having California threaten to pay to relocate several hundred thousand of its citizens to each red or purple state in advance of the 2020 election.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)OK, got it.
Hey, I outlined the obstacles in the OP. Do you think I'd suggest instigating a constitutional crisis as a means of pushing for reform as a first resort?
But fine... if you want to be in the bend down and take it category... it's your right. Just don't pretend it's noble.
onenote
(42,661 posts)My suggestion is probably more realistic than yours, although its absurd as well.
But fine, if you want to be live in a make believe world where the government of the United States will capitulate to a "constitutional crisis' that has zero chance of even occurring because the majority of people of California are idiots who would think that they could survive with the economic and other sanctions that US government would deploy against them to say nothing of the loss of benefits, such as social security that the state wouldn't be in a position to replace, it's your right. Just don't pretend it's intellgent.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Try reading the entire thread. I tire of going over the same issues over and over. Apparently you've never heard of the "n" word... negotiations. Yes, there'd be a lot to untangle. BUT TRUE SECESSION WAS NEVER THE POINT.
OK... so either you don't mind the EC or you have no suggestions for abolishing it. Fine... I get it. But an electoral system that's out of the control of the People and can install a Trump after he's been rejected by the People should never be out of bounds. So I'm interested in having a discussion with people who DO want democratic reforms. If you're not... fine. But maybe we're back in this situation because people in CA didn't take action back in 2001 when the Bush Junta was installed.
onenote
(42,661 posts)It was a stupid idea and you just can't bring yourself to retreat.
And by the way, I did offer another solution, also based on a threat, but one that might actually be more plausible (while still being implausible than your idea). Have California announce that if the EC isn't reformed, it will offer a payment to hundreds of thousands of its citizens to encourage them to move to swing states and shift the votes into the Democrats column.
After the reforms are made, everyone could move back.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)moving around.
First you suggest a THREAT of secession.
Then, when told that you can't just threaten without being prepared to follow through with the threat, you say that
Now, in your post above, you are back to saying that "true secession was never the point". Which is going back to California doesn't really have to secede, just threaten to, and hope that negotiations work.
So which is it?
True secession...i.e. actually following through on the threat?
or threatening secession with the hopes of being able to "negotiate"?
and if negotiations aren't forthcoming, then what?
If "true secession" isn't really the point, then what IS the point?
I think some here are a little puzzled about what the bottom line is here
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)are you a resident of California?
If so, then what's stopping you from spearheading a movement to secede unless certain demands are met (abolishing the EC)?
Why not just go for it and see what happens?
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)onenote
(42,661 posts)Apparently you would choose pursuit of an unobtainable goal over pursuit of a difficult but obtainable goal.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)and they know it. dems either continue to get screwed in every single presidential election, or the do something about it.
onenote
(42,661 posts)The demographic trends are in our favor. A shift of less than 100,000 votes and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)was that republicans get a head start in every single presidential election because the small reliably red states get more EC votes per human vote. this is nothing new, but the country seems to be so evenly divided now, that the built in EC advantage can allow repubs to "win" even when they lose.
onenote
(42,661 posts)And, as noted, the demographics are in our favor -- blue states are becoming bluer and some reliably red states are becoming more purple.
I don't understand the desire of some people here to give up and seek fantasy solutions that have zero chance of succeeding like secession (or, before that, the dream that electors would dump Trump).
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)small states get more EC votes per HUMAN voter; that is the problem. idk, maybe you think this is just fine, i don't, and it will NEVER change because it benefits repugs. AND they control the majority of voting machines, so get ready to hve to get about twice as many votes as repugs to win ANYTHING.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)The demographic trends will still give the advantage to white rural states.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)And thanks to gerrymandering along with voter suppression, we can look forward to more elections like this year's in the future.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Gerrymandering doesn't affect vote totals in any senatorial or presidential race. It's a scheme only useful for House races.
Merlot
(9,696 posts)who have paid into the system. Californians who have paid into the system would get their SS from the US. California would then choose how to set up it's own SS system for future generations.
nbsmom
(591 posts)You do get that the plan is already in the works to privatize Social Security and voucherize Medicare, don't you?
Rolling everyone's accounts into a state-based retirement plan (CalPERS would do nicely) would preempt at least some of the overreach at the Federal level. And CalPERS health plan could be brought up to speed as a single-payer, and open up other opportunities for covering more of our state's uninsured and underinsured.
Frankly, if CA residents don't have to send $1.00 TO the Federal government to get back ~ .82 from the Feds, CA is much better off.
avebury
(10,952 posts)They would have the high tech Silicon Valley companies and the west coast ports.
onenote
(42,661 posts)I imagine that there currently are several million people receiving social security on California alone.
avebury
(10,952 posts)and anything from Silicon Valley he will have to play ball with the west coast states.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)IF YOU LEAVE THEN YOU ARE CUT OFF FROM THE GRID.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)to be adjustments, but it is hardly this monumental impossibility that many here suggest.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Funding may pose a real problem.
No credit.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)CA gets back about 87% of what it pay in federal taxes.
Leaving aside that my proposal is NOT to have CA actually secede but to demand democratic reforms to the federal system.. I doubt credit would be difficult to establish if the interest paid were enticing enough.
Response to oneshooter (Reply #318)
Post removed
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)onenote
(42,661 posts)Possession is 9/10th of the law? Really?
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)in any case, i doubt the red staters would be willing to risk their own lives to stop the left coast from leaving. things have changed a little during the past 150 years.
onenote
(42,661 posts)The federal government won't have to use force. The folks in California will never go along with secession once they realize that their economy would be crushed by economic sanctions. Florida and other states would love to have more buyers for their produce. And the stench of rotting fruit and lettuce in California would choke you. Plus California doesn't produce some pretty important staples, like corn and wheat.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)onenote
(42,661 posts)You really need to get out more.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)AGAIN... leaving aside the fact that my original proposal was NOT to have CA actually secede but to push for democratic reforms... if CA were to secede it holds immense leverage to bargain with. How much CA money is used to prop up all those red beggar states that get back way more in federal spending than they contribute to the nation? Have you ever looked at that list? CA has a huge economy and natural resources such as seaports needed by the rest of the nation. And since CA would have a just cause... as opposed to the Slave State... their threatened secession would have the support of many in the nation.. and I might add many GOPers who know their presidential vote is meaningless if they live in "blue" states.
And business is business. If there's a profit to be made dealing with CA... business will fight possible sanctions.
The bottom line here is you're all objection with no ideas on how we abolish the EC.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)It's clear you rather bog yourself down in the minutia about actual secession than what the threat is meant to accomplish. All debt, water rights, entangled social programs, water rights, federal properties WHATEVER can be negotiated.
But my original question was I can think of no way to reform the system internally. If you can... I'd like to hear it. The only way I can envision the EC being abolished is if a state like California threatens secession unless democratic reforms are made to the Constitution... thus creating a constitutional crisis.
Will cause a constitutional crisis on day 1.
His goal is to see what he can get away with.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)It could pay for SS and other programs themselves.
California wouldn't have to subsidize the poor red states anymore.
onenote
(42,661 posts)California not only would have to come up with the funds to keep making social security payments at the current levels, but make them going forward. And it would have to create the apparatus for doing so --- employ more people, set up the computers and systems to track social security recipients -- all things that the federal government does now. It would be chaos and folks wouldn't get their checks. Same thing for other federal programs that support activities by state and local agencies or directly return benefits to the people.
It's not easy replacing the federal government -- usually the only people I have to explain that to are right wingers who think that everything can be privatized or moved to the states to handle.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)onenote
(42,661 posts)state run substitutes for Federal programs -- farm subsidies, children's food support, etc etc.
Plus, you think the federal government would just let California secede? They'd put an embargo on shipments to the new "country." Wheat, corn, a lot of staples -- not available. And California's farm economy --- a lot of rotting tomatoes and oranges if they can't market them out of state.
I understood why someone like Todd Palin would be a secessionist. He's an idiot. Wasn't expecting to see similar idiocy on DU.
nbsmom
(591 posts)For current Social Security recipients, it would essentially work like a bond or mutual fund rollover. For the currently employed, payroll agencies (and apps) would calculate FICA taxes from the Fed tables for California employers (on behalf of their employees) as they currently do. California public agencies don't participate in Social Security... they have CalPERS, which beats the living shit out of Social Security. Franchise Tax Board could take on more Treasury duties, and creating the infrastructure now would pre-empt more people getting completely screwed when they begin to privatize more of Social Security.
I don't trust any of those Goldman Sachs nimrods and I'd rather take my chances with an ethical state-based system than continue to pay into the travesty that Social Security is bound to become.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)This country couldn't manage without CA and NY.
sarisataka
(18,551 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)They can't whine while holding their breath.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,401 posts)and California would be taking a huge chunk of EC votes with it if it actually seceded, which would make it HARDER for Democrats to win in what is left of the country. Talking about secession may be sort of a fun "what-if" fantasy to idly ponder when things aren't turning out how you'd like them to electorally, but the logistics and practical implications of actually seceding have never actually been thought through all that well by anybody. Threatening to do it just makes us sounds as crazy as the lunatics in Texas constantly threatening it IMHO.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)They would join in any military effort to see that California did not secede.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,401 posts)The Civil War showed us how bad a divided country can get- and it would be 10X worse now.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)You seem more willing to live with a system that imposes morally illegitimate government on the nation that consider reforming it. And sadly in a system that's both antidemocratic and virtually reformproof... there are only three options that can move us to a popular vote. 1: An amendment. It's been tried close to 1000 times and it will never get out of Congress or be ratified. 2: The Popular Vote interstate compact which will fall apart once a state is forced to vote for a candidate their state did. 3: A constitutional crisis... and California threatening secession is the only way I can think of because of all states CA is treated the worst under our federal system and its location makes it possible that it could exist as a separate entity.
former9thward
(31,963 posts)They would never lose another national election.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I know it is a fantasy but what would be left would certainly become a 2nd or 3rd rate power. It would certainly be the poorest English speaking nation.
former9thward
(31,963 posts)It would still be the richest nation, English speaking or otherwise.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)If you remove the GDPs of CA, WA, OR, VA, MD, DE, NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, NH, VT, MA, and ME the GDP of what is left of America would be somewhere south of India:
http://tinyurl.com/lses9we
former9thward
(31,963 posts)Those states at your link do not derive their GDPs as stand alones. They all derive it from interrelated commerce. (Which is why the founders put in the Constitution that states could not impose tariffs or other state border hindrances.) So CA does not have the GDP of Italy by itself. It derives it by the use of products of every other state. Just as CA provides food to other states. BTW, as long as we are in fantasy, how would CA food get to the East? Do you think the middle would just allow it to go through without any taxes which would raise the cost of food in the East? Do you think the middle would allow air overflights?
All this being said I do believe in the future the U.S. will break up in some way. The U.S. no longer has the will to fight a civil war and so when it happens it will be peaceful but full of internal violence as various factions fight for power.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)MrModerate
(9,753 posts)The new nation arising from the secession of California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington (and a little bit of British Columbia) from their respective nations.
But it's just a fantasy.
For one thing, the situation is simply not bad enough yet to justify such a radical solution. And using secession as a threat -- a bargaining chip -- is ethically unsustainable and a really bad idea besides.
Trump is going to screw up, big league, quickly and often. If we can't make political hay out of that, then we need to be recruiting people who can.
lake loon
(99 posts)The breakup will come; Shitler's junta only accelerates it. And once secession begins, it will move quickly, as it did in 1860-61. The Pacific Republic, the Republic of New York and New England, the Midland Republic, the Republic of Texas and Bammatucky? We'd all be better off.
sarisataka
(18,551 posts)That secession in 1861 didn't turn out so well for the seceding states.
lake loon
(99 posts)Nobody's gonna want anybody back. We're getting to the point where we all want to, and should, go our separate ways.
sarisataka
(18,551 posts)The Southern states told themselves.
Whether they really care if States leave or not do you think Republicans would sit still and become known as the ones who let the United States split up without acting on it? It would be a Civil War as a matter of principle and pride.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 19, 2016, 04:20 PM - Edit history (2)
http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/12/13/from-his-home-in-russia-calexit-leader-plots-california-secession/http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-russia-separatists-snap-story.html
Should California Threaten Secession? [View all]
PROBLEM 1: The standard for morally legitimate government was best summed up in the Declaration Of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The Electoral College system now twice in 16 years has imposed on the nation a president who was REJECTED by the People. The EC makes a mockery of the very concept of self-determination. Like Bush2, Trump will do immense damage to the nation and further entrench the power of a toxic GOP into the fabric of government.
PROBLEM 2: The EC is unlikely to ever be abolished constitutionally. The GOP has a well documented contempt for democracy and now that the EC has a clear GOP bias, no proposed amendment will ever get out of Congress. In the Senate a mere 18% of the US population gets 52% of the seats.
PROBLEM 3: Even if a proposed amendment made it out of Congress... states with as little as 4% of the US population can block any reform. The Popular Vote interstate pact is a clever workaround but it is unlikely to ever become reality and the first time a state has to vote against its own election results, there will be a revolt in that state to leave the pact. The only solution is to abolish the EC not put bandaids over it.
QUESTION: How do citizens reform a system that is both antidemocratic and virtually reformproof? One can imagine a 50-100 year campaign to overcome all the obstacles. But how many more morally illegitimate presidents will be imposed on the nation in that time determined to make reform more difficult?
PROPOSAL: I can think of no way to reform the system internally. If you can... I'd like to hear it. The only way I can envision the EC being abolished is if a state like California threatens secession unless democratic reforms are made to the Constitution... thus creating a constitutional crisis.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I've seen this idea floated right here in DU 10-12 years ago.
So what are your REAL reasons for opposing democratic reforms to abolish the EC? Or do you like having morally illegitimate far right presidents being imposed on the nation?
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 19, 2016, 04:21 PM - Edit history (2)
On paper, the leader of the California secession movement lives in an apartment complex near San Diego’s Golden Hill neighborhood. But in reality, the Calexit campaign is being run by a 30-year-old who lives and works in a city on the edge of Siberia.
Louis Marinelli heads the secessionist group Yes California. Following the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, the organization has gone from an unknown fringe group to one discussed seriously in mainstream media.
What has not been discussed as prominently is Marinelli’s deep ties to Russia.
A former right-wing activist from Buffalo, New York, Marinelli first moved to Russia almost a decade ago. He studied at St. Petersburg State University, the alma mater of Russian President Vladimir Putin. He returned to the United States to campaign against LGBTQ rights as part of the National Organization for Marriage.
Marinelli then returned to Russia. He would marry a Russian citizen, and the couple moved to San Diego, where Marinelli launched a political career based on a platform of California secession.
“I immigrated to California, and I consider myself to be a Californian,” Marinelli says from his apartment in Yekaterinburg, a city of about 1.4 million just east of the Ural Mountains and about 1,000 miles from Moscow.
In an interview with The California Report, Marinelli confirms he’s living and working in Russia as a teacher.
“I wanted to handle some personal issues in my family, regarding immigration,” Marinelli explains of his long stay in Russia. “My wife is from Russia. I’m here handling various personal issues. But at the same time, we have some political goals we can achieve while I’m here.”
Those political goals include establishing a California embassy in Moscow, Marinelli says.
http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/12/13/from-his-home-in-russia-calexit-leader-plots-california-secession/
http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-russia-separatists-snap-story.html
Should California Threaten Secession? [View all]
PROBLEM 1: The standard for morally legitimate government was best summed up in the Declaration Of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The Electoral College system now twice in 16 years has imposed on the nation a president who was REJECTED by the People. The EC makes a mockery of the very concept of self-determination. Like Bush2, Trump will do immense damage to the nation and further entrench the power of a toxic GOP into the fabric of government.
PROBLEM 2: The EC is unlikely to ever be abolished constitutionally. The GOP has a well documented contempt for democracy and now that the EC has a clear GOP bias, no proposed amendment will ever get out of Congress. In the Senate a mere 18% of the US population gets 52% of the seats.
PROBLEM 3: Even if a proposed amendment made it out of Congress... states with as little as 4% of the US population can block any reform. The Popular Vote interstate pact is a clever workaround but it is unlikely to ever become reality and the first time a state has to vote against its own election results, there will be a revolt in that state to leave the pact. The only solution is to abolish the EC not put bandaids over it.
QUESTION: How do citizens reform a system that is both antidemocratic and virtually reformproof? One can imagine a 50-100 year campaign to overcome all the obstacles. But how many more morally illegitimate presidents will be imposed on the nation in that time determined to make reform more difficult?
PROPOSAL: I can think of no way to reform the system internally. If you can... I'd like to hear it. The only way I can envision the EC being abolished is if a state like California threatens secession unless democratic reforms are made to the Constitution... thus creating a constitutional crisis.
Response to Madam45for2923 (Reply #70)
Madam45for2923 This message was self-deleted by its author.
billh58
(6,635 posts)Let's have another Civil War since the first worked out so well.
And if needed, 
HeartachesNhangovers
(814 posts)I was born in CA, but don't live there now (and presumably wouldn't when the secession happened since it's so expensive to live on the coast there). Do I get dual citizenship, or am I barred from moving back? What about the millions of people from other states who live there (some for only a few months or weeks) - do they get kicked out, or do they become citizens?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Legally and easily done. Very beautiful state, many coastal Californians are looking to retire in affordable areas, and enlightened Arizonans need help advancing the culture.
ismnotwasm
(41,973 posts)I'd hate to stop making fun of those morons in Texas who keep trying to be part of northern Mexico
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Leaving aside there's noting explicit in the Constitution that prevents secession... except perhaps the Supremacy Clause that states agree federal power is supreme in certain areas... what are YOUR ideas for changing what's clearly an intolerable situation: that the very constitutional EC is imposing morally legitimate presidents on the nation after they have been REJECTED by the People?
hardluck
(638 posts)While not explicit in the Constitution, I remember vaguely that the succession issue was resolved sometime in the 1860s.
It's your fantasy, which do you prefer, the U.S. Navy showing up in San Pedro Harbor like in 1832 or the Army making California squeal a la 1864? I guess it is true that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)So someone else who's trying to disrupt this discussion did so 7 red baiting posts... and your tactic is to connect me with defenders of slavery?
Look... there are motives and means... the point of slave state secession was to protect slavery. The point of threatening California secession is to take the moral highground... democratically speaking.... to FINALLY get civic equality in the vote into the Constitution. Some issues are worth taking a stand on. Slavery wasn't one of them. Finally creating a system that doesn't impose on the nation a candidate REJECTED by the People IS such an issue.
But as I wrote in my first post... if you have any suggestions to abolish the EC in an antidemocratic and virtually reformproof system... I'm all ears.
hardluck
(638 posts)The "point" is irrelevant. Your idea of succession is naive fantasy. The idea of somehow abolishing the Electoral College is as well. Instead of wasting energy tilting at windmills, we should be spending that energy blocking Trump's policies, winning local and state elections, and rebuilding the democratic party for the 2020 election. In four years, when the people have tired of Trump and his broken policies, and he and the GOP have made of mess of everything, we will win the presidential election, just like in 2008.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Sure the Democrats need to regroup BUT THAT IS IRRELEVANT to abolishing the EC.
So your bottom line is we forever live with a system that has now stolen a victory from the Dems TWICE in 16 years... and instead we game the system and hope for the best. So how did that "hoping for the best" strategy worked for those who said the very same things about Bush in 2001?
NO self-respecting, free people should put up with this bullshit... but obviously not everyone believes in democratic values and not everyone is self-respecting.
That's the bottom line. There are no magical unicorns that shit skittles and there is no way you will abolish the Electoral College. Sorry to disappoint.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)But if you believe we should have a political system that we can't reform no matter how antidemocratic and morally illegitimate it becomes, a system that makes a mockery of self-government, that can enact policies people voted AGAINST... fine. Your moral bankruptcy in this matter is noted. We have nothing else to say to each other on this matter.
sarisataka
(18,551 posts)Or at least such a watered-down version of it that it makes people think secession is no big deal
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)
brooklynite
(94,480 posts)TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)
Oakenshield
(614 posts)That doesn't sound bad to me at all.
Calista241
(5,586 posts)California doesn't even have enough water for its population. And the now dominant Republicans in the rest of the US would almost surely divert any natural water flows just for spite.
All federal assets would be removed, and the US would probably have to be compensated by CA for any assets paid for that are not removable. That will be some crushing dept for a country that now has to buy water, and pay a giant tariff to get their goods into the rest of the US.
Half the citizens would flee, and CA would have to fund, staff, and purchase military gear to protect itself from Mexico who would probably sacrifice a LOT to annex California.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Leaving aside that all you mentioned is negotiable.... what are YOUR ideas on how to make needed democratic reforms in a system that's both antidemocratic and virtually reformproof?
BTW... CA sends far more money to DC than it gets back in return. It's the red beggar states what would feel some of the pinch.
Calista241
(5,586 posts)Into account. Like maybe show up at some point in Wisconnsin. Michigan too. Bernie gave us the frigging blueprint by talking about trade. The fact that the campaign wrote him and the lessons off is not the EC's fault.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I think you need to put some serious thought into the subject of how democratic elections are the core of morally legitimate government based on the CONSENT of the governed. HRC only lost the election because of the EC. In any normal nation based on democratic values someone who is REJECTED by 2.8 million votes DOES NOT WIN AN ELECTION.
The EC was designed to magnify the power of whites in slave states. I posted above an excerpt from the Constitutional Convention. We abolished the 3/5 rule for slave when slavery was abolished... but we never got rid of the EC. Instead new apologists just invested new rationales for it... like the "we don't want CA and NY picking our presidents". It's an argument based on how STATES are voting. I look at how PEOPLE vote regardless of where they live. And no one should have a 3.3x bigger presidential vote just because they choose to live in WY than in CA... and no one in CA should have a 1/3 vote compared to a citizen in WY.
EX500rider
(10,832 posts)The Mexican military is not really equipped for large scale attacks/invasions.. They rely on the US to keep them safe from foreign militaries.
Tanks=0
Fighters/interceptors=6
Self-propelled artillery=0
Attack helicopters=0
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=mexico
The Calif National Guard would clean their clocks...
Calif NG Army units:
40th Infantry Division (Mech)
79th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (United States)
1st Battalion, 160th Infantry Regiment
1st Battalion, 184th Infantry Regiment
1st Squadron, 18th Cavalry Regiment
1st Battalion, 143rd Field Artillery Regiment
578th Brigade Engineer Battalion
40th Brigade Support Battalion
40th Combat Aviation Brigade[1][2]
Company C, 1st Battalion, 168th Aviation Regiment (HH-60L)[3]
640th Support Battalion
100th Troop Command
223rd Military Intelligence Battalion
250th Military Intelligence Battalion
1st Battalion, 144th Field Artillery Regiment
1st Battalion, 185th Infantry Regiment
49th Military Police Brigade
185th Military Police Battalion
579th Engineer Battalion
224th Sustainment Brigade
223rd Regimental Training Institute
115th Area Support Group
Special Operations Detachment-North (SOD-N)
Company A, 5/19th Special Forces Group
Calif NG Air Units:
129th Rescue Wing
Established 3 April 1955; operates: MC-130P Combat Shadow; HH-60G Pave Hawk
Stationed at: Moffett Federal Airfield, Mountain View
Gained by: Air Force Special Operations Command
The members of the 129th have performed rescues under a variety of conditions - from rough Pacific seas to the rugged Sierra Nevada, using its combination of HC-130 tankers and HH-60 helicopters. Many high-risk lifesaving missions involved long-range, over-water flights, air refueling of helicopters by the HC-130 aircraft, and skilled maneuvering by ships and helicopters to recover patients from the decks of these vessels.[2]
144th Fighter Wing
Established 2 June 1948; operates: F-15 Eagle
Stationed at: Fresno Air National Guard Base, Fresno with additional Alert Detachment at March Air Reserve Base, Riverside
Gained by: Air Combat Command
Provides air defense protection for California from the Mexican border to Oregon utilizing the F-15 Eagle.[2]
146th Airlift Wing
Established 16 June 1924 (as: 115th Observation Squadron); operates: C-130J Hercules (MAFFS)
Stationed at: Channel Islands Air National Guard Station, Oxnard
Gained by: Air Mobility Command
The oldest unit of the CA ANG, the 146th AW proivides global military airlift capability to a full spectrum of state and federal agencies.[2]
163d Reconnaissance Wing
Established 9 November 1946 (as: 196th Fighter Squadron); operates: MQ-1 Predator
Stationed at: March Joint Air Reserve Base, Riverside
Gained by: Air Combat Command/Air Education and Training Command
Has 902 members of which roughly 220 are full-time. Currently in transition from a KC-135 Stratotanker air refueling mission to an MQ-1 Predator ISR wing, executing global unmanned aerial systems, combat support, and humanitarian missions.[3]
195th Wing
Established 13 May 1948; non-flying unit
Stationed at: Beale Air Force Base, Marysville
Gained by: Air Combat Command
Responsible for non-flying missions including electronic intelligence, communications, network warfare, space control, and administrative programs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_National_Guard
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)And if California pulls out of the Union, this equipment, pilots, materials and weapons will go with it.
EX500rider
(10,832 posts)They'd go from backwater NG units to the premier and ground floor units of a new Calif military.....lots of promotions there..
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)They swore an oath to the Constitution, not to the state.
EX500rider
(10,832 posts).....Calif would have a good argument that they paid for much of it with their large tax base.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)Calista241
(5,586 posts)It's about one state choosing to leave the union. If that's the case, there is no way the US lets CA keep transportable military assets paid for by the federal govt.
California benefitted by being in the union. They got to sell all their shit here with no tariffs, free transport, free travel, free air corridors, and a shitload of federal investment over the decades. All that shit would go away on day 1. It's only recently that CA became a donor state.
California trying to leave the union would be a catastrophe for all parties involved. Just the water situation in CA alone would be reason enough to stay. And the US federal gov't would seriously fight a civil war for access to the ports.
This fantasy bullshit won't change anything. The electoral college has affected 4 elections in our 238 year history, and you're willing to sacrifice millions of lives over it, and decades of peace?
And what's going to happen to the rest of the world while the US is fighting this internal strife?
Sedition is a real, prosecutable crime in this country, and if politicians in any state start actively pushing for revolt, they're going to find themselves in supermax in Colorado.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 19, 2016, 04:21 PM - Edit history (2)
http://www.notey.com/blogs/calexitThere is Louis Marinelli !
http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-russia-separatists-snap-story.html
Should California Threaten Secession? [View all]
PROBLEM 1: The standard for morally legitimate government was best summed up in the Declaration Of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The Electoral College system now twice in 16 years has imposed on the nation a president who was REJECTED by the People. The EC makes a mockery of the very concept of self-determination. Like Bush2, Trump will do immense damage to the nation and further entrench the power of a toxic GOP into the fabric of government.
PROBLEM 2: The EC is unlikely to ever be abolished constitutionally. The GOP has a well documented contempt for democracy and now that the EC has a clear GOP bias, no proposed amendment will ever get out of Congress. In the Senate a mere 18% of the US population gets 52% of the seats.
PROBLEM 3: Even if a proposed amendment made it out of Congress... states with as little as 4% of the US population can block any reform. The Popular Vote interstate pact is a clever workaround but it is unlikely to ever become reality and the first time a state has to vote against its own election results, there will be a revolt in that state to leave the pact. The only solution is to abolish the EC not put bandaids over it.
QUESTION: How do citizens reform a system that is both antidemocratic and virtually reformproof? One can imagine a 50-100 year campaign to overcome all the obstacles. But how many more morally illegitimate presidents will be imposed on the nation in that time determined to make reform more difficult?
PROPOSAL: I can think of no way to reform the system internally. If you can... I'd like to hear it. The only way I can envision the EC being abolished is if a state like California threatens secession unless democratic reforms are made to the Constitution... thus creating a constitutional crisis.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)You've now posted FIVE posts to this thread about your Russian red herring. And you have posted ZERO ideas on how to abolish the EC.
I now can only assume you APPROVE of the Bush and Trump Juntas being imposed on a nation that REJECTED both candidates.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)SEPTEMBER 2016
For the first time in history, we, the people of California, who were conquered and annexed by the American military about 170 years ago, will have a chance to express our voice to either remain a state in the American union, or instead, to pursue a path toward a nationhood,” Marinelli said solemnly.
Gavrilko, who is from the unrecognized but de facto independent Donetsk region, and the entire separatist crowd cheered and applauded. They did it again, louder, when Nate Smith, a self-proclaimed “foreign minister” of the Texas Nationalist Movement, promised that one day, the independent Lone Star state “can formally exchange ambassadors with your free and independent countries.”
The arrival of Californian, Texan, Puerto Rican, Northern Irish, Catalan, Italian and Lebanese secessionists to mingle with activists from several unrecognized separatist territories in former Soviet republics is becoming a tradition as Moscow turns to belligerent, anti-Western nationalism coupled with a readiness to take up arms against its former Soviet vassals.
Moscow uses these gatherings to promote its political agenda, gain more political leverage in the West and push for the lifting of Western sanctions imposed on Moscow after its 2014 annexation of Crimea and support of the separatists in eastern Ukraine, a former lawmaker with the ruling United Russia party said.
http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-russia-separatists-snap-story.html
Should California Threaten Secession? [View all]
PROBLEM 1: The standard for morally legitimate government was best summed up in the Declaration Of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The Electoral College system now twice in 16 years has imposed on the nation a president who was REJECTED by the People. The EC makes a mockery of the very concept of self-determination. Like Bush2, Trump will do immense damage to the nation and further entrench the power of a toxic GOP into the fabric of government.
PROBLEM 2: The EC is unlikely to ever be abolished constitutionally. The GOP has a well documented contempt for democracy and now that the EC has a clear GOP bias, no proposed amendment will ever get out of Congress. In the Senate a mere 18% of the US population gets 52% of the seats.
PROBLEM 3: Even if a proposed amendment made it out of Congress... states with as little as 4% of the US population can block any reform. The Popular Vote interstate pact is a clever workaround but it is unlikely to ever become reality and the first time a state has to vote against its own election results, there will be a revolt in that state to leave the pact. The only solution is to abolish the EC not put bandaids over it.
QUESTION: How do citizens reform a system that is both antidemocratic and virtually reformproof? One can imagine a 50-100 year campaign to overcome all the obstacles. But how many more morally illegitimate presidents will be imposed on the nation in that time determined to make reform more difficult?
PROPOSAL: I can think of no way to reform the system internally. If you can... I'd like to hear it. The only way I can envision the EC being abolished is if a state like California threatens secession unless democratic reforms are made to the Constitution... thus creating a constitutional crisis.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Hmmm who would post SIX posts to disrupt a discussion on how to abolish the EC which now clearly has a GOP bias and imposed TWO far right Juntas on the nation?
Whom indeed.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)It is Germane!
http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-russia-separatists-snap-story.html
Should California Threaten Secession? [View all]
PROBLEM 1: The standard for morally legitimate government was best summed up in the Declaration Of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The Electoral College system now twice in 16 years has imposed on the nation a president who was REJECTED by the People. The EC makes a mockery of the very concept of self-determination. Like Bush2, Trump will do immense damage to the nation and further entrench the power of a toxic GOP into the fabric of government.
PROBLEM 2: The EC is unlikely to ever be abolished constitutionally. The GOP has a well documented contempt for democracy and now that the EC has a clear GOP bias, no proposed amendment will ever get out of Congress. In the Senate a mere 18% of the US population gets 52% of the seats.
PROBLEM 3: Even if a proposed amendment made it out of Congress... states with as little as 4% of the US population can block any reform. The Popular Vote interstate pact is a clever workaround but it is unlikely to ever become reality and the first time a state has to vote against its own election results, there will be a revolt in that state to leave the pact. The only solution is to abolish the EC not put bandaids over it.
QUESTION: How do citizens reform a system that is both antidemocratic and virtually reformproof? One can imagine a 50-100 year campaign to overcome all the obstacles. But how many more morally illegitimate presidents will be imposed on the nation in that time determined to make reform more difficult?
PROPOSAL: I can think of no way to reform the system internally. If you can... I'd like to hear it. The only way I can envision the EC being abolished is if a state like California threatens secession unless democratic reforms are made to the Constitution... thus creating a constitutional crisis.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Sorry, M45... ALL your posts to date have been to DISTRACT from the topic of abolishing the EC and to tarnish the discussion by claiming any talk of a specific tactic is somehow connected to Russia. I wonder how many other discussions you've tried to disrupt here.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)opiate69
(10,129 posts)pirozhki!
Добрый вечер, товариш!
KPN
(15,641 posts)Why not? Is there a good reason?
Missn-Hitch
(1,383 posts)Then an eastern wall.
KPN
(15,641 posts)
Kilgore
(1,733 posts)Come California, we welcome you with open arms!!!
http://zapatopi.net/cascadia/
KPN
(15,641 posts)Or you all could join the State of Jefferson! Either way -- I'm 1000% in.
trc
(823 posts)it is the result. The problem is not messaging, the EC or even who Democrats pander to, it is voter suppression on a scale not seen in decades. This election was stolen through processes put in place by republican led states to remove poor, black and brown voters from the voting roles. Dems need to focus on fixing this issue through exposing the behavior and changing laws. The EC is irrelevant, it is the wrong battle, let's work on making everyone who is eligible to vote, able to vote. Rather than threaten secession, work to fix this country for everyone.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Sure GOP voter suppression was a factor in turnout... BUT... your argument is flawed if you believe that it didn't matter in this election. You might have a point IF we had a popular vote, the election was so close... voter suppression could be blamed.
But the ONLY reason we're having a candidate being imposed on the nation that rejected him IS BECAUSE THE SYSTEM IS ANTIDEMOCRATIC.
If you're a constitutional apologist... it's time you dealt with the basics... such as what constitutes morally legitimate government based on the CONSENT of the governed... and how the current system fails to insure morally legitimate results from a democratic standpoint.
Calculating
(2,955 posts)A voter in some backwater state with more cattle than people is worth 4-7x a voter from Cali/NY etc, and we can never fix this because the states that benefit won't vote for the repeal of the EC. The founders completely and permanently screwed our country with the unfixable EC system.
Aside from the EC, Republicans are openly cheating now. Look no further than gerrymandering and the tyranny going on in NC. The Republicans have no intentions of 'playing fair', compromising or working together with the other side.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)In 225 years not ONE of the core antidemocratic features of our federal system has EVER been abolished. And while Dems seem to believe demographics are on their side to make the Dems a permanent majority party... demographics trends are making the federal system more antidemocratic and more reformproof and ready to thwart that hope. 2016 should be that warning sign.
As for the vote differential in the presidential races... the biggest it gets is between the smallest population state WY, and CA, the largest. Last I calculated it... it was 3.3 : 1.
When in 1790 the differential between the largest and smallest state was about 17:1... it's now 70:1.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)trc
(823 posts)going full tilt at the electoral college is a waste of time. It would require a constitutional amendment to get of this roadblock to democracy...so lets go around the road block by ensuring more democratic votes are cast and counted, you know, the thing we really can do. Once democrats take back control then we can work on the Constitution, until then we just waste time while repubs steal more from us.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)interference, plain old hacking etc., all occurred and no doubt affected the outcome, but ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, the EC gives repubs a head start because the small, reliably red states get more EC votes per human vote than the bigger (population-wise) blue states. that means it is quite probable that democrats will have to get MORE HUMAN VOTES than republicans, every single election, just to get the same number of EC votes.
this is also the reason why repugs will never allow the EC to be changed, because they know it gives them an unfair advantage. btw, you mention getting more dem votes cast and counted, well, we won by close to 3 million this time and still lost the EC, plus you can in no way, shape, or form guarantee that actual votes cast get counted. that's a whole 'nother problem which repugs will also not let be fixed; look what's going on in NC right now.
trc
(823 posts)the EC should be abolished, but it won't be, and democrats need more votes than republicans. Hillary lost the 3 swing states she needed by a total of about 70 k votes...directly attributed to repub efforts at removing voters of color from voter roles and using "faulty" equipment in heavy minority districts. It is based on this cheating and fraud that the EC played a role in this election, and the one in 2000 as well. Democrats need to regain state houses, gain control of the vote process and get the message out to voters that they need to check their voter registration status before each election..and secure universal voter registration when kids turn 18. The electoral college is an anachronism that should go away, but that will take a constitutional amendment, something that will not happen any time soon. But for 70k votes we would not be discussing the EC at this time. 70k is not an overwhelming amount we have to spend years growing, it is a simple matter of making sure dems get their voters out to the polls and make sure that they are able to vote when they get there. I have not looked at the numbers state by state but it would be my guess that if every electoral vote cast was apportioned by vote percentage instead of winner take all we would have our first woman president. Nothing in the constitution concerning the EC supports the system we have in place for most states, that is something we can fix without amending the constitution. We were robbed and this country will pay a heavy price, lets work to make sure this gets fixed in the most effective way possible.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)of the EC because it works to their advantage. throw in the fact that they control the most voting machines (both manufacture and operation of), and democrats will be swimming upstream indefinitely, and we will all suffer the consequences.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)"the EC should be abolished, but it won't be, and democrats need more votes than republicans."
Indeed... but I'd say the EC MUST be abolished. But when you say it won't be... then that's where you and I part company because if it must be abolished to insure morally legitimate government based on the CONSENT of the governed... and to establish for ourselves and the future of the nation real self-determination... then all's fair short of violence... including pushing for a constitutional crisis and leveraging CA's... and perhaps other state's, power. After all, abolishing the EC is an extremely REASONABLE demand.
trc
(823 posts)but it won't happen until Dems control enough states and have super-majorities in both the Senate and the house as well as the presidency. My entire point is this: Dems can rail against the EC, and waist that energy, or, rail against the election fraud and disenfranchisement being perpetrated as an official policy of the republican party. Republicans almost control enough state governments to pass any constitutional amendment they desire, this is my real fear. Correcting who and how votes get counted is local, let's work on that low hanging fruit and once that is done we can pick the fruit higher up the tree.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)before they give up an unfair advantage. i honestly believe that secession is a preferable, more achievable option.
Brother Buzz
(36,407 posts)for the emerging shadow government.
It will be entertaining to watch foreign countries shutter their DC embassies and relocate in California where the real power will be.
Calista241
(5,586 posts)That wanted to secede? How is his thread any different?
There is already precedent that we will go to war to prevent secession. Nobody should have any doubt about that. No matter who is in power in Washington, nobody will let CA or Texas, or anyone else go without a very big fight.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Gee... how about the goals? The intent isn't secession for its own sake... or for whatever right wing lunacy might drive right wingers... IT'S TO MAKE OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM DEMOCRATIC.
But I have to say I've long found it curious that so many liberal Dems who like to believe they are the mighty defenders of democratic ideals... haven't even bothered to define what democracy is. They live in a state of cognitive dissonance that they defend democracy when in reality they support an antidemocratic system. And while I was and am a Bernie guy, I don't think he EVER made the connection that most of what he most complained about... such as runaway corporate power, is directly connected to our antidemocratic government which grants immense power to small minorities which can thwart any corporate reform.... or that minority government in terms of a president (Bush2) and and antidemocratic Senate can pack the court with right wing neanderthals.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)When Right wing states toy with secession it's never for the best of motives. Trying to abolish the EC to establish a principle that we'll have NO president imposed on the nation after being rejected by its People IS a noble motive.
Motley13
(3,867 posts)ask yourself, what would Abe Lincoln do?
Texas now & then threatens this crap, but what can you expect from them?
We have been through wars, dumb presidents,
WE WILL GET THROUGH THIS, I hope
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)If you're talking about "getting through" 4 or more years of a Trump Junta... sorry. I can't agree. With a toxic GOP now holding both houses of Congress, Trump may be the last nail in several coffins from global warming to the war on labor to expanding corporate personhood. US history will be permanently changed all without the CONSENT of the American People.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Nope.
Think about it for just one moment, it is a threat that will not be taken seriously... Just like the crap you hear from time to time by a minority of Texans every so often.
If CA was sincere about it, you'd be cheering on the next Civil War. In case you missed class that day, let me tell you, it was fucking ugly. Then, when it fails (and trust me it will), Trump would then be crowned the "Great Unifier" that held our nation together without so much as stepping out of his golden palace on 5th ave.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Perhaps if citizens better mobilized back back in 2001 to abolish the EC we might not have Trump today. I know, that scenario is unlikely but the bottom line is we still have the EC because the party that SHOULD have known better, the party that SHOULD have been standing up for civic equality in the vote... didn't give a shit the past century. And I see you want to follow in that grand tradition.
So your ideas to abolish the EC are???? Oh, that's right... you have none.
Ronald G. Phillips
(1 post)So best fix what is a serious problem with the party. Jobs. The shrinking middle class.
Laughing at coal miners when their jobs are lost is no way to build bridges to the voters you need.
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Say 2 million angry Trump voters instead voted for HRC. If they lived in the wrong EC states TRUMP WOULD STILL WIN THE EC.
Shall I repeat that a hundred times until it sinks in?
Please stop deluding yourself that the EC isn't the problem. OF COURSE it's the problem. I can't believe so many liberal Dems here have such contempt for democratic principles that they'll bend over to a vote mindless, antidemocratic vote rigging system that can STEAL elections from the morally legitimate winner?
And if you're convinced the EC won't be reformed... then perhaps you might want to ask what is wrong with a political system that can't even abolish something originally designed to magnify the power of WHITES living in slaves states?
But I won't hold my breath.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)
davsand
(13,421 posts)Can't imagine it would fare any better this time. Think of the US as being like the Hotel California, "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave..."
Sorry.
Laura
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Hey, if you have a better idea to abolish an antidemocratic feature of the Constitution when the system itself is antidemocratic and virtually reformproof... let's hear it!
Again... unlike southern secession the point is NOT to secede but TO FORCE CONCESSIONS TO MAKE THE CONSTITUTION DEMOCRATIC.
hardluck
(638 posts)Convince your fellow citizens of the need to abolish the EC. Win back the house and senate. Win back the state legislatures. Do the hard work to bring back democratic majorities. You'd rather short circuit the process by seceding. That's a rather drastic decision given that the winner of the EC has only lost the popular vote on four occasions.
And yeah, the point of secession is to secede. As others have tried to tell you, you don't gain concessions with just the threat.
Frankly, you have a better chance of going through Article 5 then your pipe dreams of secession.
davsand
(13,421 posts)I'm not trying to be a hardass or anything, but a Constitutional change IS the remedy. Even IF they wanted to do it--which I doubt there's much of anything that the Congress could get behind in a unified front--the Congress cannot change the structure of the EC or even eliminate it because it is a part of the Constitution. That can only be changed by ratification in the states, then a trip to Congress, because, unfortunately, not even the SCOTUS can eliminate parts of the Constitution. They can only clarify what is there already.
I am also going to say that much as I'd love to opt out of the next four years and all the crap coming, historically, the success rate of any form of succession is not terribly good. It tends to leave people either in prison or dead, and neither of those things is a desirable outcome for most people. The threat of succession is not enough, and quite frankly; the stakes are pretty high to even consider running a bluff on the subject. THAT is a one way ticket to Federal Prison (or worse!) with a conviction of treason.
California is a mighty cool place, but I doubt highly that it is in good enough condition to withstand or defend against a determined military effort.
Sorry to be a buzz killer.
Laura
flamingdem
(39,312 posts)Thus we see this movement operating out of Moscow, coincidence, ha!
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)So maybe whoever it is in Russia is stealing ideas from DU.
But if you're soooooo worried about Russia... isn't it that EC that handed the presidency to our Siberian Candidate, Herr Trump?
Hekate
(90,617 posts)Glassunion
(10,201 posts)A Civil War would set us further back than we are now.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I doubt there'd ever be a civil war. The effort would be taking the moral highground for morally legitimate government... not to protect slavery.
But AGAIN as I've written here endless times... unlike the slave states that were determined to create their own nation... the intent of this desperate measure is to DEMAND REFORMS to create that more perfect union. But to follow this path the people in CA need to be prepared for real secession.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Only assuming there are but two possible outcomes.
Electoral college / CA secession or bust.
A threat of secession is absurd on its face.
Alice11111
(5,730 posts)Let's just make it all of the blue states who vote to succeed. Surely, Canada will take us. We should go as a Block though. Everyone is trying to figure a way out.
WhiteTara
(29,699 posts)secede.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)WheelWalker
(8,954 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)But the "one"... the national government, owes it to its people to provide morally legitimate government based on the consent of the governed. It's always been questionable given how antidemocratic the Senate and the amendment process are. But the EC is a unique in that it can actually overturn the popular vote and impose on the nation a president REJECTED by the People.
In a more modern political system, we'd be able to abolish it... but our system is a virtual straight jacket. Not ONE of the core antidemocratic features of our system has ever been reformed. There have been close to 1000 attempts to abolish the EC.
I summarized the problem working withing the system in my OP... and the Popular Vote compact is interesting but if it ever gets to 270... it's sure to be challenged by a GOP Congress under Art 1:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
And if the Compact is allowed, the first time a state votes against how its voters did... there'd be hell to pay. Plus, it distracts us from the real problem that the Constitution is a straight jacket. Amendments SHOULD be difficult to pass... but it should be done by a super majority of the voters, not the states.
Kilgore
(1,733 posts)We welcome you with open arms!!
http://zapatopi.net/cascadia/
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Under the Constitution nullification would clearly seem to be illegal under the Supremacy Clause. But there's nothing I can find in the Constitution that specifically prohibits secession. And again... I'm not speaking about secession as the slave south did. They were determined to leave the union. I'm speaking about a threat of secession to demand democratic reforms in order to make a more perfect union. But if that threat is made... the people of CA better be serious.
I suspect there is a great deal of hidden dissatisfaction with our system but people can't voice it because they've been schooled in a civic religion that states ours is the best system in the world and we dare not question the Framers. When the system seems to perform so poorly, the People just take it... and soon apathy is an understandable response. But if someone FINALLY gave a common sense critique of the system... as Sanders did on trade, inequality, and corporate power... I suspect it'd hit a nerve.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)possible, given just the things you mentioned.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)CA can't nullify the Trump's election and it can't nullify its own participation in the EC. And nullification does seem to be prohibited by the Supremacy clause. The Articles stated the union was perpetual but the Constitution is silent on secession.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)as you mentioned, the consent of the governed is also a part of the constitution, and this is grossly violated by the EC. i could certainly be wrong, but i don't think the federal government would be willing to go to war over nullification of a few of the most objectionable federal statutes.
Hekate
(90,617 posts)....than there are in Canada, which means there is quite a diversity of opinion. We are not as monolithic as some like to pretend.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)But it doesn't matter if one is a Dem, GOPer, or a Green living in CA... our federal system disenfranchises them all by devaluing the power of their votes.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)you remember that there is no legal way for ANY state (including Texas) to leave the union, according to the lawyers.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)The Articles of Confederation were explicit
"XIII.
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State. "
But the Constitution is silent on the matter. And maybe with good reason once the dissolution of the Articles made a mockery of the term perceptual.
SCOTUS weighed in with Texas v White... but it's a tortured decision as was Scalia's Heller vs DC.
Generic Brad
(14,274 posts)Keep taking the high road. Eventually the rest of us will follow your lead.
Uggwearingdad
(78 posts)May be a nice thought exercise....but totally false reality both legally and economically...
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Seriously, I can't think of any option short of a constitutional crisis... can you? And maybe if CA did this back in 2001, we'd not have Trump today.
Uggwearingdad
(78 posts)If Ca. did leave and we had a re-vote SoS Clinton would have lost the popular vote as well as the EC
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Did you even read the OP or did you just see the word secession and jump to a conclusion?
Uggwearingdad
(78 posts)TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)Uggwearingdad
(78 posts)against the other 49 states....and the Federal Government....how did that work out for the Confederacy?
Fewer States, lesser fire power, 500k dead soldiers....today we have a good portion of the population that prays California gets hit by a quake and pushed into the Pacific...Great Briton....stop.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I take it you STILL haven't bothered to read the OP.
Sorry, I completely disagree that this would start a civil war. And if you bothered to read the OP the point of threatening secession is to DEMAND REFORMS. The CSA didn't want any reforms... they seceded to protect slavery... and they foolishly picked a fight by attacking Ft Sumter.
Uggwearingdad
(78 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)It clear too many people here are reacting to the original title and not bothering to read the post that I was NOT suggesting secession for its own sake. That and with all the responses I have to make, I'm losing track.
Uggwearingdad
(78 posts)is a wet dream....and even edited you repeat the nonsense...."The only way I can envision the EC being abolished is if a state like California threatens secession"....38 other states would LOVE that California goes...and would hope California took NY with it....
Cali threatening to leave will have ABSOLUTELY no value in the EC being abolished...it would harden the states that want to keep it...not a well thought out deal..I live in NY by the way
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)This red-blue state dichotomy is nonsense. It's based on voting records... but in the US voting participation is pathetic... about 35% of the voting age population (VAP) votes in off-year elections and 50-55% in presidential years. This means there is a HUGE reserve of non voters we don't know anything about and I suspect much of the apathy is based on the failure of our antiquated and antidemocratic political system to be responsive or relevant. Hell, as a progressive I can vote forever and no one ever really represents my values.
I don't believe if a sound, moral argument was made for CA's secession... that it would not resonate with a large part of the population in all states.
Uggwearingdad
(78 posts)California is NOT going to even threaten succession....let alone try....as I said in post 155 it's a nice thought experiment.....but that's it. Period
It's a thought....NOT a plan.....and you know that
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)So I must have hallucinated when I read your post that said "Seriously(?)....California citizens are going to take up arms against the other 49 states....and the Federal Government....how did that work out for the Confederacy? Fewer States, lesser fire power, 500k dead soldiers."
BTW... where did I EVER say CA would take up arms against the other 49 states? Methinks you're locked into some US history you learned back in 4th grade. The slaves states were beginning to secede for month's before Sumter. I guess we'll never know how southern secession would have worked out if the CSA chose not to expropriate federal property by force.
Uggwearingdad
(78 posts)Post.....referencing the Revolution....it has a question mark in it.
" TheFrenchRazor (679 posts)
166. with that kind of small thinking, we would still be a part of great britain. nt"
This insult..."Methinks you're locked into some US history you learned back in 4th grade." is not only highly inaccurate.... but re:history....if we look at your reading of the EC and this secession stuff..California "threaten secession" is NOT going to happen (and would NOT force an EC change). I don't believe it's my knowledge of history that's in question.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)YOU reference in a post to me that CA might lead to a civil war... you then deny it... and when I prove it to you with your own words, you reference a post I didn't write?
What am I missing here.
As to what I DID write... in my OP I stated the obstacles to reform and the options. I stated what my suggestion is to break through an antidemocratic and virtually reform proof system to get that reform. AND I ASKED FOR OTHER TO GIVE ME THEIR IDEAS. And so far all you've contributed to this thread are gems like
We have a better chance of being hit by lightning than this being an option..
May be a nice thought exercise....but totally false reality both legally and economically...
Have you specified those legal reasons? What are the economic reasons?
Your bottom line is your objecting for the sake of objecting... and you have no ideas of your own.
Why not just admit you have no intent of carrying on a substantive discussion?
Uggwearingdad
(78 posts)Specifically.....this is where we have our confusions....my question was to "TheFrenchRazor" poster.
I erroneously attributed that to you..my bad..... you quoted my question.. I didn't go back and look to differentiate....I'll eat that....
Ok....."Have you specified those legal reasons? What are the economic reasons?"
SCOTUS case..Texas-v-White might be a good 1'st case for you to read....
Lincoln said...."no state, upon its own mere notion, can lawfully get out of the Union…in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken”.
T-v-W includes....“when Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation.”....a case that has NOT been overturned...and would be used as a historical record in a California "threat"
Economically.....the Seniors in California cut off from Social Security, people my age cut off from ACA, Federal Funding of the SNAP programs, housing assistance,....all Federally funded programs lost......shall I continue?
Edit to add.....a 7.5 quake that again devastates San Fransisco or LAPD needs Fed Grants to stop gangs in LA selling drugs to kids......that will go well..How?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)and Vermont's threatened secession no one would really take it seriously.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)stop the left coast from leaving the union. that being said, "freedom isn't free," as they say; some things are worth fighting for.
still_one
(92,114 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Did you even read the OP?
Guess not. You saw something about secession and rushed to respond.
still_one
(92,114 posts)relation with the union:
"Texas v. White Supreme Court ruling in 1869 very firmly established that no state can ever secede from the union without the complete consent of all other states. The US is a "perpetual and indissoluble union."
Unfortunately, the electoral college will not be dissolved either
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)There was a chance to write such an amendment right after the war ended... and it's notable that one was not written. There's brief mention about those who participated in the rebellion in the 14th Amendment but that's about it. I mentioned Texas v White elsewhere and it's a rather tortured decision seemingly determined to come to a conclusion... in a tortured fashion as was Scalia's Heller decision.
still_one
(92,114 posts)The NY Times has an editorial tonight where they argue eloquently that it is time to get rid of the electoral college
Uggwearingdad
(78 posts)TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)people to establish governments of their choosing. this absolutely allows for states to leave the US and form their own sovereign countries.
MadBadger
(24,089 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)
romanic
(2,841 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I changed the title because too many people here responded to the title instead of reading the actual post to see what and why I was suggesting California threaten secession.
sarisataka
(18,551 posts)to sum up:
-the EC is not going to be changed
--Republicans benefited from it this election so an Amendment wouldn't get out of committee
--even if it did every state from Missouri (18th most populous with 6,044,171) on down would oppose it because they all get a Electoral boost for having a population below the average
--such an Amendment would also be rejected by Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. As swing states, their Electoral votes are of greater value than the state would be by population alone.
-if CA threatens to secede and gets their bluff called not only does the state look foolish but they will lose influence for having been seen to cave in
-if CA does secede
--it will be in a very economically vulnerable situation, having over $232 billion in outstanding debt plus needing to self fund Federally provided necessities e.g. post office, patent office, State department, intelligence services...
--it is very likely the U.S. would demand a large payment for existing infrastructure
--military force to prevent secession is likely if it appears such action would be followed by other states.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)and this could be somewhat crucial considering what happens fairly often in California, and which could be devastating sometime in the (near?) future...
Earthquakes.
If California were to suffer a huge earthquake (San Andreas Fault, anyone?), it would need loads of help from the Federal government.
If California is no longer part of the US, then....
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Leaving aside that my proposal IS NOT TO SECEDE FOR IT'S OWN SAKE... but to push for needed reforms that will never be considered otherwise... you might have some concerns if CA was a beggar state like Miss but it's 46th as the LEAST dependent state in the union.
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/#main-findings
CA gets about 87c back in every dollar it sends to Washington.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)that your point is NOT TO SECEDE FOR ITS OWN SAKE.
But you are still holding that out as a viable option if certain demands are not met.
If those demands are not met, then what???
If the ultimatum isn't met, then California, having issued, it, would then have to do one of two things:
Secede and suffer the consequences
or
Back off, not secede, and look like a bunch of whining idiots.
We're not playing a "numbers game" here. The consequences of doing something stupid are very very real.
PS...you did not answer my question somewhere above where I asked if you were a resident of California. If so, then get out there and do whatever work is necessary to convince the populace to embrace your wonderful idea. Let us know how it worked out.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)If left to people like you, we'd not have ever fought the British for independence because of all the things that could go wrong.
At some point PRINCIPLE MATTERS. And yes, this can not be an idle threat. But I don't fear dire consequences you do.
The US lives in a coma... refusing to ever critique our federal system no matter how dysfunctional it's become... and no matter how many times it imposed on the nation right wing Juntas who were REJECTED by the People. I believe the great deal of voter apathy in the US is directly due to how poorly our system responds to the voters, how choices are limited... AND how antidemocratic it is. Where the US has a voting rate of about 35% of the voting age population other nations, with modern government, have rates in the 70-80% range.
I suspect if someone, or an entire state, simply gave a common sense critique of the EC I think it would strike a chord. Those for whom it doesn', I suspect they are either apologists for the system or GOPers who like having a bias in the EC that hands the presidency to them even if their candidate has been rejected by the People.
Either way if the Democratic Party is to stand for something... LET IT FINALLY STAND FOR DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES!
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)If left to people like me?????
You have absolutely no fucking idea of what I would or would not have tolerated 300 years ago, or what I would or would not have done.
Nor do I.
It was a whole different time.
So just knock it off with that shit, OK?
As far as "DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES" go, again I will say it.
If you care that much about democratic principles, then walk the walk instead of just talking the talk.
Take action. Do whatever you need to do.
What's so difficult about that? What, are you willing to insult people here who don't agree with your methods, but unwilling to do the hard work of enacting reform?
Just. Do. It.
Good god...
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)So not only are you willing to live with more Bush and Trump Juntas... you're willing to live with a system that is incapable of offering something so basic as civic equality in the vote as it applies to representation.
Thanks for demonstrating your contempt for the most basic of democratic principles.
sarisataka
(18,551 posts)where all problems don't get solved in the last five minutes of the show.
First off, while you are telling everyone to read the Constitution, try reading it yourself. Specifically look for the part where the People elect the President. I'll copy it here:
that's right, it isn't there. The States elect the President, not the People; it was the same with Senators until 1913 with the 17th Amendment. If you know history, it makes perfect sense. At the writing of the Constitution the States were essentially separate countries coming together. The writers wanted to have democracy but also allow each State, regardless of size or importance, to have an equal voice. Therefore they set up a system which represented the People, via the HoR, and the States, in the Senate and Presidency.
There is only one way to change the Electoral system and only one. It is found in Article V of the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution about allowing change because of tantrums.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Sorry... it's not 1787 and I'm not a slavish believer in original intent. It's OUR nation now. And if you bothered to read up on the origins of the EC you'd find it was to magnify the power of WHITES in slave states. I posted the link to the minutes of the Constitutional Convention at the top of the thread.
So, feel free to be bound to the politics of 1787. Feel free to have contempt for self-government. I want something better for OUR generation... and it can start by abolishing the EC. But if you want to feel bound to the existing amendment formula... then you're dooming you and your children to forever live in an antidemocratic system with more Bush and Trump juntas in our future.... and all the damage these dangerous right wing will do to the nation.
How goddamn noble.
Questioning a dysfunctional, reformproof system is what the Framers did. Obviously you're not made of the same stuff.
sarisataka
(18,551 posts)The Constitution. I also told you the likelihood of it happening. I never at any point said I was against such a change nor can you be bothered to ask a mere peasant such as myself.
The difference between us is I am willing to look at the current situation and see the obstacles. You are content to condescendingly preach from your ivory tower that you have the One True Solution. Ignoring reality is a major factor for our current situation.
It is ironic how certain Democrats will preach that dissent is patriotic until it comes from other Democrats. Then groupthink is enforced with the lash.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)WTF do you think my first post was about if not for looking at the "current situation and seeing the obstacles". And, gee... one of those "obstacles" is what you're peddling as a the "solution"... Art 5 which I'd already cited AS AN OBSTACLE. Not because it doesn't provide a mechanism... BUT BECAUSE THE FORMULA IS GROTESQUELY ANTIDEMOCRATIC... and it's just plain insane to allow state with just 4% of the US population to block any amendment yet states with 40% can ratify one. And since a state can do so with any rules they like... it might be just 51% of a state legislature or state convention. So a fucking amendment could be ratified by 21% of the population... and blocked by about 2%.
Catching on to the insanity yet Chuckles?
And yes, given this insanity, and knowing the GOP will never let out of Congress a proposed amendment that will stop them from winning elections they lose... I did come to my own conclusion that drastic action was the only way to force reform on a system that virtually reformproof. BUT I ALSO ASKED FOR OTHER PEOPLES OPINIONS.
So if you can, please stop being a pissant... and if you're determined to be a constitutional apologist.. fine. Just don't make it sound as if your position was handed down on slab. It's our nation now as we need to question as the Framers did, whether we're in a straight jacket that's doing more harm than good.
sarisataka
(18,551 posts)the only way to save the country is to destroy it
But I'm willing to play your game a bit longer...
So California huffs and puffs demanding change; the rest of the country doesn't say jump in the Pacific but listens.
What change will California demand?
Will they demand an Amendment be passed?
A Constitutional convention?
Just ignore said Constitution and ignore the parts we think have gone stale without actually changing it?
I patiently await your ideas
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Gee... when I say CA should demand reforms to push for a constitutional crisis... what do you think that means? You have it in your head that somewhere in the back of my mind I have a hidden agenda to destroy the US when I'm saying if we don't abolish the EC... were already destroying the US by making a mockery of the very concept morally legitimate government. We need to act to PRESERVE the nation. How long will Dems and others stand for having more Bush and Trump Juntas imposed on the nation? Yes, we're a cowardly lot who defer to the rules, and we put up with Bush... but it's happened again, this time not just with a toxic right winger, but someone who's arguably mentally unstable. The People, in their wisdom said NO to this dangerous demagogue... and we got him anyway. Your precious "rules" have dysfunctioned with disastrous results.
Yes, of course the hope would be that CA would force a constitutional convention to demand changes to the federal system. I realize this is feared by many given growing corporate power. And yet that growing corporate power is a result of our antidemocratic system where ultra small minorities can block any reforms. Unless major reforms are made to our system... we're screwed with more morally illegitimate presidents and growing corporate power. As to the danger of a constitutional convention, I'm aware of this... and again we'd have to depend on CA's, and I suspect the threat of other states to secede, to limit the scope of the convention to a narrow agenda. After all.. this IS what happened in 1787 when everyone drove a hard bargain. And let's be fair... if we were designing our system today... it would never look like what was written in 1787. We'd have that popular vote, and chances are we'd have one of the chambers be a national body based on proportional representation, and amendments would be ratified by the People, not "states".
We're stuck in a dysfunctioning system that doesn't provide enough flexibility to reform itself... and that needs to change or we're screwed.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)You had a lot of nerve accusing me of "bashing" you (in your post #251) when you've done little else but insult people left and right because they don't agree with you.
So why don't YOU be "noble" and get out there and convince the people in California to take an action that may or may not end up hurting them in the end.
Stop yapping about it. Stop arguing with people.
JUST. DO. IT.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)The US needs California more than California needs the US.
onenote
(42,661 posts)Let's have Obama inform Putin that if he doesn't step down as leader of Russian and go into exile in the Central African Republic, the US will launch a nuclear strike against Moscow.
Of course he'll capitulate, right? Because of the "threat".
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Do you seriously believe you're the first person to make this point?
onenote
(42,661 posts)makes the slightest sense -- why you think the US would just capitulate to a threat that California can't conceivably carry out successfully.
All you do is ignore those points. Because you have no answer.
onenote
(42,661 posts)Why stop at reforming the EC, why not have California threaten to secede unless the Constitution is amended so that whomever wins the popular vote in California is president and the other states don't have a right to vote.
Lanius
(599 posts)Are you frightened of democracy? Of the idea of "one person, one vote?"
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)One person, one vote is a joke if all votes are weighed differently in terms of representation. And that's what our national government is... a series of vote weighting/dilution schemes designed to look like a fair compromise. That IS what we all learned in 4th grade, right?
And the rationale of how "states" are represented sound deceivingly fair... until we look at how citizens are represented... then it all falls apart. This unfairness was certainly a concern at the Constitutional Convention... but all those desirable principles that were compromised away... have vanished from our political discourse. It's been replaced by a Civic Religion that there nothing wrong with our system. We see people in this thread saying all we have to do is better game this system.
One might think that the Democrats... the party we'd expect to be pushing for democratic reforms... would do so. But not even a Bernie Sanders touches on this issue... even though much of what he most complains about... corporate power and wealth inequality is directly tied to having antidemocratic government.
Lanius
(599 posts)If we can't get rid of this archaic institution, then what if it's updated to better reflect the states' population? Then, the bigger states would actually get the equivalent of "one person, one vote."
As it is right now, Wyoming gets 3 votes with a population of only 582,658, while California gets only 55 votes with a population of 38.3 million! Maybe it should be update to give one Electoral College vote per 500,000 people.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)If an amendment could be passed to make the EC formula more democratic... then there's no reason to have the EC.
If all it can do is ratify the national popular vote... it's not needed. If the EC can overturn the popular vote, it should not be tolerated.
There is no substitute for the popular vote. It's the way we hold all other elections. And the idea that one citizen's vote should weigh more than another is ILLEGAL on the state and municipal level. It was created to magnify the power of whites in slaves states (see reference at the top of the thread) and it survives at the federal level because the Constitution is antidemocratic and virtually reformproof. Curiously most libs who want to believe they have some monopoly on democracy compared to those evil, vote suppressing GOPers... actually buy into anti-democratic government.
Calista241
(5,586 posts)The political parties will realign based on the new coastal US / interior US dynamic, since like 6 states would matter in the Presidential election.
Those 6 states would elect the president and their 12 senators and 100ish house members, and the rest of the country would elect their 88 senators and 300ish house members.
The Dems would have the Presidency perpetually, and the Repubs would have a veto proof majority in both the house and the senate on a perpetual basis.
How is this any different from what we have today?
MovingForward2020
(24 posts)Candidates for the presidency will find it necessary to campaign throughout the country. It cannot be assumed that only the most populous states will matter, because the leading candidates will still split the vote to at least some extent in those states, and will need to try to pick up votes elsewhere as well.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)States have no "will". States don't vote. People IN states vote. Therefore no citizen should be punished or rewarded because of their choice of where to live. Once we look at how any given individual is represented anywhere in the US the facade comes off the rationale for a state based constitution. Any given citizen in WY has a 70x bigger vote for the Senate and a 3.3x bigger vote for president than any given citizen living in CA. We're brought up to believe this averages out because of the House. But NO ONE CITIZEN in CA gets more than one Representative... the same as that person in WY.
Our system punishes people in large states... which is why CA has a moral basis for pushing for democratic reforms and given the system is antidemocratic and virtually reformproof if works within the system... some drastic measure is needed.
Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)You sure you want to open one of those with the current Congress?
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)A threatened secession can also be used to strong arm congress and the states to just pass an amendment. But, yes, I'm aware of the alleged dangers of a constitutional convention. And yet... this is the fear libs always have... and yet it's also something libs never work on to get out of this trap. So 50 years from now... as demographics makes the Constitution more and more antidemocratic and therefore more reformproof... and while corporate personhood is more deeply entrenched... libs then are still going to be saying we dare not push for a convention.
Back in the mid 1970s... largely in response to the Powell memo, the far right created a long term, multi-front strategy to mold the US to their benefit. And gee, in combination with an antidemocratic national system, IT'S WORKED. In contrast, liberal Dems are a cowardly lot. Where is their strategic offensive against antidemocratic government that has given us both the Bush and Trump Juntas? Where is the plan to make democratic reforms to the Constitution possible? While the far right had a long term strategy... Dems tend to think in terms of just the next presidential election and thing demographics will win them the day. In this regard Dems are idiots. Those 2.8 million extra HRC voters got her nothing. And where are liberal Dems standing on principle? They'll get all riled up about bathrooms and be blind to how the very federal system discriminates against citizens voting power based on their choice of state residence... and as long as the voting power is rigged... the system is rigged... and Dems better finally wake up from their coma.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)
tandem5
(2,072 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)If you bothered to read the thread, instead of jumping to that amusing summation... you'd see the point of my proposal was NOT that CA secede for secession's sake... BUT AS A MEANS TO PUSH FOR ABOLISHING THE EC.
But if you're going to play the Russia Card... then I bet Russia just LOVES what the EC gave them in Trump.
tandem5
(2,072 posts)
AllenJordan
(17 posts)So how would one go about altering or abolishing it?
There isnt any clause in the constitution for a state to secede. Remember Texas tried after Obama won?
They didnt threaten, but nicely petitioned DC.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)First, THE INTENT IS NOT TO SECEDE for its own sake as the South did. It's to PUSH FOR REFORMS that will otherwise never make it out of Congress or be ratified in a rigged amendment ratification formula.
And if you bothered to read the Constitution... and how it was constructed, it gives the federal limited powers with all others remaining in the hands of the People and the States. The Articles of Confederation specifically stated it was a perpetual union. But the Constitution has NO such language or prohibition on secession. The closest reference I can find is the Supremacy clause which binds states in the union to federal law and having disputes handled in the judiciary. That clearly seems to bar nullification... not secession. But again, I'm not in favor of secession for its own sake... but the threat also can't be a bluff.
AllenJordan
(17 posts)California break away and be on its own. I think it would be an interesting experiment. Might make for a good reality TV show.
Ive read that old document once or twice. Cant say im a scholar. Thats why we have a representative type of government. So those smarter people who know how the constitution is suppose to work make decisions that are in the best interest of the country and state.
There is that typical emotional response from a lot of folks who are deeply for or against a particular candidate when things dont go their way. Get a passport, changes thte election rules, etc, etc.
Nothing new here.
Found it very suprising that more electors changed their vote towards republicans.. Shocked.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)this entire thread, it appears to me that you're making this whole thing a lot more complicated that it ever needs to be.
What is your point in asking if California SHOULD secede?
If you think those of us telling you that it shouldn't secede are wrong, then stop arguing your point. Stop trying to look like a Constitutional scholar. Stop accusing people who disagree with you of using red herrings.
Just go out there and start a movement, for crissakes!
Get out there and convince the people of California to threaten secession, then come back and tell us all how it worked out for ya.
If you don't live there, then move there. If this issue is that all-fired important to you, then do what's necessary to get the ball rolling.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)TRANSLATION: You're willing to live with that antidemocratic abomination called the EC and all the morally illegitimate presidents it will continue to impose on the nation... to the point you'd rather bash someone looking for some way out of the straight-jacket that protects and perpetuates the EC.
Got it. And thanks for proving my long held suspicion that most liberal Dems really don't value democratic principles. If they did... they'd define what they were then THEY'D WORK FOR THEM.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)I don't like the EC, and NEVER SAID I DID.
And I'm not bashing YOU.
I'm questioning your methods of trying to force its demise.
And I'm not a LIBERAL Democrat.
Wow, talk about someone throwing out red herrings!
I'll repeat...if this issue is that important to you, then you do the work necessary to convince Californians to demand the demise of the EC, and to use the threat of secession as a bargaining weapon.
If your efforts pay off, then you can come back here and bask in the glory accorded to true heroes.
Is there something wrong with that?
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I'm not a liberal Dem either... I'm to the left of Sanders on this issue.
Are you one of those people that just doesn't like the EC but is prepared to live with it? You're not revealing your true position on this issue. Do you even believe in the principle that government derives its JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed? If you want it abolished what are your ideas on how push an antidemocratic and virtually reformproof system into reforming itself????
I know my proposal is drastic. But I DO believe in the principle of consent of the governed.... and how many more Bush and Trump Juntas will the nation tolerate when the nation's direction is changed AGAINST the will of the people?
Either you stand for something or you don't. Which is it and if it's in defense of democratic principles, what are YOU suggesting?
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)my suggestion.
Since you are so goddamned gung-ho on this whole thing, insulting to people who tell you it won't work, accusing anyone who disagrees with you of throwing out red herrings, and being condescending in the extreme, my suggestion is that YOU should lead the way.
Don't sit here on your ass telling others how weak they are while you do absolutely NOTHING to change what you don't like.
I mean, how many times do I have to repeat it?
The time and energy you wasted here arguing with people, attempting to make them look STUPID, could have been put to better use actually DOING something about the problem instead of just yappity yapping about it.
I really don't see what's so difficult to understand about that.
My suggestion, again, for what must be the fourth or fifth time, at least, is to go take it up with the people of California. Let THEM decide what they're willing to gain or give up by threatening to secede. If they don't do what you think they should then keep working at it. Convince them all that you know what's best for them and for the rest of us as well.
Then come back here and tell us all how it worked out for ya.
deaniac21
(6,747 posts)Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
sarisataka
(18,551 posts)
deaniac21
(6,747 posts)just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
frankieallen
(583 posts)the 55 votes. I think the republicans would like that.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Leaving aside that my suggestion was NOT for CA to secede for its own sake... but to use its leverage to push for reforms... so pray tell... how's that EC formula been working for Dems these last 16 years?
frankieallen
(583 posts)republic, a grouping of States, each with it's own laws and local government. This wining about the "popular vote" is the same crap that took over DU in 2004 for a while, then went away. Why were you not calling for a Constitutional Amendment before the election? A couple more months and all the EC, popular vote winers will move on to something else, just like last time. Not a great chance you'll succeed in changing the Constitution.
We do not elect a president by popular vote, that's the way it is, and that's the way it is going to stay.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)It's easy to tell when someone has an unspoken position. So you complain that if CA leaves... we'll have GOP president. Yet if we're already getting GOP presidents WITH the EC... obviously there's no level of consistency in your argument.
But now we know what it is. You're a constitutional apologist who's willing to endure all the defects of a system that is failing miserably to provide morally legitimate government. And you just betrayed yourself when you just threw out that old right wing line "we're a republic not a democracy". But pray tell Frankie... WHERE IS IT WRITTEN A REPUBLIC MUST BE ANTIDEMOCRATIC???
And sorry... there's older principles involved here... principles people actually fought and died for...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The Framers weren't slavish adherents to a failing system. The Articles were not just poorly written but there was no way to reform it without unanimous consent. But the Articles reflected the politics of the time. No doubt there were apologists for the Articles Of Confederation making excuses for its failures as you are for this system. And when the Constitution was drafted it reflected the updated politics of that time. Part of those politics was the EC designed to magnify the power of whites in slave states. Are you suggesting we cling to the EC? No, you'll just invent new rationale for it... right?
And yes... there's little chance of changing the system from within. SO WHY ISN'T THAT AN ISSUE BEING DEBATED? Where are the Dems... the party that dares to claim they have something to do with "democracy"? Why aren't they railing about how antidemocratic and reformproof the system is? We don't have a honest debate in this nation because people are like you.
frankieallen
(583 posts)know where to begin. I'm sorry I ever engaged you.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Didn't think so.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I remember those discussions well... and it's a damning indictment on the failure of the liberal wing of the Party to 1: have a long term vision where to take the nation in 20-50-100 years and 2: do a careful analysis of what stands in the way of that agenda. If they had done so... the EC would never have died as an issue, but man bathrooms certainly generated a lot of passion.
The right has been thinking strategically since the mid 1970s. Dems think only as far ahead as the next presidential election. There's no need to have a vision of what the party will stand for. Too many Dems think demographics will make them the party of the future.
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)
hack89
(39,171 posts)
Richard D
(8,749 posts)No way should California, Oregon and Washington threaten to succeed.
They should just do it.
ailsagirl
(22,893 posts)
yuiyoshida
(41,829 posts)I would rather see Gavin Newsome.
ailsagirl
(22,893 posts)Wish he were 30 years younger
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I think the last time I saw something this silly, I had to pay for it.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Sorry, I take the matter of morally legitimate government seriously.
Obviously you don't give a shit.
Fine, that's your right.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)that you're willing to get off your ass and DO something about it instead of banging away on the computer blabbing on and on and on, throwing "Red herring alerts" around like they're cheap tin whistles.
Seriously, why are you not out there ACTING on your noble beliefs?
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Gee, can it be that trying to start a discussion WITH LIBERAL DEMS WHO CLAIM TO VALUE DEMOCRATIC CONCEPTS... is a form of activism?
Pray tell, do you think any activism begins without some spark to ignite it?
But I think your bottom line is clear... you're all objection and devoid of suggestions of how those who DO believe in democratic concepts break through an antidemocratic and virtually reformproof system.
So in the end the person wasting their time in this thread wasn't I.
Cheers!
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)How in the hell is a "spark" going to ignite on a discussion board where not everyone is a resident of the state you think should threaten secession?
You want to be a real activist?
Go. To. California.
Take it up with the millions of residents who LIVE there.
You're not going to get a spark going here, that I can assure you.
Not even a blip of static electricity.
OK, so we're all stupid. You have a fantastic idea. Now get off your ass and go sell it to the people in California, who, I'm almost positive, would laugh you right out of the state, but who knows...I could be wrong.
Why...why are you wasting time arguing with people when there's so much work for you to do?
Marengo
(3,477 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Why would I contact Gov Brown?
What was my statement you were responding to? "Sorry, I take the matter of morally legitimate government seriously."
What was my OP? It was a proposal looking for feedback on a proposal.
Why are you conflating the two? Taking the matter of morally legitimate government seriously is why I'm looking for ways to shock an antidemocratic and virtually reformproof system into reforming itself.
So what are your ideas?
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)If you were only looking for feedback, you wouldn't be insulting and condescending to people who were giving you feedback.
The only feedback you appear to want is anything supporting your proposal.
Instead, you are ARGUING with people who are giving you feedback, throwing your obviously superior intelligence in their faces with quotes and links and all sorts of reasons why only YOU are right and everyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid and wrong, even though what you propose will never...not in a million years....happen.
Californians are not stupid, OK? They're not foolish. They, better than you, understand the pros and cons of doing something so idiotic as to secede from the Union, let alone even threaten to do it.
As someone a little further down in this thread pointed out...
It's. Never. Going. To. Happen. So why on earth are you keeping this foolishness going?
Even you don't believe it will happen, and that it would never work, because if you did, you would rush right out to California on the next bus and get a whole big movement going.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)So let's review our discussion for the class... in 13 or so posts, you offered TWO ideas... actually they were only objections: one that a threat needs to have substance, and what if there's a disasters. I addressed both.
One might think that if those were your concerns... once addressed, you'd move on. But NO... you had to write 10 posts, or so trying to make a case that if I, personally, wasn't doing what YOU wanted me to do... and on YOUR schedule, then we can dismiss the entire proposal because I don't meet your standards.
Any objective observer would easily come to the conclusion you're against this proposal, refuse to say why, and your out to disrupt this discussion.
Which is curious behavior from someone who wrote
The time and energy you wasted here arguing with people, attempting to make them look STUPID, could have been put to better use actually DOING something about the problem instead of just yappity yapping about it.
Got it. So your bottom line is you have no suggestions to get rid the EC and we should not consider my proposal because you don't like me.
Got it.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)And a total red herring, to use your words that you've thrown at people at least, what...15? 20? times in this thread...
I told you what my suggestion was.
And your reply doesn't even make sense given that YOU want California to take an action that YOU want it to take.
Well, if you want California to perhaps jeopardize its future by taking an action YOU want it to take, then you have no call to reject my suggestion that you get up off your ass and get the whole thing started.
See, that's really the issue here.
You want a whole goddamned state to follow your "suggestion" but you don't want to do the necessary footwork.
NOR
do you want to be the one to suffer the consequences if their ultimatum leads to their having to follow through on their threat.
And you're right about one thing...I have no suggestions on how to get rid of the EC. I'm not a Constitutional scholar. I am of only average intelligence, quite frankly, but I can smell bullshit when it gets dropped in the meadow.
I'm sure better minds than mine (and yours, to be honest) have been worked to the bone trying to come up with a plan that would work. The EC has existed for more than 200 years. You mean to tell me that in all that time, NOBODY has considered ways of ridding ourselves of something that many people feel is unfair? That you are the first one in all that time to come up with this brilliant plan???
Barring something drastic, it's probably not going anywhere.
You have done little else but INSULT people in this thread who are not receptive to your idea.
But if you're going to go around insulting people for not agreeing with your suggestion, then you'd damn well better be prepared for people to ask what ACTIONS you personally are taking.
I have little respect for people who try to make themselves look like heroes by claiming that they CARE more than others do about ABC issue, when the reality is that if they really and truly CARED that much about the issue, they would be out there actively working on fixing the issue. Not insulting other people on a discussion board.
And that, my dear, is my bottom line.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)That IS your bottom line... right? It's never occurred to you that I have been taking in serious ideas which have been offered. All I can do is repeat what I wrote before...
So let's review our discussion for the class... in 14 or so posts, you offered TWO ideas... actually they were only objections: one that a threat needs to have substance, and what if there's a disasters. I addressed both.
One might think that if those were your concerns... once addressed, you'd move on. But NO... you had to write now ELEVEN posts, that if I, personally, wasn't doing what YOU wanted me to do... and on YOUR schedule, then we can dismiss the entire proposal because I don't meet YOUR standards.
Any objective observer would easily come to the conclusion you're against this proposal, refuse to say why, and your out to disrupt this discussion.
Which is curious behavior from someone who wrote
The time and energy you wasted here arguing with people, attempting to make them look STUPID, could have been put to better use actually DOING something about the problem instead of just yappity yapping about it.
Got it. So your bottom line is you have no suggestions to get rid the EC and we should not consider my proposal because you don't like me.
Got it.
Please do FO and have a happy new year.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Feel free to respond to the things I say, not what you wish I'd said. Mm'kay?
My words come out just fine, I don't need your fingers in my mouth.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Instead you went straight to insults posting
295. This has to be some kind of performance piece.
I think the last time I saw something this silly, I had to pay for it.
Next time think before you pick a fight. Can ya do it Champ?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Anyone who has the ideas you've espoused obviously has a tenuous grip on what's possible, likely, or certain.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Do you really want to give Trump an excuse for killing Californians? Do you want to give Silicon valley an excuse to leave california?
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Leaving aside the simple matter that my intent is to push for reforms to PRESERVE the union... are you suggesting that the nation, under the current rules that gave us both the Bush and Trump Juntas can survive without ripping itself apart? And pray tell, just what is the concept of morally legitimate government based on the CONSENT of the governed worth to you?
Obviously not much.
As for Herr Trump attacking CA... yes, he's a dangerous man, but that's fanciful. The nation would not stand for it.
Uggwearingdad
(78 posts)California is not going to threaten to.. let alone succeed...not going to happen.
Pretend they did threaten....outside of silliness like this or other blogpsphere postings... wouldn't have anything to do with the EC or election reform....a majority of states would say...with enthusiasm....good riddance... because it increases their power.
That's a fact.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)The red herring is comparing CA if it threatens secession with the Civil War.
Gettin' it yet?
Didn't think so. Why? BECAUSE YOU HAVE RAISED THAT SAME ARGUMENT
175. Seriously(?)....California citizens are going to take up arms
against the other 49 states....and the Federal Government....how did that work out for the Confederacy?
Fewer States, lesser fire power, 500k dead soldiers....today we have a good portion of the population that prays California gets hit by a quake and pushed into the Pacific...Great Briton....stop.
As for your "fact", sorry... it's just your opinion...
Uggwearingdad
(78 posts)I asked a question...but you know that.....California is not EVER going to threaten succession...you also know that.
As I said...my history credentials aren't in question....
My facts are, well, facts, and historically accurate...you're hypothetical....will NEVER happen...not in our lifetime
The EC is here to stay... California bloggers posting stuff that won't happen, will not change that...."RED HERRING"....I saved you typing it
Truth321
(93 posts)Not going to turn out well,Might want to try another tact. Last time this was tried slightly unsuccessful. Refer to civil war cemeteries.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)The idea this would lead to a civil war is laughable. The south forced a military response when it seized Ft Sumter by force. But the simple fact is 4 states seceded 3 MONTHS before Sumter. War was a seen as the last resort... not the first.
And how can you compare secession to protect slavery... where the goal WAS to leave the union... with threatening secession to push for commonsense democratic reforms to IMPROVE the Union? How many more Bush and Trump Juntas do you think the nation will put up with?
Wabbajack_
(1,300 posts)Half of Republicans would probably support Cali (now HEAVILY Dem for good) leaving the union, that way they'd never lose elections.
If you're thinking this would be like Scottish independence where the Conservative party wanted decidedly unconservative Scotland to stay out of patriotism, yeah this is Merica, don't bet on it.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)A state can pass a law that directs its electors to vote for whomever wins the popular vote. Not every state has too comply. We only need enough to cover a majority of the electoral vote. AFAIK a law like this has already passed some state legislatures. No amendments needed. 
Update: From http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
--imm
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)And I addressed my concerns about it.
So when it falls apart or Congress refuses to approve it under Art 1... what's plan B?
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Look, I think it's a clever idea and I fully support it.
BUT... leaving out the fact that the PVIC is a long way from 270... there's Art 1, sec 10.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Some believe the compact would not need approval. I disagree the GOP would not try to block it on Art2 grounds. Here's more of a discussion on that aspect of the PVIC http://www.politifact.com/florida/article/2016/nov/17/electoral-college-vs-popular-vote-could-states-a/
And then there's the problem that as soon as a state is forced to vote against how its own voters did... there will be hell to pay.
I applaud the effort... but it's a bandaid over one small aspect of an entire system that is riddled with antidemocratic features. What the PVIC does is put off the real debate we need about finally making the entire federal system democratic so it reflects modern advances in electoral and political theory.
Calista241
(5,586 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 21, 2016, 02:44 PM - Edit history (1)
The vast majority of Californians are just citizens. Most of them vote Dem, but almost none of them cares as much about this issue as you do.
Most people in this country want to go to work, send their kids to school, get laid every so often, have fun with their friends, and live their lives in peace.
Starting a secessionist movement upends ALL of those things. People and pundits will be talking about self inflicted economic catastrophe, depression, separation from other states, and loss of travel rights. That basically ends your movement right there.
If you want to end the electoral college, come up with a realistic way and I'm sure we'll all consider it.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Hmmm... what's a "realistic" way to reform an antidemocratic and virtually reformproof system where those who have the most to benefit from NOT reforming it... also have the complete ability to STOP any reform?
Well we know doing NOTHING doesn't work... and working in the system won't work. So, by the process of elimination... all that is left is something drastic to shock that system and force negotiations... and that can't be done without leverage like the threat of secession.
In our dysfunctional context, it really doesn't sound that unrealistic. But it all depends on whether the people in Cal... who are most screwed by our system, care about morally legitimate government to take a gamble to finally turn our antiquated and antidemocratic system into a modern democratic one. But I understand if you're not one of those people
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Throd 2.0
(62 posts)I live in a very Trumpy county that wants to secede from California.
blue cat
(2,415 posts)I'm in Texas and can't get out. California makes me proud to be an American.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I assume you're a Dem. So with the EC... how much does your Dem vote for president count down there in TX?
The EC deprives tens of millions in ALL states of an effective vote for president. I only suggested CA threaten secession because they meet three key criteria. 1: their citizens of all in the US most suffer under our current federal system so they have a moral right to push for reforms. 2: CA is unique has the possibility becoming an independent nation. 3: CA has leverage. Its secession would greatly hurt the rest of the nation... especially those red beggar states that depend so heavily on federal spending. CA loses about 13c on every tax dollar it sends to DC.
In the end, TX secession is meant to be secession. I'm proposing CA demand democratic reforms as a condition of staying in the union. The goal isn't to leave... but to finally fix a broken system... a system that's given us both the Bush and Trump Junta.
Astraea
(465 posts)Better than what we have now.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)California does not need to US. Make the red states pay their own way.
sl8
(13,713 posts)What should Calfornia threaten next?
LonePirate
(13,413 posts)They are completely unaware of the massive fiscal and economic damage the secession would inflict on them.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Hekate
(90,617 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)And anyone trying to make a connection is making a scurrilous accusation designed to stop any discussion on this topic.
I'm sure my motivations are different than Russia's. They would love to weaken the US... I want to insure we NEVER AGAIN have a president who was REJECTED by the People... nor a Senate where Dems represent 33 million more Americans, but the GOP controls it. I value REAL democracy... and it's about Dems did too.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1199976
