I need help countering this liberal....

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I vote that everyone neg rep TheCount for being disingenuous, and for being a total failure with his Hillary supporting posts these many months.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

 

[timosman]

 

[TheCount]

No

Is what I said untrue?

 

[Spikender]

That map that AJ discussed is exactly why Hillary "won" the popular vote. We know they let illegals vote. We know they let citizens vote multiple times. We know they filled out absentee ballots en mass. We know they lied to people and played identity politics. We know the media focused on stupid scandals and faked news segments.

And yet Hillary still lost. Fuck 'em.

 

[oyarde]

Here is a map showing the amount of electors from each State.

It looks like the populated areas are pretty well represented to me.

And what is he talking about when he say hundreds of thousands of years? Has the age of the earth been revised?

Once Cal Exit is complete it solves all these problems .The electoral vote winner and the popular vote winner will match ea time , just a bonus on getting rid of 38 Dem congressman and two senators ( 20 percent of the Dems in the house ) that are responsible for passing all bad Dem legislation as long as I can remember.

 

[oyarde]

Whenever you need a solution . Check with Oyarde .

 

[oyarde]

I even worked a little harder today to earn some more so I can donate to Cal Exit . Why ? Because I am a Great Patriot and I do not want these kids to have to worry about electoral Col. in the future .

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

Simple reply;

ok, big constitution guy like yourself understands what a republic is right? one person, one vote, and representation is determined proportionally.

That's not the definition of a republic, that's the definition of a democracy. A republic is a sovereign country in which the people hold the power trough their representatives which are elected in accordance to the rule of law.


If you want to get into this further, give your friend a hypothetical.. Lets say Europe becomes a 'republic'. And we get presidential elections here. If there would be a proportional vote.... The president would always be German since it's the biggest state. Now who would want a German president for ever and ever... Last time they tried that it didn't really work out.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Whenever you need a solution . Check with Oyarde .

#OyardeIsMyPresident

 

[Natural Citizen]

Maybe I'm not braining right or maybe he accidentally made a good point. Anyway, what would your response be?



Forgot to add this. This is the post of mine he was replying to:



Should the tiny amount of blue be able to rule over all that grey? $#@! no. That would be insane. Sadly, the only reason it's being discussed is Hillary lost. If she would've won the left would have yet again been like "what's the electoral college?" If she would've won but with the map opposite and 90% blue and she lost the popular vote, the left would be laughing at the idea that 10% of the country should rule the other 90%. Instead of promoting that very idea like they are now.

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.


A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body.

"All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."



​

This topic--the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).

The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per original.)



​

Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:

"Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."


​

It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.

For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.


Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:

"Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."


​

Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.


A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:

"By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."


​

Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.

The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.

This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.

With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)


​

It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.

 

[Natural Citizen]

With that aside, respectfully, I'm of the position that most friends within mainstream "libertarian" circles who reject the sincerity of the framers and the constitution itself likely shouldn't be debating such things. At least not with your average mainstream liberal progressive. I think they become counterintuitive liabilities to the cause of Individual Liberty as it relates to the discussion of the traditional American philosophy of governance. Most attempts that I've seen take on the task have only served to prove intellectual dishonesty, incompetence and confusion on the part of the arguer or simply the intent to confuse others. Of course, it's always fine to have that debate with those who are of the capacity to have it, but it should be had in the company of friends who are adequately informed on such matters and general history. Most maintream liberals generally aren't of that capacity, though. Actually, neither are most mainstream conservatives and self-proclaimed "libertarians." But that's quite another dicussion in itself. I'm generally speaking here. Not saying anyone in particular. I'm just saying. Something that's always annoyed me greatly is when you try to educate someone who doesn't understand the difference between a Republic and a Democracy (among other critical things), you get someone else (speaking from a position that is projected as that of the liberty platform, I'd add) coming along saying bah, humbug, the framers were crooks, it was all a setup. It's like trying to light a match in the rain. Your own people (if only by arbitrary presence) get in the way of necessary, fundamental, education. Purposefully. More and more lately, I've found myself gradually separating myself from the mainstream liberty circles and platform containment in general and debating against these friends who do this on platforms outside of this one. The crap of it is that they're so easily buried and then they get themselves buried in the company of those who they're trying to "educate." And then the liberals in the group feel empowered because they just watched a "libertarian" get his rear end handed to him on his own plate. It's a conundrum.

Anyway. I digress. The fact that you were asking about a debate some place else in the company of liberal types just reminded me of the general screwery. So my thoughts here aren't directed toward you. They were just random thoughts. And I, too, have a great deal of learning to do.

 

[tod evans]

Might want to mention gun ownership and crime rate in the gray/blue areas...

Does this 'blue' person honestly want to mess with the gray folks?

 

[otherone]

Maybe I'm not braining right or maybe he accidentally made a good point. Anyway, what would your response be?

"What's a 'super-delegate'?"

 

[scm]

I think originally in the constitution.
The house of representatives was supposed to keep growing with the population.
Senators were also supposed to be picked the the governors of each state. Not by voters.
Heres a starting point for whatI was thinking:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/do-we-need-a-bigger-house-of-representatives/

 

[Original_Intent]

Careful, you will "trigger" Suz...

 

[fisharmor]

I don't think this has been touched on, but the rebuttal is easy: the framers did not envision one gigantic republic, but 13 sovereign republics.
States are supposed to be sovereign.
The EC makes perfect sense given that so much effort was spent back then to prevent large states pushing small states around.

 

[otherone]

I don't think this has been touched on, but the rebuttal is easy: the framers slavers did not envision one gigantic republic

Never reference the dead white men when arguing with a prog.

 

[Occam's Banana]

ok, big constitution guy like yourself understands what a republic is right? one person, one vote, and representation is determined proportionally.

This guy is wrong right out of the gate.

A republic does not require that "representation is determined proportionally." This is a non sequitur.

Small-"r" republicanism manifests as popular sovereignty (rather than, say, monarchical sovereignty). It requires some form or system of voting and representation, but it does not require any particular form or system of voting or representation (such as "proportional" representation or "direct" election of representatives).

The republican system embodied in the US Constitution employs both proportional representation (US House of Representatives) and non-proportional representation (US Senate). It also employs both direct election (US House Representatives and, after the 17th amendment, US Senators) and indirect election (US Presidents via the electoral college, and, before the 17th amendment, US Senators via state governments).

 

[osan]

TheCount is NOT the "Supporting Member" he claims in his avatar. He hates living in South Carolina and loves Hillary Clinton.

Too bad he and ZippyJuan are crying because their girlfriend lost. Looks like a lot of their posting on here was in vain. Boo hoo.

Learn how to spell "boyfriend", dammit.