Thoughts on changing the 12th Amendment

Nothing scared our forefathers more than monarchy except mob rule. When one county in California (or New York as the case may be) decides the future leader of this country and the minority has no say whatsoever, that's a recipe for disaster.

We are a representative republic where the minority is guaranteed a voice... anything less and we are on our way to another civil war.

Hazelelponi said:

Nothing scared our forefathers more than monarchy except mob rule. When one county in California (or New York as the case may be) decides the future leader of this country and the minority has no say whatsoever, that's a recipe for disaster.

We are a representative republic where the minority is guaranteed a voice... anything less and we are on our way to another civil war.

Click to expand...

But why is minority rule better than mob rule? The argument against mob rule is that “wise” people should have some power to overrule or balance the masses, not that a minority of regular people should decide for the majority of regular people.

Hazelelponi said:

Nothing scared our forefathers more than monarchy except mob rule. When one county in California (or New York as the case may be) decides the future leader of this country and the minority has no say whatsoever, that's a recipe for disaster.

We are a representative republic where the minority is guaranteed a voice... anything less and we are on our way to another civil war.

Click to expand...

Why should those choosing to live in California or New York, which are the economic engines that bankroll much of America, be content that each of their appointees in the Electoral College represents far more Americans that those residing in Montana or Wyoming?

Why is the American Presidency the only elected political position in America whereby the popular vote is ignored and placing 2nd is rewarded through an arcane Electoral College heavily biased in favor of the smaller, rural states?

We tried that already and it didn't work. The founders didn't account for parties when putting together that system. It actually caused conflict on the 3rd election because the two Democratic Republican candidates were tied. And of course the President of the Senate is an almost meaningless position right now. The President doesn't preside most of the time. And I think I agree to an extent with Tampa Steve. I rather go to a parliamentary system, either a full system like in Germany or England, or a semi-Presidential system like in France.

Arcangl86 said:

We tried that already and it didn't work. The founders didn't account for parties when putting together that system. It actually caused conflict on the 3rd election because the two Democratic Republican candidates were tied. And of course the President of the Senate is an almost meaningless position right now. The President doesn't preside most of the time. And I think I agree to an extent with Tampa Steve. I rather go to a parliamentary system, either a full system like in Germany or England, or a semi-Presidential system like in France.

Click to expand...

In a parliamentary system, its the Party and not the voter who elects its leader - the Senate is appointed and largely ceremonial, with the real power residing in the Parliament, the equivalent to the House!

One advantage in the parliamentary system is that the prime minister and member of the cabinet who is also elected, can be grilled during question period concerning the issues of the day!

Although politicians rarely give a direct answer, evasive responses often make the evening news and editorial pages - which eventually register with the electorate!

hislegacy said:

Without name calling, insults etc....

What if we changed the 12th Amendment and the Presidency was given to the person who garnered the most votes, with the Vice Presidency going to the person gaining the second highest amount of votes.

Think about it a little - the President would be the head of the Executive Branch, the VP still being the President of the Senate.

It would force both sides to work together more closely than currently.

Thoughts? I can see some definite pro's and con's to the issue. Would it be beneficial in the long run or detrimental?

Click to expand...

You'd still have a problem similar to that posed by the first-past-the-post system wherein a spoiler candidate enables everybody's second-favorite choice to win. Additionally, in this system, you'd wind up with the president and vp being of opposing parties and working to undermine each other. That would make things worse rather than better.

Hazelelponi said:

Nothing scared our forefathers more than monarchy except mob rule. When one county in California (or New York as the case may be) decides the future leader of this country and the minority has no say whatsoever, that's a recipe for disaster.

Click to expand...

lol wut? The math doesn't support your fears, but okay.

jgarden said:

In a parliamentary system, its the Party and not the voter who elects its leader - the Senate is appointed and largely ceremonial, with the real power residing in the Parliament, the equivalent to the House!

One advantage in the parliamentary system is that the prime minister and member of the cabinet who is also elected, can be grilled during question period concerning the issues of the day!

Although politicians rarely give a direct answer, evasive responses often make the evening news and editorial pages - which eventually register with the electorate!

Click to expand...

I'm quite aware of how parliamentary systems work. It's why I support one. And it is not always true that the upper house is powerless. There are quite a few parliamentary systems with a strong upper house. Australia comes to mind right away for instance.

hislegacy said:

Without name calling, insults etc....

What if we changed the 12th Amendment and the Presidency was given to the person who garnered the most votes, with the Vice Presidency going to the person gaining the second highest amount of votes.

Think about it a little - the President would be the head of the Executive Branch, the VP still being the President of the Senate.

It would force both sides to work together more closely than currently.

Thoughts? I can see some definite pro's and con's to the issue. Would it be beneficial in the long run or detrimental?

Click to expand...

Bad idea. If we did that, we would have had a Hillary presidency. Imagine what a nightmare that would have been.

Yes, we should go back to the original system. First, a party would not select a very old candidate because if they die in office, then the other party gets the presidency. Secondly, suppose the senate is 50 50 after this election. If there were no 13th amendment, Trump could lose the presidency but the GOP would have the Senate majority, or If Trump wins the Presidency, the dems would have a majority.

hislegacy said:

Without name calling, insults etc....

What if we changed the 12th Amendment and the Presidency was given to the person who garnered the most votes, with the Vice Presidency going to the person gaining the second highest amount of votes.

Think about it a little - the President would be the head of the Executive Branch, the VP still being the President of the Senate.

It would force both sides to work together more closely than currently.

Thoughts? I can see some definite pro's and con's to the issue. Would it be beneficial in the long run or detrimental?

Click to expand...

Having a President and Vice President from different parties did not work well in an era when the VP didn't really have any power. That's why we have a 12th amendment. It will work even less now that the VP is actively part of foreign policy as a member of the Nationap Security Counsel.

Can you imagine the conspiracies that would come about if, God forbid, a President was assassinated and a VP from the other party assumed office? If there was even a hint of truth behind such a theory it could kick off a civil war.

In order to have the president elected through a popular vote, there would have to be a national voting system set up with the same regulations for everyone. Currently, the states run their own elections and set up their own rules within the laws of the Constitution.

However if we currently were to change to a popular vote, it could be Trump setting up the rules, but Congress would have to approve them. How many would like that ?
Of course this would not go over well, as Congress can't agree on anything these days.

Many blacks think that a popular vote would be better for them, but the opposite is true. Blacks only make up 13% of the population, so their votes wouldn't matter as the white majority would decide the elections.

The Electoral College System we have currently, is the smartest and the fairest.

In fact Dr Martin Luther King Jr and other Black Leaders wrote that the EC was the best system for black people to have.

I just watched Intelligence Squared debate this issue and I sided with those who opposed removing the EC.

For those who supported Hillary Clinton, they had to see that people not voting in the same areas that went for Obama, is why she lost.