tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4777917788300730378.post3878495692742711001..comments2023-09-16T07:54:36.619-07:00Comments on The news from David S. Wieder: Unelected and UnhingedWiederlaw legal blog for plain folkshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14714040614753389922noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4777917788300730378.post-9856741808723417982018-12-25T14:33:30.968-08:002018-12-25T14:33:30.968-08:00My youngest son thinks (and hopes) that we are hea...My youngest son thinks (and hopes) that we are headed for a revolution. I hope he is wrong, because no revolution since 1776 has turned out as well as ours did then, and I fear that a second American Revolution would fare no better than the French or Russian versions. Better by far to amend the Constitution to reflect current realities. What are the chances? Slim, I fear, but we need to get the country going on it, or your dire predictions may well come true.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12760310077832679706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4777917788300730378.post-28232165254828074102018-12-24T13:46:15.726-08:002018-12-24T13:46:15.726-08:00David, you're addressing several topics here. ...David, you're addressing several topics here. Most of them have to do with current politics, like whether or not Donald Trump is fit, and other particulars. No, he's breathtakingly terrible.<br /><br />But the other main issue has to do with whether or not he was, as you discuss it, elected. This is a curious question. Clearly, he did not earn the confidence of the majority of the voters. Another candidate got more votes than he did. But he was elected by the Electoral College, which is our current system. So instead of saying he was not elected, I say he was elected on a technicality, by a minority of the voters. I agree with your complaint, but the conclusion is wrong.<br /><br />If we can agree that he was elected on the Electoral College technicality, the question, as you address it, becomes whether or not we should consider the Electoral Collage legitimate and reasonable. This is very tricky. You also mention gerrymandering, which is problematic, but you don't draw the connection between gerrymandering and the Electoral College. Both were established to prevent the disenfranchisement of some Americans. And the Electoral College was further formed to address the untidy matter of the "fitness" of many Americans to exercise good judgement about who should represent them. Given the continued support Trump gets from even <40% of Americans, it's hard to argue in favor of the judgement of American voters.<br /><br />In my opinion, as in yours, the Electoral College has outlived its usefulness in preventing Americans from being disenfranchised. And I have no illusions that those Americans who are helped by the Electoral College would agree with me and you. We could still ask the question of whether it's fair that the residents of 10-20 large population areas in this country get to decide who's president. Are we in fact re-disenfranchising the rest of the people, and their interests (farming, etc)? And let's remember, as you point out, that Hillary Clinton could have done better with the Electoral College, but she didn't bother to campaign enough. So do we indict the College, or Hillary Clinton?<br /><br />As for gerrymandering, it's there for a reason. I completely agree with you that it has been corrupted to give party advantages, but we are at some peril if we think it should just be scrapped. I think its original purpose, and the original rules for its application and design, are right. The current distortion is wrong. So I agree with you that gerrymandering is now/recently a bad thing, but in particular, not in principal.Fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07127705762104787222noreply@blogger.com