The New York Times on the upcoming Senate race

Getting back to this year's senate races I found it interesting when it comes to North Carolina. The Democrats are actually enbracing the probable Republican candidate because he's a member of the "extremist Right" of the Republican Party. I don't claim he's a Tea Party Republican but he sounds like one  from what I read.

news.yahoo.com/north-carolina-backlash-election-094500406--politics.html

It appears that even many Republicans can't stand the extremism of North Carolina’s Republican House Speaker Thom Tillis that has basically carried a Tea Party agenda while holding the Speaker role in North Carolina.

If we expand this to other Senate races it would seem to indicate that the ideal candidate for a Democrat to defeat in November would be a Tea Party Republican. If we look ahead to the 2016 Senate races then someone like Sen Rand Paul might also have a hard time being re-elected because of his Tea Party agenda as the approval rating of the Tea Party has basically been sliding every year since 2010.    

May 7, 2014 2:16:33 GMT pjohns1873 said:

It is certainly true that the Founders did not desire undiluted majoritarianism--"pure Democracy," as you put it--but created, instead, "a Constitutional Republic."

They were actually rather ambivalent as regarding which form of government was superior--a democracy or a republic--so they genuflected a bit in both directions:  The House was considered the "people's" body--representatives were to be put up for re-election every two years--so it was important that they should  closely reflect the preferences of their constituents; whereas the Senate (as "the cooling saucer of democracy") was seen as the more cerebral body, in which members would deliberate seriously as concerning the wisest choices, irrespective of their constituents' preferences. 

I am really not a fan of plebiscitary democracy, as is practiced by the state of California.  (Nonetheless, it is probably worth inquiring:  Why could not the US Constitution also be changed--with the consent, of course, of two-thirds of both chambers of Congress, plus three-fourths of the state legislatures--in a way that many would consider uncongenial to "constitutional values," but that could not be declared officially "unconstitutional"?)  

I do love discussing the US Constitution so I would add a few notes.

Originally senators were not elected but instead selected by the state legislature. That was later changed because all too often the State legislatures failed to replace Senators that either resigned or died while in office.

House representation is based upon the total number of "residents" of the state which includes both US citizens and non-citizens but non-citizens are not allowed to vote for those that represent them in the US House of Representatives. There are no provisions in the US Constitution that prevent non-citizens from voting in national elections. That prohibition is established by federal statutory law. It is illogical to me to have elected members of Congress where millions of "non-citizens" that they do represent are not allowed to vote for them or for someone else.

This also carries over to the election of the President where the Electoral College is, in part, based upon the number of House Seats of the State which represents non-citizen residents as well as US citizen residents of the State.

There is no Constitutional requirement for a popular vote for the President of the United States. The State legislatures determine how the Electoral College members are selected. They could "draw names from a hat" if the State Legislature authorized it. In early elections based upon a "popular vote" the actual Electoral College members were selected by the vote and the vote was not for the Presidential candidate.

Based upon Article V of the US Constitution the States can bypass any federal authority related to Constitutional Amendments. With 2/3rds of the State agreeing a Constitutional Convention can be called and with 3/4ths of the States agreeing the Constitution can be changed or even abolished and the Federal government cannot stop or intervene in that process.  

On a final note, returning to the "original intent" related to the House of Representatives we know we have a serious problem because the "original intent" of the House of Representatives representing the People of the United States does not exist because of gerrymandering of Congressional districts. Gerrymandering of Congressional Districts, which both Democrats and Republicans engage in, occurs because the "politicians" control the Congressional Districts. While both Democrats and Republicans engage in gerrymandering we know that Republicans are better based upon election results. More voters voted to elect Democrats to the House of Representatives than Republicans but the Republicans ended up with more Seats in the House. Obviously the House of Representatives today does not represent the Vote of the People and it isn't even close. This is exclusively because of gerrymander where Republicans are better at it than Democrats. Somehow we need to get the "politicians" out of the loop when it comes to determining Congressional Districts if we are to return to "original intent" related to the House of Representatives.

PS Edit: Perhaps the problem isn't so much gerrrymandering but instead because House Seats represent both citizens and non-citizens but only citizens are allowed to vote because the "politicians" have prohibited non-citizens from voting. In either case the problem is still that the "politicians" are violating the original intent which was that the House of Representatives was to be representative of the "people" ("people" includes both citizens and non-citizens) of the United States.  

PPS Edit: In 1790 only White Male property owners could vote in federal elections but they did not have to be US citizens to do so. They could immigrate to the United States, purchase land , and could vote even though they had not become a US citizen.

May 7, 2014 23:34:42 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I do not believe that Republicans are inherently "better" at gerrymandering than Democrats are; it is all a matter of who controls a majority of statehouses.  And the GOP is currently doing pretty well in this regard.  (For a very long time, gerrymandering was a creature of the Democrats, done to create "safe" districts in minority-majority areas.  And it is still often done for that purpose.) 

To endow illegal aliens with the right to vote would be to reward illegal activity, and therefore to send the wrong message, and attenuate the consequences of bad behavior.  (A more reasonable argument can probably be advanced for the right of legal residents to vote--although I would still not favor it.)    

I don't believe that Republicans are "inherently" better at gerrymanders but it's obvious that because Democrats received far more votes for House seats and the Republicans ended up with majority control of the House of Representatives that, at least currently, the Republicans have the advantage when it comes to the gerrymandering of Congressional Districts.

Based upon previous discussions with you I would assume that you oppose gerrymandering completely as it violates the original intent of the House of Representatives.

No one is advocating that "illegal aliens" should have the Right to Vote. The discussion is about whether "legal immigrants" that a part of our legal naturalization process where they will become US citizens in the future should have the Right to Vote.

Of note there has never been any evidence that "illegal aliens" have ever even attempted to register and vote in any US election to my knowledge. The concerns about potential voting by "non-citizens" relates exclusively to "legal immigrants" possibly registering to vote in US elections.

MISTAKE! MISTAKE!

I just remembered the case of Leeland Davidson that recently, in his 90's, found out that he wasn't a US citizen because he was born in Canada and his parents never submitted the documentation for him to become a naturalized citizen of the United States based upon the fact that both of his parents were US citizens. He'd always believed he was a US citizen, even serving in the US Navy during WW II, but never had documentation to be in the United States legally (i.e. he was an illegal immigrant from Canada). He had voted his entire lifetime believing he was a US citizen. Of course this wouldn't actually be a case of voter registration fraud because Leeland Davidson did not commit perjury on his voter registration form because he believed he was a US citizen.   

May 8, 2014 23:28:30 GMT pjohns1873 said:

You are quite correct: I have nothing good to say about any gerrymandering.

Although I really do not believe that it is wise to allow legal residents (who are actively seeking citizenship) to vote, that is just not a hot-button issue with me. Which is to say, I have no deep, visceral reaction to the prospect of its happening.

As for the case of Leeland Davidson, that you mentioned:  Suppose (as a rough analogy) that a woman sincerely believed that her husband had been killed--in fact, he had even been declared legally dead--so, a couple of years later, she remarried.

Then, suppose that her former husband actually showed up one day.  He was not really dead, after all.

Question:  Would the woman then be guilty of bigamy (or, at least, adultery)?

Answer:  Of course not.  She was acting in good faith.

Likewise, this man--Leeland Davidson--was doubtless acting in good faith when he voted all those times.  So it would be entirely unreasonable to claim that he had done something reprehensible, in this regard. 

We seem to be aligned on this issue with the minor difference that I tend to believe in the oft cited phrase predating the American Revolution of "No taxation without representation" and lawful immigrants on the pathway to citizenship are paying taxes and the members of the House of Representatives are "representing" them in Congress based upon the US Constitution.

How can we expect members of the House to properly represent the permanent resident immigrants that the Constitution establishes they are representing of the immigrants can't vote for them? They are not being held accountable to their "constituency" that are all of those living in their Congressional district when part of those living in the district are denied the Right to Vote.

Actually the woman has to have her husband declared "legally" dead to remarry so she is no longer legally married if she remarries. I would argue that this actually presents a case where "bigamy" should be allowed if all parties agree to it. In short the previous marriage could be re-instated without the nullification of the current marriage based upon the voluntary mutual consent of all parties involved. Not saying that all three would agree to it but if they did then why deny it under the law?

Leeland Davidson was certainly acting in "good faith" and to the best of his knowledge he was a US citizen and did not commit perjury. Perjury is based upon willfully lying under oath.