[CornFed]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=14611.msg156708#msg156708 date=1455724544]
Are you really so jaded that you can only think of the term "minority" in terms of racial, gender, and other specified groups?  I was referring to those (like me in this thread, apparently) that are in the minority on a given issue.  It was, I believe, the founders effort to blunt the power of emotion in the conduct of national affairs.

Now you're changing the subject.  We're not talking about avoiding rash decisions--we're talking about a representational system that is, within many states, not at all representational.  The current district system has nothing to do with blunting emotion; it simply rewards whatever party can control the state houses every 10 years (and thereby the redistricting process) and/or the party whose voters are less clustered.  What does that have to do with blunting emotion?

It's possible that Republicans will control both houses of Congress in 2017 despite losing the popular vote in each (I believe this was also true in 2013-2014, though I don't know the numbers for the senate in 2012).  Did the founders really intend for the party that gets fewer votes to be in charge?
[/quote]

I do think that they consciously avoided the possibility of states with concentrations of population running roughshod over the interests of the less-populated states.  Isn't that why they came up with the Electoral College?  Any effort to undermine the role of the Electoral College will result in greater majority rule, which is presumably a good thing, but it will threaten the minority's rights.  They scrupulously tried to avoid that.  It's also the reason they developed a bicameral Congress with one body based on equal state representation and the other based on population.

[CornFed]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=14611.msg156708#msg156708 date=1455724544]
Are you really so jaded that you can only think of the term "minority" in terms of racial, gender, and other specified groups?  I was referring to those (like me in this thread, apparently) that are in the minority on a given issue.  It was, I believe, the founders effort to blunt the power of emotion in the conduct of national affairs.

Now you're changing the subject.  We're not talking about avoiding rash decisions--we're talking about a representational system that is, within many states, not at all representational.  The current district system has nothing to do with blunting emotion; it simply rewards whatever party can control the state houses every 10 years (and thereby the redistricting process) and/or the party whose voters are less clustered.  What does that have to do with blunting emotion?

It's possible that Republicans will control both houses of Congress in 2017 despite losing the popular vote in each (I believe this was also true in 2013-2014, though I don't know the numbers for the senate in 2012).  Did the founders really intend for the party that gets fewer votes to be in charge?
[/quote]

I do think that they consciously avoided the possibility of states with concentrations of population running roughshod over the interests of the less-populated states.  Isn't that why they came up with the Electoral College?  Any effort to undermine the role of the Electoral College will result in greater majority rule, which is presumably a good thing, but it will threaten the minority's rights.  They scrupulously tried to avoid that.  It's also the reason they developed a bicameral Congress with one body based on equal state representation and the other based on population.