Let's get rid of the Electoral College

He shares the dictionary definition of incompetent with Reagan.

That serves only to underline the inferential observation on my part that such a judgment is derived from a partisan opinion.

. In the UK, for instance, Gordon Brown became prime minister solely through a change in leadership in the Labour Party -- there was no general election. That couldn't happen in the US.

No one elected Gerald Ford president: or Lyndon B. The British prime minister has no executive powers like the president, he is spokesman and leader of his party.
He cannot declare war without a vote or veto legislation: he does of course hold influence: In theory the queen could block laws but in practice no monarch has tried this. The history has been simplified but thats the gist of it.

My remarks were in response to a claim that the American system has obvious flaws.

My argument started on the topic of the debate: that the system had flaws so needed changing: I accept this is arguable. You believe the system is perfect:

Switching to a childish attack is an act of the insecure. Americans descend into absurd defences of the indefensible. Look at Oliver North, his defence was I may be a criminal gun runner and financer of terrorism: but I'm a patriotic one.

I love the expression tyranny of the majority: isn't this what democracy is. Surely attempts to prevent this are by there nature undemocratic.

Sadam Hussein never believed in tyranny of the majority.

not a healthy democracy, because the minority is sometimes right/the majority sometimes wrong. The minority must always have the abilty to be heard, to attempt to advance their claim towards majority status.

There is a reason this is called the United States of America. There is a reason why we have something called the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which should be immune from the will of the majority. Preserving the electoral college is crucial, not necessarily for the obvious effects, but because of how it preserves the voice of the states, and it promotes voters to vote that may throw up their hands and not vote otherwise. It gives a voice to not only people, but interests that may be vital to a state.

Taking your idea of eliminating the electoral college to the next step may include the elimination of two senators per state. Most thinking people, insightful people, have to be vehemently opposed to the elimination of the electoral college. Preserving it has more impact than may appear to exist on the surface, if nothing else to preserve the symbolism of the importance of states. I believe there are lots more reasons than that, but that reason alone would be enough to preserve it.

Set should know that H.M. the Queen appoints the Prime Minister, kissing her hands, as someone who is able to command a majority in the House of Commons.

She sends for the person who her contacts tell her is the most likely to do that and he goes to try. He usually succeeds of course. But not always. Or not for long. He stands on the front bench surrounded by those he has chosen to help him in the thankless task of bringing 60 million moronic assholes, man woman and child, into some sort of shape as organised and civilised society, and calls for a vote of confidence. Or a motion to the opposite effect is put by the dickheads opposite. If he wins this vote he goes back to the Palace and kisses The Queen's hands. Gloved of course. He is then appointed Prime Minister. He usually goes back to the House and has a good preen in the course of which he will find room to inform the House as to the real nature of the Hon. Members opposite which is contrived in such a way as to cast odium and shame upon them and their ilk. His chosen few will be sat around louchly crowing and shouting "Hear, hear" to each of his sallies of wit.

Each of these chosen ones will have climbed up a very greasy pole and emerged into a position where they can easily imagine themselves in his place and think it unjust that they are not. And he can enoble anyone he chooses at short notice, as happened recently, and bring them in from outside.

And thus arose a spectacle of a homosexual, atheist known throughout the land as The Prince of Darkness swearing by Almighty God, I think he was touching a Bible, that he would faithfully uphold all the following on bullshit as if he would be there if he was swearing that he wouldn't. Political ambition can bring a man low. He attempted an ironic expression but it had to be subtle and it was.

What Set needs to do to get somewhere near that is to tell us about the smoke-filled rooms where the business is thrashed out. All this formal stuff is just a tale on which to hang one's political inexperience and make it look half wise to the dimwits. It's bloodless. Inhuman.

Maybe Set's a ******* traffic warden.

The Queen could, if push comes to shove, call out tens of millions of men to defend Buck Pal and long may she rain over us. We did not dig Cromwell's body up and subject it to the usual treatment for simply an afternoon's entertainment.

Incompetence is generally a function of education. And if education is incompetent it will naturally generate incompetence.

At no time have a made a statement even remotely resembling that.

Once again, it is not a childish attack to take note that you don't defend your positions, you just throw out remarks in the hope of getting a rise out the people here--and the evidence of that is all over the site. You said to me that history did not begin in 1777 (why you pulled that date out of your hat i suspect no one knows), and that i am ignorant of history, and therefore, must be an American. You said essentially the same thing to georgeob1 in a different context, to the extent of saying that because he is ignorant of history (in your unsubstantiated allegation), he must be an American.

You are now prancing around in a thread about an institution about which you know nothing, based on a constitution of which you are ignorant, and once again, throwing out as many insults as your small imagination suggests to you. You contribute nothing to the discussion, won't admit that you don't know what you're talking about, and make no effort to inform yourself so as to be able to participate intelligently in the discussion.

You are like the prolix, incoherent dipsomaniac we've had here for years--you're a contrarian, and the only thing you do here is argue with people in the hope of making them angry. I can think of few things you could do more childish than that.

Both are foolish claims. Both systems are adaptations, ongoing, and any flaws will have long since been attended to. Only shades of detail are in the game. If the American system has a problem in being younger it is not necessarily a bad problem to have. What they have adapted to is the best possible solution to the situation they are dealing with and our two cases are very different in a large number of respects. Both material and psychological.

Our PM can make executive agreements but so can the President I gather. What process did he use in the auto bail-outs? Executive power has been growing since--when? McKinley? TR?

It is often said that our Prime Ministers are becoming more and more presidential but it might also be said that Presidents are becoming more and more prime-ministerial.

To the extent the systems are said to be flawed they have to be considered in danger under Darwinian exigencies. And we can't have that. It's bad for morale.

They might also be said to be flawed to support a pointless and useless debate about the nature of the flaws and the remedies to be applied in correcting them all of which will have been thought of before millions of times and laughed out of court.

The discussion is Let's get rid of the Electoral College. If it was how the Westminster system could be improved then I'd discuss that. I merely point out that no other country has adopted the American system, this would suggest it isn't a good one.
I've yet to hear anything other than abuse from our transatlantic cousins. They seem to believe the tactics of the shock jock are political debate. Can anyone explain to me how the richest country in the world cannot supply simple voting equipment. And why people have to queue to ballot: such things are unknown in Western Europe.

Once again, how about some examples instead of general platitudes. Without the disproportionate representation they'd still have an equal voice as any other citizen.

So why not give some realistic examples of how the electoral college has (or would) protect them in the way you claim?



I've said nothing about that, so instead of fantasizing about other scenarios you can concoct why not just answer the very simple question I posed to you?



Then stand on the shoulders of those giants and fetch a single example okie. This is a very weak appeal to authority, if it's legitimate then surely you can back it up.



Really? If it has all this impact why can't you come up with examples?



Ok, and once again, how exactly does the electoral college do so. For example, could you point to any election in history where you think the importance of states would have been compromised without the electoral college? Can you construct a realistic scenario where an election would do so without the electoral college?



Some weak symbolism is all you have to offer? You can't think of a single concrete example?

Don't worry about that FoW. It's a standardised thing Set has for people he gets into dispute with and it serves the purpose also of praising his own knowledge of these things because he would necessarily need such a knowledge in order to know that you hadn't any. So you can understand the attraction. It has been my lot to be on the receiving end of such things on numerous equally amusing occasions.

It's like the class system relating to ignorance. The closer people are to each other in the pecking order the more vociferously do they draw distinctions between themselves.

During very delicate and complex negotiations on the China trade question in 1903 the Secretary of State of the time, John Hay, dismissed his critics as members " of that highly respected family, the common or barnyard ass." So you can see what a powerful tool such a type of argument is.

Thanks: I find it boring. I thought the point of debate was to come up with something interesting and new: Set just won't discuss anything, The only people who never learn are those who are too tied up in their own cleverness.

There is NO chance
that the small "fly-over" states
will supply the requisite number
of votes for ratification of an amendment
whose purpose it is to diminish, enfeeble,
and undermine their contribution
to the election of a president.

Thay r not politically suicidal.





David

I made my point of view plain in the beginning of this thread. I'm not surprised that Fount of Folly finds a kindred spirit in the prolix, incoherent dipsomaniac. Anyone wishing to see what my point of view on this subject is, need only actually read the thread.

Sure we know your point of view. It assumes no human beings are involved in politics and everything runs like a clockwork according to the aricles you have read. It is oversimplified to such an extent as to be meaningless.

You have detected "flaws". You haven't said what they are though. What are we supposed to debate if the flaws are a mystery.

Do you think that a prolix, incoherent dipsomaniac is incapable of telling you what time of day it is or which way up you are. It's a non sequitur Set. Deal with the words the prolix, incoherent dipsomaniac puts out. Do yourself a favour. You are trying to hide behind an assumed prejudice and a fair proportion of your readers are partial to a drop of good cheer themselves if the stats are any guide.

Wouldn't it be awful if A2K consisted exclusively of sober presbyterian pillocks like you who last had a good time when they were flat on their back from high level dosages and are reforming themselves vigorously.

Yes. You have no point of view. You criticise everything. You refuse to answer any points.
Like its the 21st C: hand over of power should take less than a year.
The system produces bad policy and leaders.
No one else uses it.
Tell any brit how you think party leaders are chosen: they will gladly point out your errors.
I think most damning is the disenfranchisement of so many people by shambolic administration: queues, clerical errors.

I think you'd like the British system: someone is given an area, he or she is paid for everyone that registers.to vote.
There is a full time official who oversees this process.
I realise you are incapable of replying: your tactics are those of the playground bully. Abuse. Hiding behind your self-declared intelligence.

Its nonsense: he assumes his own perfection: i think freud would see this as an over compensation of his own feelings of inadequacy. Probably why he resorts to abuse instead of debate. I was hoping I'd meet some intelligent Americans. looks like I'm doomed to be disappointed.

not a healthy democracy, because the minority is sometimes right/the majority sometimes wrong. The minority must always have the abilty to be heard, to attempt to advance their claim towards majority status.

Democracy is about rule of the majority, not the correct. I'm not arguing the minority should be oppressed, merely understand they are not going to get there own way.
I don't claim its perfect: democracies tend to be less damaging than other forms of government.
before anyone mentions Israel, I point democracies do not prevent people from voting on grounds of race. Israel denies the rights of the people who live there the right to vote. Only land plunderers have those rights.

You're arguing electoral college is good because it's undemocratic? You're kidding right.?