56
   

Let's get rid of the Electoral College

 
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 08:53 am
@rosborne979,
O ye of little faith, Ros. One thing I must say. It's nice to have a political discussion without ripping each other apart. I don't get into this arena often (nor the religious one), but I think we have accomplished something here that is very important.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 08:56 am
Oh jeeze, how embarrassing . . . Letty, you ignorant slut ! ! !
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 10:06 am
@Setanta,
You dumb mick. Robert, hope you don't mind this brief digression.

Two ‘Mericana Men
Beeg Irish cop dat walk hees beat
By den peanutta stan’,
First two, t’ree week w’en we are meet
Ees call me "Dagoman."
An’ w’en he see how mad I gat,
Wheech eesa pleass heem, too,
Wan day he say: "W’at’s matter dat,
Ain’t ‘Dago’ name for you?
Dat’s ‘Mericana name, you know,
For man from Eetaly;
Eet ees no harm for call you so,
Den why be mad weeth me?"
First time he talka deesa way
I am too mad for speak,
But nexta time I justa say:
"All righta Meester Meeck I"

O! my, I nevva hear bayfore
Sooch langwadge like he say;
An’ he don’t look at me no more
For mebbe two, t’ree day.
But pretta soon agen I see
Den beeg poleecaman
Dat com’ an’ growl an’ say to me;
"Halo, Eyetalian! Now, mebbe so you gon’ deny
Dat dat’sa name for you."
I smila back an’ mak’ reply:
"No, Irish, dat’sa true."
"Ha! Joe," be cry, "you theenk dat we
Should call you ‘Merican ?"
"Dat’s gooda ‘nough," I say, "for me,
Eef dat’s w’at you are, Dan."


0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 10:22 am
the electoral college concept was a stroke of genius by our founding fathers. We should absolutely not junk it, even though few Americans understand it. Mob rule is rarely good rule.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 10:26 am
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
That the majority choice would override the minority choice is unfortunate for the minority but that's how it's supposed to work.


Yes, but as your work at a2k makes clear you have no understanding of the importance of minority rights, of what will always happen when the minority don' have a voice, don't have an avenue to attempt to get their minority views adopted by the majority.
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 11:00 am
@hawkeye10,
UhOh, back again.

hawkeye, you are speaking of PURE democracy. We have a representative democracy. Clever orators such as Marc Antony could rouse the rabel to kill everyone they see; not just the conspirators.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 11:07 am
@Letty,
Yes, we are a representative democracy and we need to make sure that all are represented in Washington, even the minority populations. In this way minority views have the ability to speak. A Nebraska Representative say can represent the farmers, of which their are few in America, can get five minutes on the stage to speak about the needs of farmers and of what is important to them. Even though all know full well that what the farmers want will not carry the day they have had their ability to say their peace, and this is very very important. The majority does not get to control Congress in such a way that all can pretend that there are none who object to the majority opinion.

the electoral college ensures that the minority has had a seat at the table during the selection of the administration, has had the chance to say what they want to say to the rest.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 01:29 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
That's hardly the point. It is a matter of whether or not the interests of states with rural populations are fairly represented in a nation which is a union of sovereign states. That was a point i made which you either choose to ignore or failed to understand.


It's a fairly simple point, so perhaps you should consider that understanding isn't the issue so much as that I just don't agree with you.

They are, in my opinion, fairly represented as the minority and don't need disproportionate representation.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 01:34 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Yes, but as your work at a2k makes clear you have no understanding of the importance of minority rights, of what will always happen when the minority don' have a voice, don't have an avenue to attempt to get their minority views adopted by the majority.


Nonsense, you want to have sex with minors and are thusly unpopular. You therefore try to blame your unpopularity on me and the site instead of your perversions and your misogynistic views on rape.

Crybaby, if you don't like being unpopular stop advocating sex with minors.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 01:44 pm
@Robert Gentel,
you keep claiming that I am unpopular, but I fail to see where my alleged unpopularity gets in the way of my views being taken into consideration. A lot of smart people here do talk with me, do find me in spite of your idiotic popularity metric at a2k.

You have designed into a2k an effort to silence the unpopular, which tells be that you fail to understand that the popular consensus opinion NEEDS to be constantly challenged by unpopular opinions...that the majority NEEDS to allow itself to be nit picked by the minority. It is the only way to keep in touch with changes in the here and now. What was true once, the best option of yesterday, may not fit with current reality. We don't always know what we think we know.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 01:51 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
you keep claiming that I am unpopular, but I fail to see where my alleged unpopularity gets in the way of my views being taken into consideration.


Well you sure whine about it an awful lot then. You spent weeks claiming that it was destroying your ability to do so.

Quote:
A lot of smart people here do talk with me, do find me in spite of your idiotic popularity metric at a2k.


Yeah, it's happening right now! Laughing

Quote:
You have designed into a2k an effort to silence the unpopular, which tells be that you fail to understand that the popular consensus opinion NEEDS to be constantly challenged by unpopular opinions...that the majority NEEDS to allow itself to be nit picked by the minority.


Nonsense, they have the ability to ignore you and to censure your advocacy of things like pedophilia. They have no ability to silence you and certainly no need for your nonsense.

Quote:
It is the only way to keep in touch with changes in the here and now. What was true once, the best option of yesterday, may not fit with current reality. We don't always know what we think we know.


Nor is the person who thinks he's the lone voice of wisdom always something more than an idiot. You like to portray yourself as some kind of oracle out of your time but no, you are just a pervert advocating sex with minors and finding justifications for it.
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 02:25 pm
Why not just pass the vote for president to a vote for the electors in each district of the states. That would put another level of space between the voting public and the president. It would allow the politicians and big money people to gain even more control over the political machines. Or we could do away with all the garbage and vote directly for president which I think should be done.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 05:42 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye wrote :

Quote:
the electoral college ensures that the minority has had a seat at the table during the selection of the administration, has had the chance to say what they want to say to the rest.


but that exactly it , the minority should "have a seat at the table" , but imo they should NOT dominate the table .
the majority (the most votes) should still have the final say , shouldn't they ?
hbg
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 06:37 pm
You needn't play disingenuous with me, i'm neither an idiot, nor am i suffering in my short-term memory.

You wrote:
It's a fairly simple point, so perhaps you should consider that understanding isn't the issue so much as that I just don't agree with you.

They are, in my opinion, fairly represented as the minority and don't need disproportionate representation.


That was in response to my remark to the effect:

Quote:
That's hardly the point. It is a matter of whether or not the interests of states with rural populations are fairly represented in a nation which is a union of sovereign states. That was a point i made which you either choose to ignore or failed to understand.


. . . and i wrote that in response to your remark to the effect:

Quote:
There's no evidence that the rural minority has any better judgment in these matters than the urban majority.


Given that you made that remark after i made as succinct a statement as i could of my reason for wishing to retain the college--that without it the election of president is in the hands of an urban majority, and that this is a union of sovereign states, i wondered is you were either ignoring my point or had failed to understand it. It now becomes more evident to me that you were simply ignoring the point i was making.

So i was pointing out that i had not in any way suggested that a rural minority is possessed of better judgment than an urban majority. Given that you made your remark in a post which referenced my previous post, i consider that i have a right to object to a mischaracterization of the point i was making, which mischaracterization is implicit in your remark about the relative judgment of rural and urban populations.

Whether or not you agree with me, and it was already obvious that you do not, you have no business to inferentially suggest that i have stated or implied something which i have not remotely done.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 06:49 pm
@hamburger,
Quote:
but that exactly it , the minority should "have a seat at the table" , but imo they should NOT dominate the table .
the majority (the most votes) should still have the final say , shouldn't they ?
hbg

Right, the majority decides after those who don't agree have had a fair chance to change hearts and minds (or to shame the majority into doing the right thing).
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 07:12 pm
@Setanta,
Yes....that is kind of similar to here....re subsidising and such. We built railways...but different states have different guages!!!!!!!!! ( Rolling Eyes ) so the commonwealth needed to intervene and make some transcontinental lines.

The countries are kind of similar, except, of course, that Canada is infinitely more fertile than most of Oz.

I have re-thought the President thing, though....when I thought about the role of President. Don't your ( I speak of the US, now) Congress and Senate maintain a balancing attention to constituency interests????
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 07:21 pm
@dlowan,
Not during the first six years of the Bush presidency. Congress rubber stamped what ever the president wanted without a care for the wishes of the majority which is why someone like me voted for Obama even though I was not crazy about him. He is better than another republican president.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 07:28 pm
@rabel22,
rabel22 wrote:

Not during the first six years of the Bush presidency. Congress rubber stamped what ever the president wanted without a care for the wishes of the majority which is why someone like me voted for Obama even though I was not crazy about him. He is better than another republican president.


But...didn't the Repubs have a majority in both houses?

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 07:29 pm
@dlowan,
That is correct: from 1995 through 2007, the Republicans controlled both houses of the Congress. In the 2006 mid-term elections, they lost control to the Democrats, who have controlled both houses since 2007. The Democrats improved their position in the 2008 election.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Nov, 2008 08:02 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant " society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it " its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism. " On Liberty, The Library of Liberal Arts edition, p.7.

the popularity metric is an assault upon the individual, is a danger to democracy. We have the electoral college as a guard against this danger. In order to be president one must convince a broad spectrum of the population that they should win, it is not a matter being the most popular overall. Al Gore and the Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for pretending that the popular vote matters.

Individual Liberty should be cherished and protected, at a2k and everywhere.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/22/2018 at 02:31:58