Let's get rid of the Electoral College

My understanding of the American legal system is the supreme court can veto local legislation. These are appointed by the president. So much for local accountability.

I don't think it is quite that simple FoW.

Having watched the clown, Fount of Folly, for a couple of weeks now, it has become clear what he is up to. He is like an unruly child in a toy store. He hasn't any clear ideas to express which are à propos of the topic under discussion, in this or in any of the other threads he is prancing through. He only hopes that he can irritate the Americans. It's the sort of thing one sees with teenagers who desperately hope that their clothes, or their music or their slang will annoy the adults. He's a sort of modestly educated Chav. You can see it when he doesn't make any serious effort to defend the arguments he advances from ignorance, but rather, prances on to a new attempt to insult, in the hope of enraging his interlocutors.

Now that the prolix, incoherent dipsomaniac has joined him, you can expect that any thread he visits will go rapidly down hill, with the actual subject of the discussion lost in the welter of his childish tantrum.

For you to use "my understanding" in any sentence with the words "American" or "the United States" is an exercise in futility, as it is all too obvious that you know nothing about Americans or the United States.

People generally talk about changing the system when it is generally seen to be failing. America is the richest country in the world. It has the top military, most WMD and the most prisons. It is ranked 25th for education. 36th in healthcare.
This suggests a barbaric and oppressive power. There is not a single country in Europe where people live in trailers. Guantanamo bay shows how interested America is in justice.New Orleans showed that Americans don't care about eachother.
In Britain a shambles like Florida couldn't happen, we have a state official to announce the result: No result can be declared until he or she Okays it. It is a sensible idea: only in America would it be ridiculed.
America is behind the curve in many areas. I believe stopping people from voting because of their race was made unconstitutional around 1960: 25th amendment. (approx.) I would welcome the exact details from Setanta.

I notice that you didn't say I was factually incorrect. I don't result to childish abuse. Who is the adult here?

It is easy to criticize a country that is 3,000 miles wide, with 50 states (two not part of the continental U.S.). Plus, we manage to have a diversity of people, religions, and races that reflects a degree of social equality that does not exist in Britain (the U.S. does not base one's social class on one's father's social class).

The two societies have a similar language, but that is where it stops. The U.S. has no queen, no royal family, no royal religion (Anglican Church), no men in white wigs, no pompous, "Hear, Hear" in our government bodies, no waxing nostalgic over an Empire lost, no large socialist political party, no cars on the wrong side of the road, no silly games with bats that are flat, no centuries of oppressing another country (Ireland), no history of colonialism, no stiff upper lip, no history of cruelty to one's sailors. Thank goodness I say that the two countries are so different. God Bless America.

You are factually incorrect about the electoral college, and i have already pointed that out, as has Joe. You are factually incorrect about the function of the Supreme Court, and how it functions. Your use of the word "result" in your second sentence is a mystery; i suspect you meant to use a word such as "resort." To have described your childish behavior is not abusive, so long as it is an accurate description of your behavior, which it is. I know that i am an adult. I have my doubts about you. If you are an adult, you have not behaved as an adult in your silly romps through the discussions of this site over the last several days.

The belief in "the American Dream" is largely illusory: In terms of social mobility America fares badly. look up the figures. It does much worse than Britain.
I accept that America is a large and diverse country. Not all of it is bad. However, the political system is flawed judging from the leaders chosen: American misunderstanding of Irish politics lead to them supporting terrorist organisations: the I.R.A. were funded almost entirely by naive Americans.
It seems to me that Americans are very twitchy about criticism, even when it is reasonable ,measured and constructive.

Contradiction does not a logical argument make.

It isn't necessary to offer logical argument to someone who makes gross errors of fact in describing that of which he is obviously ignorant. You said that i had not stated that you are factually incorrect. That was not true, because both Joe and i had pointed out that you are wrong about the electoral college. Since it seemed to matter to you, i also pointed out that you are are wrong about the Supreme Court. Given that you haven't shown the least interest in learning what is factually true about the functions of portions of the United States constitution and government, there is little point in describing to you the character of your errors--you are only here to attempt to get a rise out of the Americans here by parading your bigotry. Both Joe and i pointed out to you why you are incorrect about the electoral college, but either you are incapable of understanding why that is; or, and this is more likely since you are just acting as a contrarian and attempting to annoy the other people in this discussion, you aren't interested in knowing why you are wrong.

I'm finding this rather hilarious though--if you are in fact in the United Kingdom, it is now past 3:00 a.m., and yet you are so obsessed with your new plaything that you're still at the keyboard, desperately attempting to aggravate the Americans here. Silly, silly boy.

Me too, Spendi, me too.

One has to wonder though, Set, why such a "weakness" fails to elevate to power the stunning incompetence that routinely shows up in the US presidency.

The founders were much wiser than you, thankfully. Leave it alone. Disproportionate representation, not entirely based upon population, avoids total tyranny of the majority. It for a purpose. Leave it alone.

I've heard that parroted many times now okie. How about an example of what it is protecting against and why it should protect against that?

I am familiar with the concept of "tyranny of the majority" and with the need to have some protections against it on some level. What kind of tyranny do you think would be the result of doing away with disproportionate representation in the presidential election?

Do you have any examples of times you think the system has saved the nation from such tyranny? Or examples that you think are realistic threats of such tyranny?

You misunderstand. Political parties function entirely differently in parliamentary and presidential democracies. 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. In parliamentary systems, parties serve a constitutional role -- in the US, in contrast, parties serve primarily a functional role. US political parties are loosely organized interest groups that have no constitutionally or legally defined role.

Well-- there won't be any examples if the system works well.

Realistic threats of tyranny will always exist due to human nature if circumstances allow them to. But you need to define tyranny. Differential infant mortality rates can be seen as tyranny.

Kinda like Lisa's tiger-repellent rock? It must work well since there are no tigers around right?



No, the people claiming that this system is some great bulwark against tyranny should define their own claim, and support their own claim.

I'm not the one claiming that the Electoral College prevents any tyranny of the majority. In fact I believe it has never once done so, and I don't think there's any realistic scenario that it would do so.

I have no reason to assume that there have been regularly occurring examples of "stunning incompetence" appearing in the Presidency. In fact, i can think of precious few. Baby Bush was not incompetent, he simply pursued a program odious to a significant portion of the population, and pursued an economic program which a significant portion of the population considered discredited--to wit, "Reaganomics." Probably the least competent administration was that of Warren Harding.

But i did not say that that were a weakness, i was simply pointing out that the Westminster system does not necessarily choose a chief magistrate who might have been chosen had the office been open to a general election. Competence in the executive branch in the United States can be achieved, if it is achieved, by the appointment of the executive branch officers. This must be done with the advice and consent of the Senate. If the President does not actually advise with the Senate in his or her choices, he or she still must secure the approval of the Senate. Americans routinely demand democratic institutions, and that is a facet of democratic institutions.

By contrast, in the Westminster system, the leader is chosen by the party insiders, and he or she then chooses (subject to avoiding strong disapproval from party insiders) those who hold ministerial portfolios. If the party in question is not in power, than those same individuals become the "critics." He or she who would hold the foreign office portfolio were his or her party in power, would, when not in power, become the foreign policy critic. So long as he or she retains a seat in the Commons, if his or her party comes to power, he or she becomes the minister holding that portfolio. Therefore, Prime Ministers and cabinet ministers are subject only to the democratic choice of party insiders, and the electorate in the district in which they stand. The system is flexible enough (from the point of view of party insiders) that if someone is not returned from their district, they can continue to exercise the portfolio while awaiting a by-election in a "safe" seat. The origins of the system lie in the corrupt and elitist system which reigned before the 1830s and the first reform bill.

My comment did not claim that this were a weakness, but it certainly could not either be seen as a strength. Anyone who criticizes Reagan would hardly be in a position to praise Thatcher, who pursued virtually the same economic program. The competence of John Major and Tony "Poodle" Blair was as much a function of their choice of ministers and formulation of policy as is the case with American executive appointments.

My remarks were in response to a claim that the American system has obvious flaws. So does the Westminster system. Far more power resides in the hands of a Prime Minister than is the case with a President, and the Prime Minister also acts as the party leader and floor leader in the legislature, as well as being the chief magistrate, a flaw which our system avoids.

If these things are not obvious to you, or are not easy for you to follow or understand, that is certainly no fault of mine.

You claim the leader of the parties are chosen by party insiders: the Conversatives and Liberal Democrats use a one member one vote system. Labour party have an "electoral college" 30% popular vote of members, 30% trade Unions,40% Members of parliament> basically to prevent Socialist Candidates.
Americans don't seem to understand the nature of debate: all I've heard is an ugly noise of blind patriotism with a large dash of abuse and ignorance.
You seem to have not an iota of knowledge of the British system.
My criticism of the American system taking too long is hardly controversial, or that someone should be responsible for declaring the vote.
The British legal establishment is quite often at loggerheads with the government: I think americans should not comment on law while Guantanamo Bay is open.
I described the American idea of an elected judicary largely illusory: I stand by this, there are too many limitations on what they can do.