2004' PRESIDENTAIL ELECTION RIGGED?

McGentrix wrote:

How wonderfully patronizing of you. I wasn't aware that we had to have bibliographies with our posts now.

How wonderfully disingenuous of you--you've been here long enough to know that everyone is subject to immediate criticism for posting false or even dubious statements--and frankly, such criticism is usually much harsher than was mine. In terms of usual reactions in political threads, that was a relatively mild rebuke, especially as i prefaced it with the observation that Foxfyre has the basic principle correct.

Try to pick your playground fight with someone else, McG, that was a truly pathetic attempt.

0 Replies

Pathetic maybe, but accurate none the less. Foxfyre was talking to the level of the audience (willow_tl and Titus) and did a wonderful job. I am sure that Foxfyre knows enough about the electoral college, but was simply making a point.

I have seen no need for a rebuking of any of Foxfyre's posts, but then again, I tend to agree with the point of view being conveyed. Until you start criticising your side of the aisle for the quality of discussion they bring to the fora, I will continue to defend my side. (although most members on the right side are quite adept at defending themselves, in fact most are better at it than I am, but I won't let that stop me from putting my foot in my mouth on occasion.)

0 Replies

Thank you for your gallant defense McG Smile

Actually Setanta's history is right on. I probably should have taken the time to relate it. What he didn't say, however, was that elected officials have looked at the electoral college again and again toward the advisablility of doing away with it. Over the last century, however, the rural areas have steadily declined while populations concentrated more and more into the large metropolitan areas.

Here are the documented stats put out by USA Today. (Wish I knew how to post the picture they used with it showing the counties colored blue for Bush and yellow for Gore--it's quite amazing and shows that the lion's share of Gore counties are in very densely populated areas.)

(I dislike 'joke sites' smearing one side or the other, but that's where my browser sent me to get these stats. You can see the USA Today graphics at http://www.rosecity.net/al_gore/election_map.html)

Counties won by Gore: 677
Counties won by Bush: 2436
Population of counties won by Gore: 127 Million
Population of counties won by Bush: 143 Million
Square miles of country won by Gore: 580,000
Square miles of country won by Bush: 2,427,000
States won by Gore: 19
States won by Bush: 29
Source: USA Today

There is probably a better way to do it than by the electoral college, but right now it is our best defense against a tyranny of a few large metropolitan areas being able to control it all.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

There is probably a better way to do it than by the electoral college, but right now it is our best defense against a tyranny of a few large metropolitan areas being able to control it all.

I admit to total uncomprehension of this logic, as a foreigner. I've seen it explained here often enough, but I dont get it.

First, those "few" large metropolitan areas comprise everything from Boston to Washington DC, from San Diego to Seattle, from Rochester, NY to Madison, WI. They comprise overwhelmingly black cities, largely white towns, poor innner city districts and affluent suburbs. They represent latte liberals and no-nonsense blue-collar working folk. In short, its not like there is any dubiously disciplined clear common cause here, plotting to impose itself on the unsuspecting heartland - just a huge range of different kinds, colours, classes of Americans, who happen to live downtown, in the suburbs, or in a small town in a state where there is also a metropolitan city.

The population of the more sparsely populated states also comprises a range of different kinds of Americans. There's cityfolk (Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix) there, too, suburbians, small town folk. They also happen, all in all, to number slightly fewer than the above-listed variety of people. Now why would the "tyranny" of a narrow majority of white, black, brown, upper- and lower-class, higher- and lower-educated inhabitants of smaller and larger towns in NY, CA, IL etc be worse - or any more of a tyranny, period - than the "tyranny" of a large minority of white, black, brown, upper- and lower-class, higher- and lower-educated inhabitants of smaller and larger towns in ND, TX, AR etc?

How is the rule by a 51% majority a "tyranny" but the rule by a 49% minority not?

0 Replies

nimh:

Don't feel too badly.

The Electoral College is antiquated and no longer viable. In fact, your self-described incomprehension of this ancient system is shared by millions of Americans under the age of 30 years of age who don't get it and who refuse to bother to vote because the candidate with the fewest votes wins.

It's like Daylight Savings Time.

Long past its prime.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Quote:

How is the rule by a 51% majority a "tyranny" but the rule by a 49% minority not?

Because the margin in New York City alone, let alone the other FEW large metropolitan areas referenced, was the difference in the 2000 popular vote. Without the electoral college, politicians would completely ignore the 'fly over' country and all the good people in it and would throw all their efforts and money into those few large metropolitian areas where they can influence (or purchase) enough votes to ensure a victory. Those who devised the electoral college were wise enough to see this and implement a system to make sure all Americans have a voice and cannot be controlled by the condensed populations of a half dozen huge metropolitan areas.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Without the electoral college, politicians would completely ignore the 'fly over' country and all the good people in it and would throw all their efforts and money into those few large metropolitian areas where they can influence (or purchase) enough votes to ensure a victory. Those who devised the electoral college were wise enough to see this and implement a system to make sure all Americans have a voice and cannot be controlled by the condensed populations of a half dozen huge metropolitan areas.

Why would it be either easier, or more pernicious, to secure a victory by attracting the votes of half a million cityfolk than by attracting 400,000 countryfolk?

If anything, the cityfolk constitute a more diverse body of citizens (in terms of age, colour, income, religion, etc) than the countryfolk. The spectre you seem to evoke of a dictatorship of one group over all others presupposes some kind of homogenous body of cityfolk, that can easily collectively be won over, and would then impose some sort of unitary program or interest on the rest of the country. Considering the mindboggling diversity of metropolitan areas, that seems somehow irrational.

Apart from the obvious point, of course, that you cant, in fact, win the popular vote by merely focusing on half a dozen metropolitan areas - there's just not enough people in 'em. Of all Americans, only a fifth live in the largest six metropolitan areas. Add another half a dozen, and you're still at less than a third of the US population. And its a third that's far too diverse to collectively go for either party, no matter how much they would focus on it. Again, the spectre you evoke seems counterfactual.

Finally, re: the "ignore" factor, it is in the current EC system that all those who live in "safe" states for either candidate - which is basically a majority of Americans - are routinely ignored by politicians. No matter whether their state is an urban or a rural state. It is the EC system that, it seems to me, has politicians focus extraordinately on a mere dozen of "battleground" regions.

0 Replies

nimh writes:

Quote:

Finally, re: the "ignore" factor, it is in the current EC system that all those who live in "safe" states for either candidate - which is basically a majority of Americans - are routinely ignored by politicians. No matter whether their state is an urban or a rural state. It is the EC system that, it seems to me, has politicians focus extraordinately on a mere dozen of "battleground" regions.

The battleground states change from election to election, however, and at least the politicians have to spread out and do their thing in different places. They also have to spread their resources so it is less likely they can 'buy' enough votes in any one place to swing an election. I do hope you see the danger of allowing a half dozen metropolitican areas be able to control the leadership of this country.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The electoral college was devised to prevent a very few densely populated metropolitan areas from being able to control everybody else.

That's what you think. But when the vote of highly populated areas gets mixed with the votes of the rest of the country than it averages out.

The electoral college was really started because our founding fathers didn't think the average billy-bob farmer should be trusted to make such an important decision.

Our election system is a crock and I hope people start realising this and do away with the college. I will complain about this till the day I die. Maybe some day someone will actually listen.

0 Replies

roverroad, is there anything you DON'T think is a crock?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

roverroad, is there anything you DON'T think is a crock?

If it's not a crock I don't want to change it, so why talk about it.

"If it ain't broke don't fix it."

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I do hope you see the danger of allowing a half dozen metropolitican areas be able to control the leadership of this country.

No, I dont, because its factually incorrect. Like I said, of all Americans, only a fifth live in the largest six metropolitan areas. So even if a party could persuade everybody in those half dozen metropolitican areas to vote for it - which is impossible in itself - it would still yield it only 20% of the vote. Add the next half a dozen metropolitan areas, and you still dont have much over 30% of the US electorate.

Nevertheless, my main conceptual point is unrelated to that even. Assuming that the (sub)urban population of the main met areas is at least as diverse a body of voters as the small-town voters are, why would it be worse if x million met area voters get to decide the election than if x million small-town voters get to?

Foxfyre wrote:

The battleground states change from election to election, however,

Hardly. In any reasonably close elections there's a dozen or two dozen states that the two parties can take for granted, which will only change hands if either of the two parties is routed.

0 Replies

I reference to McG's snide remark above about me criticizing "the other side of the aisle," i offer the following: In the first place, i'm not in Congress, so there is no "other side of the aisle." In the second, knowing full well what you mean, i charge you with selectively viewing the evidence. I have criticized the excesses of those who post here whose liberal sentiments are similar to my own. You are unwilling to see that. And finally, i tend to ignore threads by Titus and Pistoff, just because they are often extemist screeds.

I only dropped in on this thread because i thought it might involve the issue of voting machines, which i consider crucial. I should have known better. Titus starts with references to Katherine Harris, a truly despicable politico--but the reference is gratuitous, as it has no bearing on this topic, other than to introduce a partisan smear in the first line. I think the woman colluded to throw the vote in Florida--but i can't prove it, and won't go on a rant about it absent that proof. I am less and less impressed with your contributions, McG, because it seems you only come to threads to see if you can't carp at someone, and pick a fight. I begin to lump you together with the likes of Titus and Pistoff.

0 Replies

2004' PRESIDENTAIL ELECTION RIGGED?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know