The Electoral system
 

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
...irregardless...

Oh, good Lord. :(

Wolfgang

The Electoral system
 

"Wolfgang" wrote in message ...

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
...irregardless...

Oh, good Lord. :(

Wolfgang

What did ya expect, afterall he lives in "New" Mexico.

Mark --freakin' dry-bellies--

The Electoral system
 

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:07:55 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
...irregardless...

Oh, good Lord. :(

Wolfgang


egregious or what, eh?

he must be from one of them there red states . . . damn commies

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

The Electoral system
 

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:07:55 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:


"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
...irregardless...

Oh, good Lord. :(

Yup, that's a pretty grim commentary...

The Electoral system
 

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:07:55 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:


"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
...irregardless...

Oh, good Lord. :(

Yup, that's a pretty grim commentary...

The Electoral system
 

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"Bob Weinberger" wrote in message
news:kNQjd.2$b92.0@trnddc09...
snip

I have some reluctance to remove some of those curbs that *may*
serve to protect the minority. (emphasis added in reply only)

There have been, what, maybe as many as half a dozen instances in which
the
electoral college has decided an election in favor of a candidate who lost
the popular vote? I think you'll have a hard time making a substantive
case
for any downtrodden minority being saved by any such timely intervention.

But, just for the sake of argument, let us assume (for the moment) that
the
electoral college really DOES do what you claim. In that case, and given
that we agree it has no effect on the situation you describe above anent
the
undesired effect of ballot initiatives, doesn't it seem to you that rather
than discussing the electoral college (which, I think we can all agree
isn't
in any danger of being abolished soon regardless of what anyone thinks of
it), you should be lobbying for an.....um....."electoral high school" to
provide the same sort of protection for voters at a statewide level?
snippage of reducto ad absurdum scenario

I never claimed that the Electoral College protects the minority. Please
re-read my statement above (I've emphasized a key word to assist you in
understanding what I actually said) in its full context. I don't know that
the system really does protect or has protected the minority, however
because it has that possibility and was designed to do so(and has funtioned
without major harm to the Republic), I am reluctant to abandon it. But as
you say the point is moot since it won't happen in our lifetimes.

We actually did try to pass a measure to provide some protection, for the
minority living in the other 7/8ths of the state, from iniative petitions
originating at the whim of the electorate in just Portland, Eugene and
Salem.. Not a restriction on how their votes would be weighted, but simply
by requiring that the necessary number of signatures of registered voters to
get an iniative on the ballot (4%, 6%, & 8% of the voters in the last
general election for referendums, statutes, and constitutional amendments
respectively) must come from each state congressional district in proportion
to the voters in that district. The current constitutional requirement
simply specifies the total number of signatures required, with no
requirement on where they are collected. The catch 22 is that because the
Portland, Eugene, and Salem voters saw that as taking away some of their
power over the rest of the state, we were unable to get it passed in a
statewide election (required for a state constitutional amendment).


Wolfgang
who clings fiercely to the notion that "one man, one vote" (while
recognizing that historical gender-specific terms are not always to be
understood literally and prescriptively today) still means SOMETHING!



--
Bob Weinberger
La, Grande, OR

place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email

The Electoral system
 

Wolfgang wrote:
"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
...irregardless...

Oh, good Lord. :(

When people said that word around my FIL, I got to watch his jaw tighten. It
was a lot of fun, so I used the word frequently. He also got ****ed when
people asked him, "Are you sure?" 'cause he wouldn't have said it if he
wasn't. So I used to ask that a WHOLE bunch. But the clincher was "what if".
After he'd give directions to some destination, my response was, "What if I
turned here instead of there?" I could play "what if" with him for about an
hour or so before he'd catch on, then I'd get slugged in the shoulder. Of
course, I only played these games with him *after* I married his daughter.
:)
--
TL,
Tim
---------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

The Electoral system
 

"Bob Weinberger" wrote in message
news:ugWjd.538$2h7.164@trnddc03...

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"Bob Weinberger" wrote in message
news:kNQjd.2$b92.0@trnddc09...
snip

I have some reluctance to remove some of those curbs that *may*
serve to protect the minority. (emphasis added in reply only)

There have been, what, maybe as many as half a dozen instances in which
the
electoral college has decided an election in favor of a candidate who
lost
the popular vote? I think you'll have a hard time making a substantive
case
for any downtrodden minority being saved by any such timely intervention.

But, just for the sake of argument, let us assume (for the moment) that
the
electoral college really DOES do what you claim. In that case, and given
that we agree it has no effect on the situation you describe above anent
the
undesired effect of ballot initiatives, doesn't it seem to you that
rather
than discussing the electoral college (which, I think we can all agree
isn't
in any danger of being abolished soon regardless of what anyone thinks of
it), you should be lobbying for an.....um....."electoral high school" to
provide the same sort of protection for voters at a statewide level?
snippage of reducto ad absurdum scenario

I never claimed that the Electoral College protects the minority. Please
re-read my statement above (I've emphasized a key word to assist you in
understanding what I actually said) in its full context.

The claim, in case you hadn't noticed, was implicit in the example you cited
of what happens when and where no such protection is in place. I read what
you wrote. For the moment, I am still willing to believe that you did
too......with or without key words emphasized. Please do not make any more
attempts to disabuse me of that notion.

I don't know that
the system really does protect or has protected the minority,

Theoretically, it's feasible. But then, if the theory is framed carefully,
what isn't?

however
because it has that possibility and was designed to do so

Well, there's the rub......it wasn't......unless we're talking about a
particular minority, a minority that wasn't at all what we think of today
when we use the word "minority". In fact, it was (as Peter hinted the other
day) designed to protect a VERY particular minority, the same minority whose
direct linear descendents are, as we speak, so to speak, cheerfully willing
to sacrifice your children and mine (they won't get mine, by the way) to
their all-consuming God., and are doing so quite profitably.

(and has funtioned
without major harm to the Republic),

No harm from external forces, as far as I can see......but the plaster has
cracked rather badly in recent years due to internal pressures. Granted,
it's not the first time.....there was Jackson.....and Lincoln.....and
Wilson.....and Eisenhower, to name just a few off the top of my head, and
the damage in each case was (mostly) repaired, but regardless of what is
used to cover them the cracks remain and, at any rate, the past is no
guarantor of the future.

I am reluctant to abandon it.

So it begins to appear.

But as
you say the point is moot since it won't happen in our lifetimes.

Probably not. But then, in 1961 it was probable that no one would walk on
the moon before the end of the decade. I'm going to guess that the effort
was, nevertheless, worth making.

We actually did try to pass a measure to provide some protection, for the
minority living in the other 7/8ths of the state, from iniative petitions
originating at the whim of the electorate in just Portland, Eugene and
Salem.. Not a restriction on how their votes would be weighted, but
simply
by requiring that the necessary number of signatures of registered voters
to
get an iniative on the ballot (4%, 6%, & 8% of the voters in the last
general election for referendums, statutes, and constitutional amendments
respectively) must come from each state congressional district in
proportion
to the voters in that district. The current constitutional requirement
simply specifies the total number of signatures required, with no
requirement on where they are collected. The catch 22 is that because the
Portland, Eugene, and Salem voters saw that as taking away some of their
power over the rest of the state, we were unable to get it passed in a
statewide election (required for a state constitutional amendment).

See now, that looks suspiciously like a claim of some sort.

Wolfgang

The Electoral system
 

"Tim J" wrote in message
...
Wolfgang wrote:
"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
...irregardless...

Oh, good Lord. :(

When people said that word around my FIL, I got to watch his jaw tighten.
It was a lot of fun, so I used the word frequently. He also got ****ed
when people asked him, "Are you sure?" 'cause he wouldn't have said it if
he wasn't. So I used to ask that a WHOLE bunch. But the clincher was "what
if". After he'd give directions to some destination, my response was,
"What if I turned here instead of there?" I could play "what if" with him
for about an hour or so before he'd catch on, then I'd get slugged in the
shoulder. Of course, I only played these games with him *after* I married
his daughter.

So......um......are you saying that Jon and I are engaged?

Wolfgang
not happy......uh uh, not at all. :(

The Electoral system
 

Wolfgang wrote:
"Tim J" wrote in message
...
Wolfgang wrote:
"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
...irregardless...

Oh, good Lord. :(

When people said that word around my FIL, I got to watch his jaw
tighten. It was a lot of fun, so I used the word frequently. He also
got ****ed when people asked him, "Are you sure?" 'cause he wouldn't
have said it if he wasn't. So I used to ask that a WHOLE bunch. But
the clincher was "what if". After he'd give directions to some
destination, my response was, "What if I turned here instead of
there?" I could play "what if" with him for about an hour or so
before he'd catch on, then I'd get slugged in the shoulder. Of
course, I only played these games with him *after* I married his
daughter.

So......um......are you saying that Jon and I are engaged?

I *think* I said he should marry your daughter.

Wolfgang
not happy......uh uh, not at all. :(

I can now die a happy man. ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
---------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/