Fishing - The Electoral system

"Wolfgang" wrote:
"Tom Gibson" wrote...
"Wolfgang" wrote ...

[SNIPPED LIBERALLY - no pun intended]

Good God, you people will swallow anything. The abolition of the
Electoral College doesn't "favor" anyone but individual voters.

Wrong. The Electoral College protects the rural from the tyranny
of the urban. Of course, some urbanites might reasonably argue
that they are presently under the tyranny of the rural...

The popular vote in New York and California (not to mention New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Illinois) went to Kerry. The
electoral vote in New York and California (etc.) went to Kerry. The
election went to Bush. Please explain who the electoral college
saved from what and how.

The Electoral College, by design, protects the less populous states from
the more populous states. I know that you understand how this works,
why do you continue to act like you don't get it? Do you not understand
that the Rhode Islands and Connecticuts of the early Union would not
have joined said Union if the Virginias and New Yorks were going to rule
by popular vote? The big states do have more say, just not so much more
as they have population. The fairness of such a system will be debated
ad infinitum but the system is unlikely to be changed.

The underlying principle behind democratic elections is that
everyone who is eligible to vote gets one vote, and whichever
candidate gets the majority of the votes wins the election.

Hence the myth of American Democracy is unveiled. It's *not* a
democracy, it's a Representative Republic.

This hoary old piece of dog **** simply WILL NOT die. Did ANYONE in
this group get beyond the second grade?

What did you learn in the third grade that makes you believe that we
live in a true democracy?

Your argument is based on the false pretense of a truly democratic
US of A.

Not even close. My argument is based on a desire to see a particular
form of democracy, a form that will better reflect the desires of the
majority of the voting public as opposed to one that can be
manipulated to thwart those desires.

Manipulated? Puh-leeze. I can understand the desire for a pure
dmeocracy, but I (unlike you) see the beauty of the present system. A
true democracy would be a disaster, primarily due to the stupidity of
the general populace that you so often bemoan.

Both after the 2000 elections and again after this one, I suggested
that if people really believe the electoral college serves to protect
minorities from the tyrannical majority they should lobby for similar
institutions at state and local levels.

I'll try to type this s-l-o-w-l-y for you, OK? Let's start at the
bottom and work our way up. Municipalities and counties are not
homogenous but they're generally much closer to it than states or the
union. Here in my tiny hamlet, the populace is as close to homogenous
as you're likely to find anywhere. County poitics can be quite
different. Most counties in PA have vast rural areas, often sparsely
populated, and a large town or two. In my county, nearly 1/3 of the
population lives in the county seat. Do the town folks pass laws that
shaft the country folks? Sure they do, but not very often--the country
folks ain't that far away and they're often related to some foks in
town. Basically, the geography and populations involved are too small
for gross abuses to be tolerated for very long. If it gets way out of
hand, the state usually steps in.

The states are quite a lot like the Union. Governors may be elected by
statewide popular vote, but the state house & senate are quite like the
federal variety. It's not impossible for the tyranny of the masses to
exist on a state level, but it's less likely that you seem to think.
Here in PA the rural areas are presently under the tyranny of an
ex-Philadelphia mayor who didn't win the popular vote in many places
outside of Philly. It's the first time in many many years that an
ex-Philly mayor has won the governorship. I am unaware of any states
that use an Electoral College to elect a governor, but it wouldn't be
beyond the scope of imagination. I wish PA would do exactly that!

The differences between my PA yankee cracker village and Watts or Texas'
Gulf Coast or even South Philly are tremendous. The difference between
the cracker villages all across PA is minor by comparison.

As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the majority of
states benefit from this arrangement, so it is unlikely to be
changed in our lifetime.

Pick a state.....any state.....and tell me how it benefited from this
arrangement. And then, if it's not too much trouble, please explain
what the matter of benefiting a particular state has to do with the
question under consideration. I thought the purpose of the electoral
college was to protect the rights of minority voters.

Ah-ha! The purpose of the Electoral College is to protect the less
populous states from the more populous states--not to protect minority
voters from anything. Like you said, it's easy to distinguish between
the two.

As it turns out, G-Dub won the popular vote and would still be the prez
under your fantasy system. Had he won the election and lost the popular
vote, it'd be easy to argue that the 'red states' had plainly benefited
from the present system.

Tom G
--
email:remove tt