The Electoral system

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

Good God, you people will swallow anything. The abolition of the
Electoral
College doesn't "favor" anyone but individual voters. With or without the
electoral college, places where there are more people have more votes.
With
or without the electoral college, states with larger populations exert
more
influence becasue there are more people voting.

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. Insofar as the Electoral College supports
that
fundamental tenet, it is entirely superfluous. We just don't need it. If
it does anything other than facilitate the democratic electoral process,
it
subverts the very core of Democracy. And that is EXACTLY what it does.

Wolfgang

While all of the above is true with regard to a Democracy, our system is
not a Democracy and never has been. Our system of government is a republic,
with all the "subversions" of democracy that that entails. It would take a
major re-write of our constitition to change our system to a true Democracy.
I suspect nothing short of a revolution would accomplish that. Not that
such a revolution is necessarily a bad thing.


--
Bob Weinberger
La, Grande, OR

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

Bob Weinberger wrote:

While all of the above is true with regard to a Democracy, our system is
not a Democracy and never has been. Our system of government is a republic,
with all the "subversions" of democracy that that entails. It would take a
major re-write of our constitition to change our system to a true Democracy.
I suspect nothing short of a revolution would accomplish that. Not that
such a revolution is necessarily a bad thing.

The revolution starts now.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

wrote...
The revolution starts now.

With bitches like you fighting, are you ready to concede yet?

:-)
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt and earth(nospam)link dot net to reply via email)

wrote...
The revolution starts now.

With bitches like you fighting, are you ready to concede yet?

:-)
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt and earth(nospam)link dot net to reply via email)

"Bob Weinberger" wrote in message
news:x_Bjd.3491$DB.1319@trnddc04...

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

Good God, you people will swallow anything. The abolition of the
Electoral
College doesn't "favor" anyone but individual voters. With or
without the
electoral college, places where there are more people have more
votes.
With
or without the electoral college, states with larger populations
exert
more
influence becasue there are more people voting.

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. Insofar as the Electoral College
supports
that
fundamental tenet, it is entirely superfluous. We just don't need
it. If
it does anything other than facilitate the democratic electoral
process,
it
subverts the very core of Democracy. And that is EXACTLY what it
does.

Wolfgang

While all of the above is true with regard to a Democracy, our
system is
not a Democracy and never has been. Our system of government is a
republic,
with all the "subversions" of democracy that that entails.

Hm.....

Well, China is a republic.....as a matter of fact, it's a "Peoples'
Republic" and, if I remember my Greek roots, that makes China more
democratic than the U.S. I'm not at all sure you're right about
that......um......though I will concede that China is inexorably (if
rather slowly) inching ever further toward democracy while the U.S. is
rushing headlong in the opposite direction.

It would take a
major re-write of our constitition to change our system to a true
Democracy.

Abolishing the Electoral College would be a step in the right
direction. If the American electorate can be sold on the patently
absurd proposition that Bush is good for them, they'll buy anything.
Why not try something that IS good for them?

I suspect nothing short of a revolution would accomplish that.

Well, there are revolutions and then there are revolutions. What if I
were to tell you, for instance, that it might be possible for a
significant fraction of the population of a major western
industrialized nation, a fraction that seems to genuinely believe that
a really big invisible guy with questionable morals wants them to kill
everybody who isn't like them, to become a major political force
within that nation....AND that the titular leader of that nation
actually courted the support of such a group and told them that he
agrees with them! Given that rationality has been around for a long
time and that it has played a large role in the development of the
political and philosophical underpinnings all major western
industrialized nations, such a scenario would be sort of
revolutionary......wouldn't you say?

Not that
such a revolution is necessarily a bad thing.

A lot of people would get hurt. However, it ain't gonna
happen......so, I guess it's moot.

By the way, in one of your replies to Stevie, you mentioned a
situation in which ballot initiatives in your state have gone awry in
that the urban majority who passed them were unaffected while the
rural minority who lost sufferred as a consequence. This is an
interesting problem, but neither the presence nor the abolition of the
Electoral College will have any effect on it.

Wolfgang

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...
snip

By the way, in one of your replies to Stevie, you mentioned a
situation in which ballot initiatives in your state have gone awry in
that the urban majority who passed them were unaffected while the
rural minority who lost sufferred as a consequence. This is an
interesting problem, but neither the presence nor the abolition of the
Electoral College will have any effect on it.

Wolfgang

Of course the presence or the abolition of the Electoral College would have
no impact on the situation I outlined. I simply brought up that situation
to illustrate why , having had some first hand experience with what can
happen in the absence of curbs on the will of the "tyrannical majority"
(your words), I have some reluctance to remove some of those curbs that may
serve to protect the minority.


--
Bob Weinberger
La, Grande, OR

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

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

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...
snip

By the way, in one of your replies to Stevie, you mentioned a
situation in which ballot initiatives in your state have gone awry in
that the urban majority who passed them were unaffected while the
rural minority who lost sufferred as a consequence. This is an
interesting problem, but neither the presence nor the abolition of the
Electoral College will have any effect on it.

Wolfgang

Of course the presence or the abolition of the Electoral College would
have
no impact on the situation I outlined. I simply brought up that situation
to illustrate why , having had some first hand experience with what can
happen in the absence of curbs on the will of the "tyrannical majority"
(your words),

Actually, those are not exactly my words. I borrowed them. As a matter of
fact, the only word that I can truly call my own is "fwapuhuhuh", and I
haven't been able to find a use for it just ye........um.......you know, it
just occurred to me......maybe that's the sound of Janik smacking his
forehead to see whether or not a thought might come out. Hm........

But, we digress.

I have some reluctance to remove some of those curbs that may
serve to protect the minority.

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? I
mean......I forget whether you live in Oregon or Washington (and I apologize
for that )....but in either case, I'm pretty confident that the population
is not evenly distributed across the state, largely as a result of the fact
that you said so.....well, I really already knew that.....but, never mind.
Anyway, if the will of the majority is, in fact, tyrannical, then an
electoral high school might go a long way toward ameliorating the ill
effects of that tyranny. For that matter, it now also occurs to me that
populations are not generally evenly distributed in most individual counties
either. Perhaps an "electoral grade school" would be an appropriate and
effective tool in an effort to minimize the deleterious effects of majority
rule at that level as well? And, I don't know much about demographics in
the pacific northwest, but here the upper Great Lakes region it is not
unheard of for even communities (large as well as small) to have uneven
population distributions. Why, right here in the city of Milwaukee there
are some neighborhoods that have a great many more people living in them
than some others. It can hardly be fair that they should hold dominion over
the poor benighted souls in the wilderness areas of the city simply because
there are more of them, can it? No, I don't think so. I think we should
have an "electoral pre-school" to safeguard the inalienable rights of the
under-represented and oppressed pockets within the city.

Hm.......ya know, an "electoral pre-school" (albeit defined somewhat
differently than is suggested above) is probably not all that bad an idea.

All that said, I still don't think the electoral college does anything worth
the **** it would take to bury it.

The GOOD news is that anyone who feels sparsely populated rural areas and
smaller states are under-represented can actually take pro-active measures
to counter the tyranny of the majority. All you have to do is move to New
York, Chicago or Los Angeles (it really doesn't matter.....whichever is
closest will do) before the next presidential election. Then, on election
day, simply vote AGAINST whoever everyone else is voting FOR! Voila, you
have single-handedly reduced the lopsided effect of the evil majority in
heavily populated areas! Huzzah!

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!

"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

"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

Bob Weinberger wrote:

While all of the above is true with regard to a Democracy, our system is
not a Democracy and never has been. Our system of government is a republic,
with all the "subversions" of democracy that that entails. It would take a
major re-write of our constitition to change our system to a true Democracy.
I suspect nothing short of a revolution would accomplish that. Not that
such a revolution is necessarily a bad thing.

The revolution starts now.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.