Is the Electoral College good for America?

[varwoche]

One person, one vote.

If even 2000 can't generate any interest in changing the system (not that I detected anyway) this discussion takes place in the bluest of blue skies. Unfortunately.

 

[David Wong]

If even 2000 can't generate any interest in changing the system (not that I detected anyway) this discussion takes place in the bluest of blue skies. Unfortunately.

That's what annoys me. People only care about the Electoral college in terms of whether or not it gets THEIR candidate elected. There was a huge outcry in 2000 to get the system changed... and it quickly vanished. After all, the next time it could be THEIR guy who benefits.

Seriously, all of you who feel like Al Gore was robbed, where was the subsequent movement to get the system changed?

 

[varwoche]

That's what annoys me. People only care about the Electoral college in terms of whether or not it gets THEIR candidate elected.

Pardon me but you're reading far too much between the lines here.

 

[Ladewig]

They don't visit them ... why? Because they're small? Or because they already know how they will vote? Do you think Obama or McCain will totally ignore Rhode Island if it's considered a toss up?

Yes, I do. In the last several weeks of an election, candidates will target large states that are running close in the polling.

The same thing happens to larger States as well. If California is in the bag for one candidate, why would either spend much of any time with it in a close electoral college vote when Rhode Island is still up for grabs? Switching to a national popular vote would make a State like Rhode Island's roughly 500,000 votes insignificant in every election when you have other major population centers where you can focus on.

States like Rhode Island already are insignificant. The only way you can label Rhode Island significant is to construct a far-fetched hypothetical (every state with more than 4 electoral votes is polling in such an overwhelmingly one-sided manner that candidates become interested in the 3-to-4-vote states) .


Furthermore, let's look at the claim that once California is in the bag, no politician spends much time there. If we abolished the E.C., then the 45% of the 12 million California voters that voted Republican in the last election would become significant. Isn't adding significance to all the states that are currently one-sided more important than adding significance to the 7 states with less than one million residents and only three E.C. votes?

 

[Cain]

Posted on Pollingreport.com:

"Imagine that in Tuesday's presidential election one candidate wins the popular vote, but another wins the majority of votes in the electoral college. If that were to happen who do you think should become president: the winner of the popular vote or the winner of the electoral college?"

A majority favors the popular vote over the EC:


10/04 54 40 6
11/00 63 32 6

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04misc.htm

And here's an FAQ on a website favoring abolishing the EC:
http://www.therestofus.org/electoral_college/FAQs.htm

Several attempts have been made to get rid of the Electoral College, the last significant effort coming in 1969, when the House of Representatives passed 338-70 an amendment abolishing the Electoral College. The amendment died when it only received 54 votes in the Senate, 13 short of the required two-thirds. While this effort was ultimately unsuccessful, the overwhelming vote in the House shows that getting such an amendment passed is possible. Adding further proof that such an amendment is not only possible, but is favored by the great majority of Americans, a 1966 Gallup poll found that 63% of Americans favored a direct population of the president; a 2000 poll found that 61% did.

But even if it passed in the anti-democratic Senate, it probably would not get 3/4 of state legislatures. We need Obama to "win" this election in the EC and to lose the popular vote, hopefully by a large margin. Then he needs to bring in an extremely left-wing presidency AND manage to win re-election the same way. Since Democrats are generally slightly less hostile to democracy than Republicans (who are slightly more interested in winning) we could begin to move towards reform.

The problem with the Gore thing is that it had more to do with just the EC vs. popular vote. There were other shenanigans unique to the great state of Florida.

 

[Pookster]

That's nonsense. You won't be seeing any town hall meetings?? You're crazy. Of course you will because so-called town hall meetings are all theater anyway. What do you base your prognostications upon? Seriously, do you pay any attention to how other countries conduct their elections? These speculative concerns of yours are farcical, rooted in a particular history; you have your blinders on.

Do you realize that in 2000 Gore could've put together a majority national popular vote win using the Northeast, parts of the Midwest, and California? Do you think he would've paid the South any more attention than he had too, if at all? I strongly suggest you read Madison's views on republican form of government in Federalist No. 10. Also, don't forget how regional factionalism has effected other countries over time. They're hardly just farcical speculative concerns.

Admittedly, I have not paid much attention to European elections, and my lame excuse is that I'm an American. Europeans, however, are undoubtedly in a better position to make a more informed comparison and they always seem to conclude that our politics are whacky, and what I do know supports that contention.

Appeal to ignorance is a logical fallacy. I reject it out of hand.

America was not always so inward-looking. Remember that Thomas Jefferson was in France during our Constitutional Convention. It's crazy how so many Americans' first impulse is to look at what the freaking Founding Fathers wanted or intended. Geez. Some traditions ennoble us, but this ancestor-worship, this fetishization of the past shares more in common with the most backward forms of Islam than the Enlightenment.

Way too many logical fallacies here. Try a different tact. It won't work with me.

Yes, there is going to be a "bias" toward where people live because, again, people vote in elections. What makes this so impossible to understand? One person, one vote.

I understand it. I also understand this is a constitutional republic. The electoral college is part of our Federalist system. The Consitution was designed to avoid the excesses of majoritarianism. The Senate isn't selected on the basis of one person, one vote. Again, the Founders very clearly understood the inherent danger of a democracy. It's why they built so much structure around it. Madison makes it clear that the Founders sought a republic and not a pure democracy. Read Federalist No. 10 if you doubt me.

Well, this is surely one way to pussyfoot around the issue. Do you dispute my contention that conservatives are more in favor of the Electoral College? If so, say so. I do not need to appeal to any Internet poll, and this one is obviously not representative of the American public, which everyone on this board surely knows. I used it only as an immediate, concrete example because, in this respect, it reflects the reality.

Yes, appealing to numbers (such as you did) is surely one way to pussyfoot around the issue. It's a logical fallacy. It's irrelevant to the issue at hand as well.

and here is what you said:


Ridiculous. Do you not see how a "regional candidate" appealing to "their own specific area" of the country" has something to do with regional influence?

Sure, but they are still two different things. Conflating it to be the same thing just so you can have a point is silly.

It biases the selection procedure. The last three Democrats to win national election -- Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Al Gore -- all came from southern states. But here we're talking about a lot of overlap: it does not matter where the candidate comes from but the policies the candidate advocates; it just so happens the policies a candidate advocates tracks with where she comes from, especially since in modern elections the governorship is the usual route to the White House.

It didn't matter where the candidates came from because factionalism is greatly inhibited by the electoral college. Reduce it to a national popular vote and you'd have had a completely different situation to deal with.

Again with the Founders this and the Founders that. Spare me. If "regional candidates" are bad, provide free-standing arguments why regional candidates are bad. Tagging something with the endorsement or disapproval of the Founding Fathers is secondary at best, and must include the arguments behind the Holy Founders' belief.

Regional candidates lead to factionalism. Madison's words speak more eloquently than mine ever will in regard to that matter. The Founders understood the serious problem that comes with the one person, one vote principle. Besides the Executive, it's clearly seen in how they structured the Senate and the Supreme Court. Why aren't you arguing for a one person, one vote method for those two bodies? Again, you've nonchalantly put out an option without considering the system of checks and balances throughout the whole process to keep in check the inherent danger of a democracy to peoples rights. You want to pull a spark plug out of an engine and replace it with something entirely different just because the motor isn't purring as quietly as you'd like. Again, the Founders' wisdom, while very much dated and a compromise, is much more apparent than in the approach you take here in pushing for a national popular vote election. I'll spare you no quarter in that regard either.

What's just so unbelievably effed up about your argument is that the Electoral College AS IT STANDS favors regionalism? Have you looked at the blue-red maps? Kerry needed to pick Edwards because homeboy is "Southerner."

My State, South Carolina, has voted for Republicans and Democrats over the years. Your logic is pure silliness.

My previous argument does not help your case at all. A large part of the problem with the civil war was exactly a state identity rather than a national identity.

Factionalism was your argument, as was many of the Founders. Yes, it did support my case. Your words - factionalism used to be a whole lot worse.

The path to free, democratic elections involves more than any single reform. In addition to popular vote we should probably have something like weekend/holiday voting, instant run-off voting, campaign financing and some other things I cannot remember at the moment. Starting with the Founding Fathers we have a rich history of discrimination: property ownership, race, gender, age. Well, now it's time to ferret out another arbitrary distinction: the number of neighbors you have. One person, one vote.

Ignoring the ad hominems for now, the constitutional republic that we have clearly was designed to minimize the inherent danger of the democratic principle of one person, one vote. We're not a pure democracy for a very good reason.

To quote Madison:

"The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter."

Going back to the ad hominems, the Founders had many faults. We all do. Our Constitution isn't perfect, and it never will be. Your proposal runs contrary to our Federal form of Government. When it comes to doing maintenance on its engine, I'll depend more on the qualifications of the mechanics to work on it than their not being a model person.

 

[Pookster]

Yes, I do. In the last several weeks of an election, candidates will target large states that are running close in the polling.

Sure they will. Why not small States as well? Do you realize what a few small States swinging to Gore in 2000 could've meant?

States like Rhode Island already are insignificant. The only way you can label Rhode Island significant is to construct a far-fetched hypothetical (every state with more than 4 electoral votes is polling in such an overwhelmingly one-sided manner that candidates become interested in the 3-to-4-vote states) .

They're insignificant when they're too predictable. See above.

Furthermore, let's look at the claim that once California is in the bag, no politician spends much time there. If we abolished the E.C., then the 45% of the 12 million California voters that voted Republican in the last election would become significant. Isn't adding significance to all the states that are currently one-sided more important than adding significance to the 7 states with less than one million residents and only three E.C. votes?

So, California can proportionately allocate their electors. There's nothing stopping them. But California isn't always in the bag. When they're not, they become very significant ... as they should. But so is Rhode Island (to a lesser degree, of course) if they're not in the bag either. In a national popular vote, Rhode Island in this case would be ignored.

 

[Cain]

Do you realize that in 2000 Gore could've put together a majority national popular vote win using the Northeast, parts of the Midwest, and California? Do you think he would've paid the South any more attention than he had too, if at all?

This is a poorly written argument. Al Gore did manage to win the popular, largely appealing to those voters in those areas. Of course elections would look different if the rule was "the person with the most votes wins." Yes, I think he would have paid more attention to the South if the we eliminated the Electoral College. He would have a much stronger incentive to appeal to those voters, especially in urban areas: Atlanta, New Orleans, Charleston. Since the mid-60s the Democratic Party has known since the 60s it was giving up the South.

I strongly suggest you read Madison's views on republican form of government in Federalist No. 10. Also, don't forget how regional factionalism has effected other countries over time. They're hardly just farcical speculative concerns.

I'm afraid you're treading in comedy. I hear about the brilliance of the Founders in spite of that little spat called the Civil War with North and South factions, but now, a 150 years later, the popular vote is supposed to lead to unsustainable factionalism. Your concerns are farcical because they're so grossly misplaced. Speaking of misplaced...

Appeal to ignorance is a logical fallacy. I reject it out of hand.

Uh-huh. I love it when people who know next to nothing begin invoking logical fallacies. Double points for citing ignorance. Maybe this works as an appeal to informed opinion, but I am not arguing one ought to believe something simply because others who have investigated it do. I am saying these facts should motivate us to broaden our understanding. You are far too inward-looking, like a person who consults holy texts from the past rather than modern science.

Way too many logical fallacies here. Try a different tact. It won't work with me.

Identify them, if you can.

I understand it. I also understand this is a constitutional republic. The electoral college is part of our Federalist system. The Consitution was designed to avoid the excesses of majoritarianism. The Senate isn't selected on the basis of one person, one vote. Again, the Founders very clearly understood the inherent danger of a democracy. It's why they built so much structure around it. Madison makes it clear that the Founders sought a republic and not a pure democracy. Read Federalist No. 10 if you doubt me.

If you insist: This is the logical fallacy that appeal to authority. The Constitution is not some grand transhistorical, philosophical document sent down by demi-Gods. It is based on political compromise from the time; it also does not reflect some unified vision. Furthermore, where am I talking about "pure democracy"? Can you even define republic? You seem to be incapable of generating independent arguments.

Also, I have a question: Do you think we should repeal the 17th Amendment? It does directly go against the what the great Founders "very clearly understood" about the inherent dangers of democracy.

Yes, appealing to numbers (such as you did) is surely one way to pussyfoot around the issue. It's a logical fallacy. It's irrelevant to the issue at hand as well.

This is not an uncommon fabrication. You're taking my arguments out of context in a clumsy attempt to say that I'm using them to prove something I am not. It's also noteworthy for still more pussyfooting -- directly avoiding a question I asked, so I will try again: Do you dispute my contention that conservatives are more likely to favor the Electoral College? Where's the logical fallacy?

It didn't matter where the candidates came from because factionalism is greatly inhibited by the electoral college. Reduce it to a national popular vote and you'd have had a completely different situation to deal with.

*sigh* Yes, the Electoral College is especially brilliant for the way it prevented our country from going to war with itself.

Regional candidates lead to factionalism. Madison's words speak more eloquently than mine ever will in regard to that matter. The Founders understood the serious problem that comes with the one person, one vote principle.

They did? They had all sorts of empirical evidence to support that belief, right? Did you know there have been a lot of developments in social science over the last two-hundred years?

Besides the Executive, it's clearly seen in how they structured the Senate and the Supreme Court. Why aren't you arguing for a one person, one vote method for those two bodies? Again, you've nonchalantly put out an option without considering the system of checks and balances throughout the whole process to keep in check the inherent danger of a democracy to peoples rights. You want to pull a spark plug out of an engine and replace it with something entirely different just because the motor isn't purring as quietly as you'd like. Again, the Founders' wisdom, while very much dated and a compromise, is much more apparent than in the approach you take here in pushing for a national popular vote election. I'll spare you no quarter in that regard either.

I think I have said it before in this thread: The Senate needs to be abolished, or democratically reformed. The Supreme Court is the ugly love-child of the Senate and EC-appointed President. All of your doomsaying is instructive. Do you really think that the country will be thrown into chaos if the President is elected by popular vote, especially when the "tyranny of the many" has been enshrined in the EC in the vast majority of our presidential elections? Have you no faith in the Founders' glorious self-correcting mechanisms? Is the machinery of the republic so fragile that it cannot handle a president elected by popular vote?

My State, South Carolina, has voted for Republicans and Democrats over the years. Your logic is pure silliness.

How is this a response to what I said? Seeing as how you do not indicate a time-frame ("over the years"), I think it's worth pointing out that "Republican and Democrat" does not mean a whole helluva lot. Democrats from the South used to be rabidly racist social conservatives. This is the type of empty, dishonest observation used by talk radio hosts when they talk about "Democratic" governors raising Stars and Bars.

Going back to the ad hominems, the Founders had many faults. We all do. Our Constitution isn't perfect, and it never will be. Your proposal runs contrary to our Federal form of Government. When it comes to doing maintenance on its engine, I'll depend more on the qualifications of the mechanics to work on it than their not being a model person.

I'm sure you would like to reduce it to mere ad hominem. I need not point to the personal faults of the Founders because the engine itself had faults. Framing it as being "not quite perfect" is a pathetic anchoring device. The Constitution says blacks count as 3/5 of a person. Things change, evolve: countries, people, beliefs. You are stuck in the past.

 

[Pookster]

This is a poorly written argument. Al Gore did manage to win the popular, largely appealing to those voters in those areas.

But he didn't just campaign in those areas. That's an example how the electoral college keeps all States in the process.

... He would have a much stronger incentive to appeal to those voters, especially in urban areas: Atlanta, New Orleans, Charleston. ...

Good point. The focus in a national popular election clearly becomes the major population centers.

I'm afraid you're treading in comedy. I hear about the brilliance of the Founders in spite of that little spat called the Civil War with North and South factions, but now, a 150 years later, the popular vote is supposed to lead to unsustainable factionalism. Your concerns are farcical because they're so grossly misplaced. Speaking of misplaced...

Your lack of anything substantive to support your proposal and address it's inherent issues long ago became comical. I see plenty of logical fallacies and hand waving, but little else.

Uh-huh. I love it when people who know next to nothing begin invoking logical fallacies. Double points for citing ignorance. Maybe this works as an appeal to informed opinion, but I am not arguing one ought to believe something simply because others who have investigated it do. I am saying these facts should motivate us to broaden our understanding. You are far too inward-looking, like a person who consults holy texts from the past rather than modern science.

It's still just as irrelevant to the issue at hand. But go with what you seem to do best.

Identify them, if you can.

No thanks. I'd rather stick to the issue. Again, that tactic doesn't work with me.

If you insist: This is the logical fallacy that appeal to authority. The Constitution is not some grand transhistorical, philosophical document sent down by demi-Gods. It is based on political compromise from the time; it also does not reflect some unified vision. Furthermore, where am I talking about "pure democracy"? Can you even define republic? You seem to be incapable of generating independent arguments.

I believe I stated that the Constitution isn't perfect. Maybe you should look up what an appeal to authority is. And yes, I can define republic. Also, you seem incapable of even presenting a case other than this type of BS.

Also, I have a question: Do you think we should repeal the 17th Amendment? It does directly go against the what the great Founders "very clearly understood" about the inherent dangers of democracy.

Given that I've stated that the Constitution is not perfect, nor the Founders, I can only assume you really don't have anything to support your position. I figured you had nothing, but it was worth a try.

This is not an uncommon fabrication. You're taking my arguments out of context in a clumsy attempt to say that I'm using them to prove something I am not. It's also noteworthy for still more pussyfooting -- directly avoiding a question I asked, so I will try again: Do you dispute my contention that conservatives are more likely to favor the Electoral College? Where's the logical fallacy?

Sir, you appealed to your poll. It's in your post. Get over it. Your question continues to be irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

*sigh* Yes, the Electoral College is especially brilliant for the way it prevented our country from going to war with itself.

This is a nonsensical response to what I stated. Is this the best you can do?

They did? They had all sorts of empirical evidence to support that belief, right? Did you know there have been a lot of developments in social science over the last two-hundred years?

Yes, they did understand it. If you can refute their understanding, go for it. You have the Federalist papers as a start.

I think I have said it before in this thread: The Senate needs to be abolished, or democratically reformed. The Supreme Court is the ugly love-child of the Senate and EC-appointed President. All of your doomsaying is instructive. Do you really think that the country will be thrown into chaos if the President is elected by popular vote, especially when the "tyranny of the many" has been enshrined in the EC in the vast majority of our presidential elections? Have you no faith in the Founders' glorious self-correcting mechanisms? Is the machinery of the republic so fragile that it cannot handle a president elected by popular vote?

Ah, the above speaks volumes. I'll leave you to your one person, one vote utopia, because it has way too many problems than I ever care to be a part of. I value my rights much better than that than to trust them to a system you would seem to want.

I'm sure you would like to reduce it to mere ad hominem. I need not point to the personal faults of the Founders because the engine itself had faults. Framing it as being "not quite perfect" is a pathetic anchoring device. The Constitution says blacks count as 3/5 of a person. Things change, evolve: countries, people, beliefs. You are stuck in the past.

No, I'd prefer to leave the ad hominems out of it. They're not relevant in any meaningful way to the issue at hand. But they, along with other logical fallacies and insults, seem to be the extent of your support for your position. Good luck with that too. You're gonna need it.

 

[Cain]

But he didn't just campaign in those areas. That's an example how the electoral college keeps all States in the process.

Put the crack pipe down, please. How does the Electoral College keep all states in the process? That's just false.

Good point. The focus in a national popular election clearly becomes the major population centers.

And even when candidates visit small states, they go to the cities in small states. I'm sorry reality-based bias against your world-view.

Your lack of anything substantive to support your proposal and address it's inherent issues long ago became comical. I see plenty of logical fallacies and hand waving, but little else.

[snip the stuff where you refuse to back up your accusations]

I believe I stated that the Constitution isn't perfect. Maybe you should look up what an appeal to authority is. And yes, I can define republic. Also, you seem incapable of even presenting a case other than this type of BS.

Given that I've stated that the Constitution is not perfect, nor the Founders, I can only assume you really don't have anything to support your position. I figured you had nothing, but it was worth a try.

These evasions are almost becoming interesting. As noted saying the "Constitution isn't perfect" is not saying anything at all. You must have underlying, independent, free-standing moral principles. Simply appealing to the will of the Founding Fathers IS a feeble, and increasingly tedious, appeal to authority. So, I presented a simple question: What do you make of the 17th Amendment? How can you determine if it's good or bad?

Sir, you appealed to your poll. It's in your post. Get over it. Your question continues to be irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

It's only irrelevant inasmuch as you want to make an issue out of it. I can go over the threading of the exchange once again if you're too dim to follow. Or, instead of, you know, citing text, you can just imbue your assertions with more certainty.

Ah, the above speaks volumes. I'll leave you to your one person, one vote utopia, because it has way too many problems than I ever care to be a part of. I value my rights much better than that than to trust them to a system you would seem to want.

Where do I say or imply one person, one vote is utopian? How is political equality a threat to your "rights"?

No, I'd prefer to leave the ad hominems out of it. They're not relevant in any meaningful way to the issue at hand. But they, along with other logical fallacies and insults, seem to be the extent of your support for your position. Good luck with that too. You're gonna need it.

You're embarrassingly lacking in substance.

 

[Damien Evans]

So? ... how each state changes depends on the population of that state at the time, how they vote and wish to govern themselves. I believe you would still find strong opposition to some sort of election smearing that would place way too much emphasis in narrow regions.



Well on that we'll strongly disagree. (Go and try to ratify the electoral college to last names and see just how many will laugh you out of congress --- from both sides.)



And on the flip side of that coin is the fact that it's only 1 state. Sorry, but what may be good for California may not be very good for, say Mississippi, or Maine, or .... take your pick. The electoral college is a balancing act in an attempt to proportionate (according to both populations and region) the represented will of the people.



You cannot isolate one section of our governing process and attack it as if it's the sole determining factor at work. There's the House, Senate and President that all work together in processing the will of the people. The Senate cannot pass laws on its own merit. Each branch has its own powers and limitations. Each is empowered on a different level of representation.



... letting California determine the laws that other states with far different environments (of all kinds) must follow. What works in California may not work elsewhere --- or even be a disaster.



Evidence?

Australian Referendum, 1999.

We were given a choice of a US style system or the current system.

Wisely, we did not change.

 

[Pookster]

These evasions are almost becoming interesting. As noted saying the "Constitution isn't perfect" is not saying anything at all. You must have underlying, independent, free-standing moral principles. Simply appealing to the will of the Founding Fathers IS a feeble, and increasingly tedious, appeal to authority. So, I presented a simple question: What do you make of the 17th Amendment? How can you determine if it's good or bad?

No evasions on my part. I just refuse to indulge your non sequitors and misdirections. Those, along with the insults, hand waving and ad hominems is about all you presented to support your proposal and the issues that come with it. It's quite obvious from your posts that you're out of your depth on this whole issue. This latest post of yours is just a continuation of the same nonsense. As your back is pushed to the wall to put up a reasonable rationale for your position for changing the system, the more you resort to insults. When you have something of substance to offer, I'll address it. Otherwise, I'll leave you to your whining about the electoral college.

 

[Cain]

Cool. I can keep in mind the strategy of vaguely alleging "logical fallacies," then when asked to identify them, say "oh no, I'm not gonna fall for THAT tactic." What you posted is common fare for this topic -- brainless appeals to the Founding Fathers, which, unfortunately, resonates with people indoctrinated in the state religion.

Questions relating to the 17th Amendment are not misdirection. It's a way of teasing out fundamentals, testing heuristics. If you're lost in the wilderness and say, "you see that mountain way over there? According to this map, we're standing on top of it," then you are probably approaching the problem wrong from some angle. It's just funny you would say MY back is up against the wall. I believe Freudians call this "projection."

 

[Pookster]

Cool. I can keep in mind the strategy of vaguely alleging "logical fallacies," then when asked to identify them, say "oh no, I'm not gonna fall for THAT tactic." What you posted is common fare for this topic -- brainless appeals to the Founding Fathers, which, unfortunately, resonates with people indoctrinated in the state religion.

I wasn't the one not supporting my position. What you posted is common fare for someone who has no real understanding of the issue. Your continuous hand waving, logical fallacies, and insults are a natural result of that. Otherwise, you'd actually defend you position with something of substance. You'd substantively address the inherent issues that have been raised concerning your proposal. So far, you've utterly failed to do so. Maybe that will change, but I doubt it.

Questions relating to the 17th Amendment are not misdirection. It's a way of teasing out fundamentals, testing heuristics. If you're lost in the wilderness and say, "you see that mountain way over there? According to this map, we're standing on top of it," then you are probably approaching the problem wrong from some angle. It's just funny you would say MY back is up against the wall. I believe Freudians call this "projection."

Sir, given your displayed lack of knowledge of the various parts of the map, why would I ever be concerned about your belief that I'm somehow lost. I seriously doubt Freudians would take directions from you either.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I don't even need to ask if it's "good for American democracy" because it's anathema to democracy

I see. It's been good enough since 1789, but now it's "anathema to democracy."

Which quote about democracy leading eventually to tyranny would you like to spice up this response?

Here's one such snippet

The word "democracy", on the other hand, suggests that the ruler is governing his area of governance not in accordance with his personal wishes, but by following "the Will of the People", for whom he is acting as a representative. But "the Will of the People" is, at most, a statistical concept, meaning that the majority of the people, who took part in an elections voted for a candidate from a small group of candidates presented to them. But, once elected, the ruler is faced with the same choices as any other ruler - he can either follow the principles of honest government and act as an impartial and competent administrator, or follow his own personal wishes and instincts and become an "oppressive tyrant" or a "benevolent despot". Once such democratic ruler is elected, "the Will of the People" comes into play only at the time of the elections, when the ruler will be either re-elected or replaced with another one.

That meets the Good Enough Standard.

For a fun rant on the topic, go here.
DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Double post, my browser hates me.

DR

 

[Cain]

Pookster: You're a lightweight reduced to writing the same post over and over again. You can go away now; I'm done with you.

Darthrotor:

I see. It's been good enough since 1789, but now it's "anathema to democracy.

What else has been "good enough?" Presidents seeking as many terms as they can win? Senators not elected by popular vote? I'm sure a lot of people argued that the country had got along fine for over 100 years without women voting. Finally, the Electoral College is not now undemocratic; it has always been undemocratic. Closely divided elections just make it a more relevant concern.

Which quote about democracy leading eventually to tyranny would you like to spice up this response?

This is still a bad argument. How will changing presidential elections to a popular vote more likely lead to tyranny? Tyranny is a word that people seem to use with such ease because it's part of their slogans and not given any thought. You're making a serious though not uncommon claim, and, as you can see from the above posts, one (so far) totally lacking in support. What a popular vote does is bring about political equality -- leveling votes; each person counts as one and no more than one. The system we have today that privileges certain voters.

 

[Pookster]

Pookster: You're a lightweight reduced to writing the same post over and over again. You can go away now; I'm done with you.

Well, the repetition was in hopes of getting something of substance from you for a change. I don't blame you for throwing in the towel though. You were looking rather pathetic with your "I'm right cause I said so, you're indoctrinated in the state religion" types of posts.

 

[dudalb]

I think the electorial college should be abolished, but I wish to dissociate myself from the smartbutt tactics of Cain in advocating it.
Cain seems to be a text book example of the 18 to 23 year Know It All syndrome.
And his remarks about California seceding from the Union sort of wreck his plausibility .
Let's see: Secession from the Union. Been Tried, Did Not Work, Won't Work Any Better Now.
And his remarks about how everybody in a "red" state is a stupid hillbilly is beneath contempt.
Hint guy: Most people are not Wannabe Hipsters with "Cool" atittudes and political opinions based on whatever is considered "hip" politically at the moment.

 

[Cain]

Well, the repetition was in hopes of getting something of substance from you for a change.

I appreciate the straightforward dishonesty.

I don't blame you for throwing in the towel though. You were looking rather pathetic with your "I'm right cause I said so, you're indoctrinated in the state religion" types of posts.

Hmmm.. I thought you made a big show of "throwing in the towel" in post #52, not that I would brag about besting you in an exchange, which would only cause embarrassment -- like announcing a victory over third-graders in game of TWO on one. I more or less adopt the "show-don't-tell" approach. "I'm right because I said so" is yet another blunt mischaracterization, of course. I know, I know, a much stronger argument is "I'm right because the Founding Fathers said so."

-------------------
Doodlebee:

And his remarks about California seceding from the Union sort of wreck his plausibility.
Let's see: Secession from the Union. Been Tried, Did Not Work, Won't Work Any Better Now.

I said secession would be "ideal." Oh noes, all this sudden talk about "plausibility" has gravely threatened my world-view.

And his remarks about how everybody in a "red" state is a stupid hillbilly is beneath contempt.

Where did I say that? Are you sure I wasn't being sarcastic? Thankfully, I still have my "hip" politics, which is based on what's cool at the moment.Not popular, but cool. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go burn an American flag with "Abolish the EC" spray painted across it (yes, the 'A' in abolish is written as the anarchy symbol). Man, wanting to abolish the EC feels so cool, man. You see right through me. Maybe you can bring this up, like, five more times.