This week, the coin-flip says I argue for maintaining the Electoral College system for presidential and vice-presidenti
The "Problem" with the Electoral College
So, what is the big stink? Why are we asking this week's question?
While Reed will likely bring up other issues, the most prevalent complaint is simple. Under the Electoral College system, it is entirely possible for the majority of voters to vote for one party's candidates, and the other party's candidates to win the election. How? Easy.
Many will recall the 2000 election, wherein George W. Bush won 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266, but Al Gore won the popular vote by more than 543,000 votes nationwide. Bush did not win via an electoral majority based upon the aforementioned largest eleven states, but won via a simple majority of the electoral vote from all states. The noted official count of the popular votes is independent of the Florida recount question (where many believe that Gore won more of the Florida vote than was actually counted). In other words, even after the official recounts were completed, Gore still had the advantage in popular votes. Many Americans who believe that the popular vote should have mattered in the election outcome have since been vocal opponents of the Electoral College system, whether they opposed it before the election or not. The crux of the issue for these folks, I believe, is the relative importance of the will of the people in choosing our highest elected officials. To be fair, neither candidate in 2000 won a majority of the popular vote (Gore, 48.38%, Bush, 47.87%), but Gore did have more of the popular vote. How could it be okay for more voters to select one party's ticket, and the electoral system to select the other? While I appreciate fairness as much as the next voter, my answer may anger some readers.
The Electoral College is The Best Solution
My primary argument in favor of the Electoral College centers around two things: 1) my own belief that average people don't necessarily make good voters, and 2) the Founding Fathers set up the Electoral College, and they were really, really smart people.
My own beliefs, first. I don't know exactly how or when I developed my views on this issue, but I feel them pretty strongly. I have long been annoyed by campaigns to "get out the vote" because my sense is that people who are politically engaged - those who care about things political - are already registered voters. For instance, if you care enough about what happens in the halls of Congress to exercise your singular voting power to affect legislation, would you not already be an active voter? To be sure, everyone's concerns about political things are proportionate to the amount of political activity that affects their interests. If you are an investor in the stock market, you are more likely to be concerned about legislative actions that affect the value of your investments on Wall Street than would be a non-investor. If you are a property owner, you are more likely to vote on a local referendum on property taxes than would be a renter. From this standpoint, many non-registered citizens are either not aware of the impacts of lawmakers or leaders on their lives, or there are insufficient concerns for them to get involved and to actually vote.
In all candor, I don't care nearly as much about local elections as I do national ones. But I did when I owned a business, here. At that point, I had concerns relative to the health and welfare of my retail store, my employees' job stability, my own administrative load, and my financial exposure due to business costs, taxes, and other such things. When there would arise a local concern about sales tax increases, it mattered to me. When the local city and county governments talked about consolidation that would affect police services, fire services, EMT services, costs of licensure, tax rates, and other issues, it mattered to me. But I no longer own a business, and I don't currently pay property taxes. In short, there are not a lot of local issues that directly affect me greatly, though I try to stay apprised of those issues that might. Nonetheless, because of my lack of vested interests in local issues, I tend not to vote in local elections as consistently as I do national ones.
The same things can be said about some citizens who do not register to vote, and/or don't ever participate in national elections. Perhaps they are unconcerned about whether there is welfare reform, or whether we allow illegal migrant workers to become citizens in some way, or whether taxes for people above the poverty line go up or down. Maybe some of them get lots of help from the government, with community health clinics and with unemployment benefits for six months whenever they might need them. Maybe they even rationalize that, regardless of their concerns, their one little solitary vote won't count in the scheme of things. In each of these cases, there is a lack of sufficient concern about their ability to have an important impact on political happenings to make them educate themselves about candidates or issues. This lack of education, and the associated lack of concern, is (I believe) at the root of voter apathy in this country. But is it really smart, or even okay, for such uninvolved and uneducated people to register and subsequently vote for a candidate based solely upon some unimportant characteristics
Why be concerned about how many people vote? Primarily, candidates feel that the more people of their party they register to vote, the greater their total number of collective votes will be. Assuming there is no "close call" in a given state, having the majority of votes will gain you the electoral votes you want. Moreover, regardless of winning via electoral majority, if candidates get more than 50% of the popular vote, they feel they have a public "mandate" to push forward their platform promises. So, the way things are, popular vote numbers still matter under the Electoral College system. For pragmatic reasons if not others, politicians don't seem to care about whether their voters are well-involved political students. Nonetheless, this concern about voters being thoughtful and well-informed, if not having a vested interest in political outcomes, is not just unique to me. In fact, it was at the very heart of the development of the Electoral College system. Read on.
The Founding Fathers' Intentions
Whenever a question comes up about the meaning of a loosely constructed or vague Constitutional provision, legal and political scholars often seek the guidance of other historical documents to decipher the intent of our Founding Fathers. What were they thinking? Why did they write it this particular way? One of the most instructive sources of their intent is the body of essays known as the Federalist Papers, written by many of the most preeminent statesmen of the day prior to our Independence. Many would suggest that the Federalist Papers were, in fact, sort of a first draft of the U.S. Constitution. The unique characteristic of these essays is that they are more like a thought diary, or the closest thing we have to a transcript of their debates on important issues that would later become Constitutional provisions.
The genesis of the Electoral College system, and, more specifically, the Founders' intentions with regard to the system of voting for our highest Federal leaders, is clearly illustrated in the Federalist Papers. Specifically, Federalist No. 68, authored largely by Alexander Hamilton, explains why the Founders wanted a group of electors to vote on behalf of the population, rather than counting on the citizens through a tally of their personal votes. Within their language, I find an uncanny similarity to my own personal belief about voters needing to be educated and involved before voting. The following language is from Federalist No. 68, although I have added the italics to sections that are particularly salient:
It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so an important trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.See http://federali
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
Clearly, the Founders were concerned that only qualified people actually vote for our highest leaders. Suggesting that a "small number" of people, "most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations,
The Founders reckoned that the best way to insure that the actual votes being cast were done by thoughtful and qualified persons was to form what would later be known as the Electoral College, the body of proxies that would vote on behalf of the less-than-quali
Other Benefits of the Electoral College
Philosophical considerations aside, there are other important advantages inherent in the Electoral College system. I'll list a couple below, but there are many more. See http://www.usel
One additional and important benefit is that the Electoral College eliminates the detrimental effects of disparities between voter turnout in various states. For instance, if November 4th finds the bulk of the country enjoying fair weather, but the New England states buried in eight feet of snow (which therefore prevents large numbers of Northern voters from getting to the polls), the states adversely affected still have their appointed numbers of electoral votes. In other words, even in a case where only 15% of voters can vote, so long as the proportional differences between the numbers of Democratic votes and Republican votes remains relatively constant within, say, Connecticut, that state will still have it's full number of allotted electoral votes. Imagine the detrimental affect, however, if we used a popular vote total, instead. Suddenly, the bad weather in traditionally Democratic Connecticut might unfairly compromise the Democrats nationally, because the solidly Republican central plains states see high voter turnout because their weather is pleasant. Under the Electoral College system, Connecticut still gets their seven electoral votes - even with only 15% voter turnout. Iowa, which may have had 60% voter turnout under good weather conditions, also only gets its seven allotted electoral votes. So the Electoral College manages to even out voter turnout differences while maintaining dependence on the popular vote within each state.
Another benefit of the Electoral College is that it isolates each state from all the others, and, therefore, isolates election problems as well. In other words, because the current system means that every state chooses its own rules and methods for generating the final state electoral tally, it is far easier to identify irregularities in voting infrastructure (think "hanging chad" from election 2000). Recounts necessitated by voting anomalies within a single state are more efficient than a nationwide recount in such a circumstance.
So, in the final analysis, there is nothing inherently wrong with the Electoral College system. Except in the rarest of cases, the power of individual votes still determines how the citizens of each state collectively vote for president and vice president. The advantages of the system are several-fold, but the fact that the College satisfies the Founding Fathers' desire that voters be educated, discerning, and interested persons is of the highest importance.
Posts
23 comments:
Nice job, partner, and your message comes through loud and clear - most Americans are just too stupid to deserve an opinion or a voice in the election of a President.
God, there have been times when circumstances, and particular situations, would have led me to wholeheartedly agree. But, alas, times have changed, thankfully, since Hamilton penned this most elitist of documents. "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, would be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."
True enough, in a nation of 4 million immigrants, some of which had not yet even adopted English as their language, and who wouldn't know for days or weeks what elected representatives a hundred miles away had decided.
Could Hamilton have foreseen the internet, CNN, even nationwide distribution of a daily newspaper?
With all the apparent ignorance displayed in blogs, at political rallies and on radio talk shows, America now has the most informed electorate of any nation in the world, as pertains to issues. What is sorely lacking in our ability to make informed decisions is appreciation of how history led us to where we are.
Bob Graham solves the problem of an informed electorate in his proposals to offer civics, American History and social studies as required curriculum in the public schools. While adopting such standards will not help in the current environment, it will assure that America's future is in the hands of an educated electorate with the proper perspective.
In the meantime, and despite my disgust with some decisions made by the electorate, I would submit that we currently have a system where the peoples' voices are heard in representative fashion as opposed to personal vote - that body is called Congress. While elected democratically, no member is required to cast a vote based on poll numbers or the stated will of the people by whom he or she was elected. And if that member can return home and convince the voters that the vote was cast in good faith and was the right thing to do, he or she will retain the seat.
In honor of a strong system of checks and balances, the same mindset that rules Congress should not rule the Executive branch. Thus, democracy should be the rule of thumb when electing a President, and not state's rights.
Oh, common, now, Reed. I never said "most Americans are just too stupid to deserve an opinion or a voice in the election of a President."
Your argument that the country was comparatively too new or too small, or that the population was 4 million immigrants then who didn't speak English is simply not correct. While the U.S. (Colonies, more accurately) were founded by immigrants, that happened a century-and-a-half prior to the writing of the Constitution. In fact, while immigration has always added to our population, bu the 1770s immigration was at a historical low point, here. The fact is, most Americans did speak a common language by then.
More importantly, your argument that we are much better educated today, and more capable of being thoughtful voters is very idealistic. In fact, I submit, the circumstances in which we live actually decrease many people's involvement in political matters. Even in just the last generation, which has seen the largest improvement in information technologies, there has been rising apathy among the population. Maybe it's just too much of a hassle to leave MySpace or FaceBook, or iTunes, or whatever, to research political matters...I don't know. But the other thing I do know is that the education system in the last generation has degraded to the point that even my own daughters didn't learn a darned thing about politics (neither one - both older students, now - could describe the Electoral College, or even do more than barely recognize the term when I brought it up). Both my girls are honor students, as you know. No Child Left Behind has caused us to teach to tests, and those tests don't cover civics, politics, or anything else that would help children be more informed voters. So, in a perfect world, yes, the information available would make the average citizen much more capable of voting responsibly than the general masses could in the late 18th century. This ain't a perfect world. Even you said in your comment, "With all the apparent ignorance displayed in blogs, at political rallies and on radio talk shows, America now has the most informed electorate of any nation in the world, as pertains to issues." With all the apparent ignorance, we are the most informed electorate? Two things: 1)a tiny percentage of the public does blogging and talk-show calling, and 2)with all that apparent ignorance, how well-informed are we?
Lastly, in what way could a country of 300 million plus actually institute the one-vote ideal democracy you would advocate? The Founders may or may not have foreseen this kind of population growth, but I think they did consider how difficult a purer democracy would be in such a case (obviously, they could not know about the techno-revolution).
In practice, up until 1830, the way the electors were chosen was the same way senators and representatives were chosen. People voted for two state wide electors and one in their congressional district. Then almost all states went to a general ticket.
I'd say the intent that even the people VOTE for electors in each state, however, is not evident by the language in the Constitution. In fact, a state legislature could elect electors, or a state legislature could allow its governor to elect its electors. The concept that WE THE PEOPLE vote for the president is a relatively recent.
So, the Electoral College System is very open. If you want the popular vote to be equal to the elecotral vote then its the STATES that must be convinced to change how they select electors. In the constitution, it is the STATES that are given the power to decide how to "appoint" elecotrs. Go read, it doesn't say states "elect" it says "appoint."
One thing is certain, however, the power of the executive branch was never meant to have the power it has, not even close.
The choice of a president was laid out in a rather elitist way. In fact, the Senate was originally laid out that way too (We didn't vote for Senators either by popular vote). The HOUSE was the house of the people.
We've come so far from what the founders decided about electing our leaders, an aguement to keep the Electoral College like it is now because its what our founders wanted is a bit of a stretch without also advocating undoing all that has been done to our system since the founding.
The HOUSE was given the power to spend the people's money. As we saw with the recent bailout (which was unconstitutional) because it started in the Senate, the House lost its power. The House can impeach a president. While the President nominates a Supreme Court justice and the Senate approves it, the HOUSE can impeach.
The people have their say (as originally intended) in our government and, in theory, its with representatives they should have a good amount of access to -- their representative. The House has lost its power. The Senate and especially the President have gained power. And that has thrown the whole checks and balances out of whack. Add to the increased power with the founders' intended selection of the President not by populuar vote and it could well be argued the Electoral College is obsolete.
I for one, being a Constitutionist, would favor going back to the way it was originally intended. With little executive power and the selection of electors who could actually vote as they felt they should. Electors beholden to no public office, no re-election, no state mandate to all vote the same, etc., etc.
Todd, thanks again for the interesting comments.
First, you'll note that I posted a primer to give those who needed it a refresher, but I also asked the "scholars" not make unnecessary corrections to it. It is not that I am unaware of how the electors are chosen (e.g., in some states, they are appointed by the legislature, in others, the people are invited to vote for them). In both of these cases, however, in a representational republic, it can be argued that those persons chosen as electors ARE the choices of the people (it's a representative system). And though it wasn't discussed for simplicity concerns, virtually all electors nationwide are party faithful persons who are involved in the political process, usually as well respected community leaders and/or other government types (though they cannot, by law, be legislators). If you'll notice, the primer was said to be incomplete and not necessarily accurate, and the posts indicate that we are already aware of how the Electoral College (and other voting issues) have changed over time. Fianlly, on this topic, please don't tell me to go back and read the Constitution to see that it doesn't say such and such...I made it very clear that we go back to documents like the Federalist Papers to find true Constitutional intent (and to clarify language that isn't explicit or clear). Moreover, I also pointed out that the system has evolved over time to be better than it originally was, and have even indicated that the term, "Electoral College," isn't found in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers (these should make it obvious that I know the Constitution did not set it up the current way).
In terms of the House and Senate power argument, first, if you read my post, I've clearly said exactly what you pointed out regarding the House being the people's representatives, and the Senate being the state's representatives. Regardless of your personal preferences, the Founders absolutely wanted to consider the wishes of both the people AND the states for presidential elections, which is why they set up Constitutional provisions that involve both the House AND the Senate in resolving such issues as electoral ties. I happen to disagree with you that the House has lost its power. You cite the bailout as an example. The Senate having "initiated" the second of the bailout bills is only contrary to expectations because the House is supposed to initiate spending bills. The Senate can initiate any other kind of bill they want, and, in fact, can initiate spending bills as well. The fact remains that the House has the exact same power (to consider or not consider, or to pass or not pass any bill) they've always had. How is their power reduced with regard to, say, the bailout, because the Senate originated the final passed legislation? (And, yes, the pressure on the members of the House was great because of time constraints, but that was not a structural issue). Moreover, the Speaker of the House remains third in line in presidential succession, specifically because she represents the people and not the states.
I know you very well, and could have guessed in advance what your arguments would be. Much like I have personally argued with you about the "changeable" nature of the Constitution, I would argue again in that regard. To suggest that the Electoral College system should be changed back to its original format, in order to be in concordance with the Founders' intentions, is equivalent to saying the Constitution should revert to its 1787 status. So women and black people shouldn't be allowed to vote, I guess. Clearly, the Founders knew that times (and thus populations and their needs) would change, and allowed for the rules to be modified over time to accommodate such changes. If you read my and Reed's comments in addition to our posts, then you know that the "elitist" argument has been made and responded to already. Personally, I want my leaders to be elitists (no Joe Sixpacks in the White House, for instance), and I have no problem with having my president and vice president votes count only in the state collective. As I pointed out previously, there are some differences between the Electoral College and strict popular vote systems, but I don't think the differences are significant enough to change the system as it now is. To everyone who wants our system to act purely democratically with regard to voting, I suggest the find and move to a democratic country.
If your argument is centered on your own Constitutionalism, then we probably have nothing more to discuss with regard to the Electoral College arguments presented. However, to whatever degree you'd care to discuss the LOGIC of the arguments proffered by Reed and me, we certainly welcome it. To whatever extent you feel that my brain isn't working properly, that's an argument best made directly, and with attacks on my "faulty" logic.
I'm sincerely sorry Dano if you thought I was trying to correct you on anything. I was simply providing some information not included in your primer so as to allow the neccessary information to explain what was an essentially a very short response to the actual issue -- that I would favor reverting back to the way it used to be. I felt like I needed to provide a little more detail of how it used to be so I could make clear what my preference would be.
You and Reed both made very good arguements for your points of view on this. And I'm not exceptionally passionate about the issue either way. In the grand scheme of things, this would be considered a very minor issue facing the nation to me. So I couldn't really "debate" very much what either one of you had to say or how you said it.
Sorry if my "go read" came off a little strange or offensive. I was writing the response in the midst of doing other things. My appologies. It did seem rather abrasive when I just went back and read it. A better choice of words would have been, "Note that it says..." Just my way of emphasizing that came off wrong.
Again I find nothing wrong with the logic in the arguements. I use the "what the founders wanted" arguement all the time. I'm glad you championed it.
The dismissal of any arguement by a Constitutionalist on the basis that slavery and a lack of voting rights for women and black people were in the original constitution is a bit weak. This country will always live with its original sin of slavery. Those issues were corrected in the proper way, with amendments to the constituion. An Amendment to the constituion also changed how we elected senators. It would require a constitutional amendment (I would hope) to do away with the Electoral College.
So to the question should we amend the Constitution to do so? No, and Dano, you've provided enough reason for me. :)
Bravo, Todd! I was going to mention the logical disconnect between your Contitutionalist mindset and the apparent idea you were expressing that we should have a popular vote system, but it looks now like you DON'T want to change the system (or not do away with the Founders' structure, anyway). And I'm also sorry if I hit back a little hard on your first comments, but you did tell me not to pull punches with you.
For other commenters, as well as you, I would like to remind folks that it is imperative that the posts be read very carefully before you respond. There seems to be a pattern of responses that indicate the commenter MISSED something, or misunderstood something in a post that then leads to a diatribe that is baseless, or off the mark in some way. Anonymous was the biggest offender in this regard, and this is no longer an issue. Just a heads up...let's try to be more astute, all of us, in synthesizing the information we read.
From the Federalist Papers "It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious
combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to
govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess...."
Florida citizens from the general mass? I could be wrong, but there isn't a Florida ballot where we choose our electorates.
Unfortunately, I didn't take down the website where I read that each state has their own method of choosing electorates, but that Florida's electorates are elected by committees, which isn't the general mass.
I agree that many voters don't possess enough knowledge about the issues they are voting on and it is scary to be sure that important decisions that affect us all are in part decided upon by ignorant people. But that doesn't justify the fact that our country is supposed to be a democracy and every person's single vote doesn't count.
Personally, it galls me to think that an elitist would be "analyzing" my vote, and that my vote may not truly count at all in the whole scheme of the elections, even if it falls within with the popular vote. But of course! this is justification for the voter apathy! If I vote for a particular candidate, I want that vote to count. Period. Same for everyone else's.
I could also argue that many of our registered voters are too young (even if intelligent)to have had enough life experience to make an intelligent vote. They have a limited amount of knowledge about what makes the world go around. I say this even though I have adult children who are reasonable and intelligent.
Let's use our technology assist in the presidential election and do the tallying: Individual votes are entered on the computer which then transmits the data to a supercomputer in Washington. The candidate with the most votes wins. End of story. This takes the humanness away. No margin of error, since we all know computers don't lie. This would do away with the need for an Electoral College, and having the need for each state to have a proportionate number of electors.
Ok, don't laugh. I just this minute left my post and it came up under the name "Anonymous". Just because I don't know how to use the computer doesn't mean a thing.....
Hey Anonymous (Deb)...
As I've said elsewhere (in comments, I think), the method of choosing electors, while different from state to state, still reflects the choice of the general masses. Why? Because in states where the legislature picks electors, legislators are OUR representatives. Likewise, if appointed by the governor. The main thing that needs to be kept in mind - and this goes to the remainder of your comments - is that WE DON'T LIVE IN A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY, and we never have. We live in a representational republic, designed from the outset as a representative government. This means that, no matter how unfair folks may think it is that we don't have a popular vote system, there is no right here to have every person's vote count for presidential elections. If you want that kind of right, as I have also said previously, you need to locate a democratic country, and then move there.
All that said, even if we changed the Constitution and did away with the Electoral College, computer voting would never happen. Why? Because it is far too easy to commit fraud from the privacy of your own computer. Imagine the havoc that hackers could cause, for example. Your statement, "computers don't lie," may be true, but computer users do. How would the election commission know who was operating the computer? How do you keep a 10 year old from doing the voting? There's a good reason we have to show up in person and show credentials to vote.
It looks like we DO agree on the point about not everyone being informed enough to vote. I agree with you that new young voters often do not have enough life experience to vote thoughtfully. Of course, you have to start sometime, and that argument chances becoming a slippery slope...maybe we would make the same "not old enough" argument even if the minimum voting age were 25.
Thanks for contributing!
Reed, I just passed over my response comment to your comment. I have no earthly idea what "Oh, common, now, Reed" means. I think I meant "Oh come one, now, Reed." Maybe my brain isn't back after all.
Geeeeez....
Reed, I meant "Oh, come on, now..."
I give up.
Dano, thanks for your feedback.
I see your point in that since we elect the legislators who then pick electors then we do in a sense have a part in that election process.
If we don't live in democratic country then Why do most of us believe we do? Talk about a mass misconception! Well, I don't Really want to live in another country, but there Are other placed I'd love to see... :)
I didn't say the computer voting should take place in one's home. I'd had in mind it would take place at the polling places. Also, you don't have to have a photo i.d. if you're voting absentee. But you're right about the hacking aspect. That could happen anywhere.
I'm glad we agree about the youngsters voting. And yeah, what a slippery slope that would be coming up with a new minimum age. What a can of worms that would be!
After all, how strange is it that our country's 18 year old can go to war but not be of age to vote? Or legally drink a beer, for that matter??
Don't be so hard on yourself about your "common Reed" comment. Have you seen any perfect posts - no spelling or grammatical errors? I'd wage no one here has.
One more thing. I got this "bX-w90v67" message when trying to submit this the first time. Then it said something about blogger support. Guess I need to shut down for the night, eh?
Why is everybody commenting on your post, and not on mine? I guess 'cause yours is just more stimulating.
Anyway, I was reading your comments re: Deb, and when you pointed out, correctly, that our Constitution created not a democracy, but a republic, I nodded and thought to myself, "Not many people in this country understand the difference." Then you suggested she move if she wants a democracy, and I shuddered. Then your next paragraph pointed out that we could indeed eliminate the electoral college through Constitutional amendment, and I thought, "Okay, maybe his brain is working after all."
But you know, your original argument still smacks of distrust of the ability of the "common man" to make a good decision (and I'm not referring to Joe the Plumber - or maybe I am.) What scares me the most is the letter to editor in today's Tallahassee Democrat. A guy named Jim Killette has offered up the most racist letter I've ever seen printed, and I would suggest all our readers consider the nastiness invoked by Mr. Killette as anti-American. But his point is that citizens, especially African-American citizens, don't deserve to "call the shots." This blatant revelation of continuing racism is as good an argument for changing the status quo as any I can think of. Just as Hamilton's papers suggested that the elite should call the shots, so does Mr. Killette's letter. While Hamilton's arguments may have been valid at the time, Killette's carry no weight now.
It's time for a change, in government, and in our Constitution.
Reed, I don't know why mine this week is getting more responses (maybe it's just 'cause I'm back?).
As to my original argument smacking of elitism, or that I sound like I'm saying the common man shouldn't vote: I agree, fundamentally, with Hamilton's view. But, and I have said this before, I only ask that the common man at least understand the issues and know some basic facts about the candidates and their platforms. As I said before, just knowing the candidate is a democrat or a republican, or voting for someone because Rush Limbaugh or Chris Matthews likes him isn't enough -- and, yet, that's what too many "common men" do. I also don't understand the indignation of those who want everyone to vote no matter what; what's wrong with only 25% of registered voters actually voting (besides the notion that "your" candidate might have won if only more of your party's voters turned out)? Regardless of the total numbers, the process works the same way. Mandates aside, the president could be as effectively elected if only 1000 people voted in each state.
By the way, I have never agreed that Hamilton's view was elitist. It so happened that at the time, only the more elite citizens fit the description of those he thought she be appointed to be electors, but many in the general masses were not even literate, then. I agree with the basic theme, though, that votes (in a perfect world) should be cast by those that fully understand the issues. So, I don't think my view is particularly elitist; it's just that I want people to care enough to learn a little bit about what they're doing before they do it. And Joe the Plumber, by the way, despite his better-than-average political knowledge and involvement, has proven to be too stupid to vote effectively (meaning to vote in favor of the candidate that would best meet his expectations and desires).
As to my suggestion that those who want democratic rights should move to a democratic country, I'm not sure why that gave you such pause. Are we a bit peeved that we don't live in a democracy?
Deb,
It's a mass misconception as well that much of what all three branches of our federal government do is also constitutional. Because most of what they do is not. We need to reissue the Declaration of Independance. We'll just change the date.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Todd (twilley)...isn't replacing the destructive administration exactly what we're doing on November 4th? Seems like you are suggesting that the Constitution didn't provide a method by which we could do this without a violent revolution...
The survival of the great experiment that our founders undertook contained one great fallicy, Dano. These people just came out of a revolution that impacted everyone in every colony with war for their freedoms on thier very doorsteps. They couldn't see the forest for the trees, so to speak. They falsely assumed every citizen of the great nation they formed would consider it their civil duty to stay informed, to understand the tyranny they had just taken up arms against, and not to allow it happen again. They figured that the people having just been oppressed by a powerful government would have the good sense to not allow it to happen by staying informed.
The progblem became with the informers. Members of the media (press), like me are forced out of the business. I left of my own accord but the message was clear -- adapt to the agenda or else be unwelcome. Talk radio balances that to a certain extent. But the Fairness Doctrine scares me even more. What happens when the government declares that half the time is devoted to socialism and the other half is devoted to facism. How does the message of liberty fall into that. The fairness doctrine is another debate though, and one I care more about.
But yes, Dano, I thought that the system worked. Despite being on a losing side, I really did. But when I saw the mocking and censorship of Constitutionalist Ron Paul by CNN, Fox and etc, despite raising more MONEY in the final quarter of 2007 than any other Repbulican nominee. I knew the system was doomed. At every modern election of the video era, money has meant frontrunner status. When the "wrong" frontrunner had the money, they changed the definition.
That's when I knew that nothing short of an armed revolution would bring us back to the freedoms guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Some of founders anticiapted this. Jefferson stated, “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny” He also said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Furthermore, the Second Amendment wasn't for hunters. It was for this very refreshinging of liberty. The banning of any armament is unconstitutional.
In 1996, Claire Wolfe said, "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." I ask, still too early?
Todd, by gum, methinks you've read Marx with an open mind.
Gentlemen,
I've just a few more comments to make concerning these discussions.
Reed, obviously I agree with you that it's time for the Electoral College to replaced with a better system.
Whatever happened to that old saying "majority rules"? Now That would be a True representation of who most Americans want for President. It's the only Fair way.
J. T., you expressed your concerns about liberty, or lack thereof, when it comes to the Fairness Doctrine. One of my pet peeves is that since we all have to speak so politically correctly, it has been taken to such an extreme that we have the opposite of freedom of speech. We are in a sense, censored. The country's come a long way, but can't we go back to Some of the good old days??
Dano, I'm glad we agree on a few issues, but your comments about Joe the Plumber were offensive to me, and in a way seemed to contradict what you'd said earlier. Don't shoot me (I heard that barrel click). You said you only ask that the common man at least understand the issues and know some basic facts about the candidates and their platforms. And then you said re: Joe, that despite his better-than-average political knowledge and involvement, has proven to be too stupid to vote effectively. So, he is meeting your criteria, isn't he? Moreover, he is representative of the common man, the average Joe. Except that he probably has More political knowledge than a whole slew of voters, so that makes him the Above Average Joe. I watched him in an in-depth interview, and did you know (yes, you probably do) that He didn't seek Obama out, but Obama and his camp walked down JOE's neighborhood. I said that to say he isn't an McCain plant. His question to Obama was a valid one, one we should all want and need to know the answer to. But, that's veering off the topic, too.
I just want November 4th to arrive!
Deb, I haven't contradicted myself at all. My point was that the average "masses" aren't truly qualified to vote in a thoughtful and informed way, and that Joe the plumber (who's more knowledgeable than average) isn't even qualified.
I know all about Joe. I also know that he DID, in fact, approach Obama, not the other way around (there's a video of the entire process). That's not relevant to me. What is relevant is that Obama didn't bring this guy into the spotlight--he did that to himself, and McCain exploited him 23 times during the debate.
In the final analysis, it appears that Joe lied about being a plumber (at least he isn't a legal one), and he has other problems (like unpaid taxes) that should have warned him away from the national spotlight. To top things off, he completely misunderstands Obama's tax plan, erroneously suggesting that his taxes would rise under Obama, when they would actually drop. He either hasn't read, or hasn't understood the candidates' economic plans, and that makes him unqualified to vote, in my opinion. My having called him too stupid was a gaffe only in that I shouldn't have used that language online (I was commenting back to Reed, which sometimes feels like a one-on-one conversation). So I'm sorry to have offended you. Of course, if you feel differently about Joe the plumber's knowledge or the candidates' plans, feel free to elucidate, because every bit of documentation on these issues is readily available.
Dano, I know you know your stuff. That's not even a question in my mind.
Re: Joe, I certainly would've had second thoughts were I he, putting myself under scrutiny knowing that I didn't pay my taxes. I just think it's a shame that he's been investigated to the degree that he has (or at all!) for asking a question. It's so ridiculous it amazes me.
Enough about Joe.
More important fish to fry. History will be made tonight one way or the other. Either we have an African American president, or a female vice-president. America has come a loooong way!
Deb, one more comment about Joe: He wasn't investigated for asking a question. He was investigated (or VETTED, in political speak) only because McCain used him as an example 23 or so times during a national debate. He then became a prop for McCain rallies. McCain made him famous, not Obama, and the media (again, not the Obama campaign) did the vetting of Joe. Frankly, I found it all very annoying, but that's what the media does.
Anyway...now we have a new president elect. Let's hope all works out for the best. I am hopeful and excited about the prospects for our nation's future.
Post a Comment