The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

RogerM wrote:

...."based to a large degree on population" So it's only somewhat
undemocratic?

What? Do you even know how the Electoral College is formulated? Each state
has a number of electors equal to its number of Representatives and
Senators. Since a state's number of Representatives is based on population,
but its number of Senators is not, I used the phrase "based to a large
degree on population". Undemocratic has nothing to do with it.


....Because it doesn't provide for 'one man - one vote'. 'To a degree'
isn't sufficiently democratic. What about the degree to which it goes
against the will of the majority?

[sigh....] see above response.

...In any case, as I understand it, the electoral votes aren't constrained
by law to reflect the popular vote of the particular state. It's more
of a 'gentlemen's agreement' that the votes will go to the candidate who
garners the highest popular vote.

Why not have a system where every voter is equal?

The framers of our Constitution looked out over the landscape and saw a
country where a large percentage of the population was semi-literate, huge
numbers of citizens couldn't even sign their own name, and most were rural
dwellers at the end of a four to six month communication line. In short, a
place where the preponderance of the population might easily be subject to
misinformation and manipulation. This was one of the reasons that our
government was formed as a Republic, and not a Democracy, and similarly
justification for the Electoral College. In a Republic, the population
elects regional representatives of [hopefully] knowledgeable, sober, mature
judgment, and said representatives exercise their best judgment in making
decisions of state. There is always an insulating layer of supposedly good
judgment between the population as a whole, and the crucial and oft-times
irrevocable decisions of state. In today's world, literacy , of course, is
drastically improved, and speed of communication is no longer a factor. But
we still have that pesky little problem of misinformation and manipulation.
Fully one-quarter to one-third (at a minimum) of the voting population is
easily vulnerable, and huge portions of our population live in different
worlds from one another (urban v rural, etc.). The aforementioned
"...insulating layer of supposedly good judgment..." together with the
equalizing and stabilizing effect of the Electoral system remain, imho, a
good thing.

John Gaquin wrote:

RogerM wrote:

Why not have a system where every voter is equal?

The framers of our Constitution looked out over the landscape and saw a
country where a large percentage of the population was semi-literate, huge
numbers of citizens couldn't even sign their own name, and most were rural
dwellers at the end of a four to six month communication line. In short, a
place where the preponderance of the population might easily be subject to
misinformation and manipulation.

Oh how things have changed...NOT!

This was one of the reasons that our
government was formed as a Republic, and not a Democracy, and similarly
justification for the Electoral College. In a Republic, the population
elects regional representatives of [hopefully] knowledgeable, sober, mature
judgment, and said representatives exercise their best judgment in making
decisions of state.

Putting their own corrupt interests above those of the voters. Great
system, there. How are these elite selected?

There is always an insulating layer of supposedly good
judgment between the population as a whole, and the crucial and oft-times
irrevocable decisions of state. In today's world, literacy , of course, is
drastically improved, and speed of communication is no longer a factor. But
we still have that pesky little problem of misinformation and manipulation.

Not to mention the corruption of the elite class.

Fully one-quarter to one-third (at a minimum) of the voting population is
easily vulnerable, and huge portions of our population live in different
worlds from one another (urban v rural, etc.).

This part is pure comedy.

The aforementioned
"...insulating layer of supposedly good judgment..." together with the
equalizing and stabilizing effect of the Electoral system remain, imho, a
good thing.

You are taking so much on faith, it is hard to believe.

--

People who go looking to be offended will rarely be disappointed

The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.

For those who ca it's would HAVE, should HAVE, and could HAVE.

"RogerM" wrote in message

Fully one-quarter to one-third (at a minimum) of the voting population
is
easily vulnerable, and huge portions of our population live in different
worlds from one another (urban v rural, etc.).

This part is pure comedy.

Why is that?

The aforementioned
"...insulating layer of supposedly good judgment..." together with the
equalizing and stabilizing effect of the Electoral system remain, imho,
a
good thing.

You are taking so much on faith, it is hard to believe.

Why is it hard to believe? This system has served us well these past 225
years and is not, imo, in need of drastic repair. Show me another country
[I'll give you Britain] of constitutional representative government that can
match our record of over 200 years of constancy and stability. Explain to
me why we should emulate Italy, which has had the pleasure of somewhere
around 200 changes of government since WWII.










--

People who go looking to be offended will rarely be disappointed

The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.

For those who ca it's would HAVE, should HAVE, and could HAVE.

From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
Date: 1/30/2004 10:51 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: et


"john" wrote in message
.. .

Learn to use Google, mcnicoll. Apparently you don't want to learn
anything.

Here's a reference for you to read to see how black Florida voters
were disenfranchised by Gov. Bush and his cohort, Harris.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_electio...406541,00.html


Thanks, I was familiar with it. Here's something for you, if you're ready
to learn:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?U29C31047

Despite many recounts by the media and many attempts by the media to prove
anyone was denied the right to vote absolutely no proof has come forth.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired.