Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-22 09:30:41

Why should the USA suck up to the Saudis?

I don't like it either, but the damn oil thing is troublesome. Since the "nuke their ass and take the gas" approach is off the table (rightly, I'd argue) we have to play these games. Better to have bought-off Saudis than pissed-off Saudis. Unless we actually prepare to deal with them on more blunt terms.

Well, I don't agree. If they were so dangerous, where are all the bombs going off? Haven't seen any on US soil for the last three years.

Yep, I must concede that there are three possibilities for why this is:
1) All they wanted was to get us into a war, in which case there's no point in further attacks (though it does justify it on homeland security grounds in an odd sort of way).
2) They're too busy in Iraq and Afghanistan to coordinate and fund it.
3) Or, 9/11 took years of planning and preparation. Perhaps the cycle just hasn't worked its course yet.

Protecting oneself from possible attempts, provided the Islamicists were really behind it, is the simplest thing in the world. Just shut off the immigration and repatriate any remaining Arabs. It's better than endangering the US liberties in any case.

Sure, we could take down that old "huddled masses" sign and replace it with "brown man need not apply", but even if that would entirely solve the problem, of which I'm not entirely convinced, it's not an American sort of thing to do. It would take some major shifts in our culture and our ideals to make that feasible.

Considering the last line of your quote, about an unpopular war being preferable, well, the lives of maimed and killed Arabs actually count in my book still.

In mine as well, yet there are multiple factors and perspectives that need to be understood. For all the talk this election about "homeland security" few really understand the implications. There are really only two ways to ensure the security of Americans within America's borders from outside threats. Either eliminate the threat through whatever means, or divert the threat elsewhere so that it doesn't hit at home. The present Administration may be trying for the former, but have so far only succeeded in the latter. From the perspecetive of elected officials trying to provide security to the American electorate from which their exalted status is derived, a dozen terrorists in New York are far more dangerous than a thousand in Fallujah.

Look, I wish to repatriate the Muslims from Europe. It will be much harder to do so convincingly if the area is a constant warzone because of us.

And from your perspective, a European seeking to expel the Muslims back to their lands of origin, what you advocate makes perfect sense. Surely American troops blowing up old Soviet tanks and the occasional apartment building of insurgents doesn't make for good travel brochures. Across the Atlantic the priorities are somewhat different, one of many cases where the rift between America and Europe is not merely a matter of Europeans disliking that Texas cowboy with an itchy trigger finger.

Palomar · 2004-10-22 10:56:17

When I argue face to face with a hardline conservative I see a determination to convince me and concern that I don't agree. When I argue with a fringe liberal I all too often see the fire of fanaticism in their eyes. The Right dislikes John Kerry, the Left hates George Bush. The "imperialist, oil stealing warmongers" aren't the scariest bunch out there.

*Yeah, I think you've hit the nail on the head, Cobra.

Heres]http://www.wkbn.com/Global/story.asp?S=2464945]Here's pie in your eye

Sean Hannity's next. Heck...let's pie ALL the talking heads (Left, Right, Whatever). They do more harm than good, IMO.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2004-10-22 11:24:33

Then we need only to build this wall around the mid-east, like a gigantic "Manhattan maximum security penetantiary". Let them live in the world they themselves have created.
Look, I wish to repatriate the Muslims from Europe.

*Erm...well good luck! :-\

Such a measure would automatically be smacked down as racism. Attempts to do this would be met with resistance and greater numbers of persons in the ethnic group likely moving over "to prove a point."

Since the issue of brown man versus white man seems to have come up in this thread again, I can't help recalling with a mixture of amusement, perplexity and some level of disgust two friends of my husband's. Both are older Hispanic gentlemen -- in their late 40s/early 50s -- who have become rather prosperous. They both own more expensive homes and nicer cars than my father ever owned (a white man). My husband is Hispanic (although his grandfather was a white man; Irish) and disabled...and these two guys cry on HIS shoulder! White man this, white man that. Maybe they had bad experiences growing up, I don't doubt they have encountered genuine racism in their lives, etc., but GIVE ME A BREAK. Jeee-zus. The one in particular seems to not know quite how to approach me, a white gal. He seems a bit defensive and stand-offish. All while driving a nicer, newer car and living in a more expensive home than I. And I'm supposed to feel sorry for him, or feel guilty for something??LOL. Oh yeah -- right. 90 years ago I couldn't have voted.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, based on the past 4 to 5 hundred years of European and American history, it seems little "excuse" is required to play the Race Card...even when there is no racism going on. Why give people the opportunity, then? Not a good idea.

Besides, I can think of some white people I'd like to round up and dump back in Europe...I doubt you want them, though.

--Cindy

Gennaro · 2004-10-22 11:41:51

Whenever they got the chance between distorting the facts and inducing guilt they'd simply steal or vandalize signs for candidates they didn't approve of, going so far as to key a vehicle in one case because of a bumper sticker. This is but one of many cases, both from my own observation as well as others, that indicates to me that while one side is motivated primarily by genuine belief that their way is best for the country, the other is motivated increasingly by blind, irrational gut-level loathing. While they like to bandy the term around too freely, today's Democrat fringe are the new nazis. When I argue face to face with a hardline conservative I see a determination to convince me and concern that I don't agree. When I argue with a fringe liberal I all too often see the fire of fanaticism in their eyes.

Oh, don't worry, Cobra! It's an international phenomenon.
Though I'm not sure I agree with the Nazi analogy. With a Nazi you could perhaps have an argument, and then he'll kill you. A commie liberal will kill you for trying to have an argument.

Heck...let's pie ALL the talking heads (Left, Right, Whatever). They do more harm than good, IMO.

Any cream and strawberry for me?

Gennaro · 2004-10-22 12:10:44

Cindy, what a bizarre situation! That's not the way it's around here at all. On the contrary, Swedes generally tend to be looked down upon by our new and dynamic cultural elements.

Since we are not Muslims, we infidels obviously represent some kind of inferior Homo Sapiens in the eyes of our "enrichers".

And our fine liberal government wholly agrees. In Sweden you can get condemned to prison for "instigating against an ethnical group", although it doesn't apply if the ethnical group happens to be Swedish.
???

After one of the countless gang rapes, Arab teenagers commented that it wasn't an equally serious crime when the victim was a Swedish girl (they invariably are). The court seems to have taken heed, because in this particular case most perputrators were either freed or 'condemned' to consult an imam, perhaps for having their psychological wounds being cared for, I don't know.

*Erm...well good luck! :-\
Such a measure would automatically be smacked down as racism.

Sure it will. It already is. But it's entirely wrong. I'm only saying that individuals having acquired the equivalent of a "green card" by claiming to be "refugees" while being no such thing, should have their licenses revoked and consequently sent out of the country. It counts for about 90% of the lot.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-22 12:11:23

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, based on the past 4 to 5 hundred years of European and American history, it seems little "excuse" is required to play the Race Card...even when there is no racism going on.

Yes, we have a distinct whiney strain running through this country. Everyone has some problem to blame someone else for.

It generally brings to mind an old Dennis Leary bit, but there's no sense getting that abrasive here.

Besides, I can think of some white people I'd like to round up and dump back in Europe...I doubt you want them, though.

That's a big catch with the sort of repatriation program Gennero mentions, what if these countries don't want a bunch of displaced persons dumped on their border? What do you do with all these people that don't want to go and countries that don't want to take them?

Actually, on a relatively small scale America has been through this before. Some of the abolitionists called for ending slavery not to grant freedom and citizenship to blacks, but to send them all back to Africa and be rid of them. It never really went anywhere beyond Liberia, but the point being that many didn't want to go. This sort of approach, while possible under certain conditions, isn't all that easy unless you're prepared to employ the necessary force both on those you seek to deport and those you intend to take them.

Another example, there were some within the Nazi government, at least early on that wanted to deport Europe's jews, either to Palestine or elsewhere. That didn't work out so well either. Again, perhaps for lack of support more than anything, but still notable.

Not that I'm drawing a direct comparison or trying to imply anything, I am well aware of the damage being done by current policies here and abroad.

Oh, don't worry, Cobra! It's an international phenomenon.
Though I'm not sure I agree with the Nazi analogy. With a Nazi you could perhaps have an argument, and then he'll kill you. A commie liberal will kill you for trying to have an argument.

:laugh: Good point.

Of course a commie liberal can't try to kill you without making himself a hypocrite, being violent, intolerant and brandishing a weapon. If you get 'em that mad, you win.

EDIT::

After one of the countless gang rapes, Arab teenagers commented that it wasn't an equally serious crime when the victim was a Swedish girl (they invariably are). The court seems to have taken heed, because in this particular case most perputrators were either freed or 'condemned' to consult an imam.

In these cases, I would argue that an appropriately talionic punishment is in order, something to send a message not of weakness and submissive inferiority but rather determination to defend our own as necessary.

Something involving sharpened stakes.

C M Edwards · 2004-10-22 12:16:06

I hope I'm wrong, but I won't be the least bit surprised if the whole American democracy game blows up after this election.

Does anyone remember the President's name from that old Dark Horse comic series, "Give Me Liberty"? :;):

Actually, I would be surprised if the mechanics of the US election system itself broke down. (One of the virtues of the electoral college is that it produces an outcome no matter what.) However, since the US's two-party political system is on the verge of a breakdown, I fully expect serious challenges to this election outcome. It's entirely possible that we may not have a president by January, much less November 3.

RobertDyck · 2004-10-22 12:35:55

Canada, or secessionist insurrection? Decisions decisions...

Um, could I advocate resolving the problem the Canadian way? With an election. In 1984 the Progressive Conservative party won on the campaign of eliminating the deficit, reducing the debt, and reducing taxes. After 2 terms in office they increased the deficit, doubled the debt, and increased taxes. That included introducing the GST and federal individual surtax. In 1993 voters destroyed their party. In that election they went from having a majority in the house to only 2 members. Canadian parliamentary rules state a party must have a minimum of 12 members in the house to be a party. They never recovered. In the end the Progressive Conservative party merged with the Reform party to form the Conservative party. Destroying one of the only two parties to have ever been the government of Canada has sent a strong message to all federal politicians: Do what you said you would do in your election platform, or we'll destroy you. The Liberal party has been the government since 1993, but they are now very diligent to fulfil their promises.

Resolving the problem in the US will require something as dramatic. Please don't consider an armed insurrection; that would result in a mess at least as great as the Civil War. Destroying one of the parties and creating a new party would be far more effective. Perhaps start by asking your senators to repeal the 12th amendment; the one that created the Electoral College. Section 1 of the original constitution said 1 voter, 1 vote; the candidate with the most votes becomes president. If your senator doesn't wish to address the wishes of their constituents...

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-22 12:49:09

Resolving the problem in the US will require something as dramatic. Please don't consider an armed insurrection; that would result in a mess at least as great as the Civil War.

Not that I have an army standing by or anything, but I was speaking mainly in jest. Americans are by and large too lazy for revolution anyway, not to mention that such an action would lack legitimacy in the public eye.

Unless of course the electoral process were hopelessly compromised, then anything goes. We're closer than we'd all like to think, but we're not there yet.

Whatever happens, we'll try to keep it in our own borders this time around.

Disclaimer: The author of this post neither advocates nor thinks lightly of armed insurrection within the continental United States.

Perhaps start by asking your senators to repeal the 12th amendment; the one that created the Electoral College. Section 1 of the original constitution said 1 voter, 1 vote; the candidate with the most votes becomes president.

Actually, that's not quite right. The electoral college is an integral part of the Constitution (Article II specifically), bound to the governing structure of our nation. The 12th Amendment merely reformed the manner in which it was employed, since we were ending up with things like a President and Vice-President from different parties, the one working against the other.

At no point was a direct vote intended, nor would it be compatible with the federal structure on which the Constitution rests.

Palomar · 2004-10-22 12:52:19

Cindy, what a bizarre situation! That's not the way it's around here at all. On the contrary, Swedes generally tend to be looked down upon by our new and dynamic cultural elements.

Since we are not Muslims, we infidels obviously represent some kind of inferior Homo Sapiens in the eyes of our "enrichers".
And our fine liberal government wholly agrees. In Sweden you can get condemned to prison for "instigating against an ethnical group", although it doesn't apply if the ethnical group happens to be Swedish.
???
After one of the countless gang rapes, Arab teenagers commented that it wasn't an equally serious crime when the victim was a Swedish girl (they invariably are). The court seems to have taken heed, because in this particular case most perputrators were either freed or 'condemned' to consult an imam, perhaps for having their psychological wounds being cared for, I don't know.
*Erm...well good luck! :-\
Such a measure would automatically be smacked down as racism.
Sure it will. It already is. But it's entirely wrong. I'm only saying that individuals having acquired the equivalent of a "green card" by claiming to be "refugees" while being no such thing, should have their licenses revoked and consequently sent out of the country. It counts for about 90% of the lot.

*Okay Gennaro...I see. I understand your explanation. Good grief!

I don't know what to say.

It seems the Swedish government is suffering from genuine self-loathing??

It's one thing to be conquered by force...it's quite another to be conquered WILLINGLY!

IIRC, you and another European member explained previously why this is happening when I asked

how come, considering it is YOUR native homeland.

Is it White Guilt? How could this be? Whatever your descendants who moved to the New World might have done isn't Sweden's fault. Sweden didn't massacre Native Americans nor round them up onto reservations. Sweden didn't ship Africans to the New World (so far as I recall from history).

This simply boggles my mind.

No one -- anywhere on this planet -- has to *agree* to conquest. If your nation AGREES to this overall... :-\

It just boggles my mind that a group of people could move to a wealthier, stronger, more prosperous nation than their homeland and then get up on a high horse like THEY are doing the host nation A FAVOR. The host nation (yours) didn't get wealthy/prosperous or strong "just because" -- it didn't "just happen." The benefits of civilization doesn't merely fall from the skies.

And if the "guests" don't adopt the same principles, ideologies, values, ethics, etc., as the strong host -- it'll all come crashing down, obviously.

::shakes head::

The "Race Card" -can- be played in the U.S., because unjust and bad things HAVE happened here, directed at non-whites. But in YOUR country?

Don't know what else to say, except everyone's got a right to defend themselves and to protect what they cherish.

I figure I don't have to accept violence and abuse directed at myself because of what some other members of my race have done in the past, or continue to do. I think your nation had better adopt that philosophy now, if I may sound so bold as to say it.

I don't buy into collective guilt and I definitely don't believe in collective punishment.

Have seen instances of others trying to manipulate and over-power on the basis of "collective guilt" many times...

--Cindy

RobertDyck · 2004-10-22 13:18:17

Actually, that's not quite right. The electoral college is an integral part of the Constitution (Article II specifically), bound to the governing structure of our nation. The 12th Amendment merely reformed the manner in which it was employed, since we were ending up with things like a President and Vice-President from different parties, the one working against the other.
At no point was a direct vote intended, nor would it be compatible with the federal structure on which the Constitution rests.

Odd, It's my belief that Article II, Section 1, 3rd clause states:

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.

Any apparent misspelling is from the original text. The word "chuse" is an alternate spelling that was acceptable at the time the constitution was written.

That sounds to me like 1 voter, 1 vote. The list of candidates on the ballot is chosen within each state, and the state government provides the subtotal. However, the House and Senate together add those subtotals to achieve the final total; the candidate with the most votes wins.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-22 13:25:53

That sounds to me like 1 voter, 1 vote.

Except that in this context "elector" does not mean everybody.

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:"

States can choose their electors however they want, appointed by the Governor, the legislature, popular vote, divination with chicken bones... But at no point does the citizenry vote directly for President. Those electors aren't even legally bound to vote for the candidate receiving the most votes in their state, though they rubber stamp it in modern times.

Gennaro · 2004-10-22 13:28:56

Cindy, just a quick reply.

It seems the Swedish government is suffering from genuine self-loathing??

As far as I can see, yes, you are entirely correct in your assumption. Excellent analysis, overall.

And it goes for the entire political spectrum, not just the Social Democrats in power but for the Moderates (equivalent to Republicans) and everyone else in Parliament as well. So on this issue we really have only one party in Sweden, but of many colours. Just like Saruman.

So what on Earth is the reason behind this absurd situation? It's true we were never a colonial power of any consequence, we didn't take part in the world wars etc, yet somehow people are taught to take a collective blame for everything white people can be imagined to have done anywhere. In a sort of strange general sense, that is, and the schools do of course tend to favour an education of history without too much regard to detail, but I digress...

It's more complicated than that, but one heavy, decisive factor though is undeniably the holocaust. In America you have the Indians and black slavery so the holocaust may not be so heavily emphasized, but over here it's the extermination of the Jews that count.
The reasoning goes something like this: so you're against immigration, so you don't like coloured people, so you're a racist, so you're a Nazi... aha, thought so!

Of course, Sweden didn't take part in the holocaust and the camps and all of that, on the contrary. In fact, the only reason the Jews of Denmark didn't end up in Auschwitz was due to a certain SS-governor in Copenhagen, contacting the Danish Resistance who contacted the Swedish government and the latter allowing for every Jew who could make it to cross the straits into Sweden before Eichmann arrived in October 1943. Some 6,000 people were saved this way.
At the end of the war the Swedish Red Cross also brought about 10,000 Jews to Sweden from the dying camps after consulting with Himmler, but none of it matters in relation to the syndrom. We are all, as blonde aryan beasts*, somehow unreedemingly and collectively guilty of the uncomparable Jewish suffering, thus we must relentlessly 'prove ourselves' or be punished... or something.

*= quoting Nietzsche

RobertDyck · 2004-10-22 13:38:02

Except that in this context "elector" does not mean everybody.
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:"
States can choose their electors however they want, appointed by the Governor, the legislature, popular vote, divination with chicken bones... But at no point does the citizenry vote directly for President. Those electors aren't even legally bound to vote for the candidate receiving the most votes in their state, though they rubber stamp it in modern times.

Hmm, good point. That is the second clause. I guess I should post http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1]this link to the section of the constitution we're talking about.

So any proposals to replace the 12th amendment? The Electoral College is the primary reason I claim the US is a Republic, not a Democracy. There is a difference.

RobertDyck · 2004-10-22 13:48:36

Apparently the extensive media coverage and all the talking heads have enough people in a frenzy that reports continue to come in the news about people vandalizing political signs on others' private property -- defacing, ripping, even urinating on political signs.
I'm beginning to seriously wonder if we shouldn't be GLAD for the Electoral College.

People who are screwed with no recourse act out. If you empower them, they become much more civilized. I feel direct elections for president would make citizens more responsible, and candidates more accountable.

Euler · 2004-10-22 14:06:01

People who are screwed with no recourse act out. If you empower them, they become much more civilized. I feel direct elections for president would make citizens more responsible, and candidates more accountable.

It would also make it so that all of the US has an important part in electing the president, rather than just the people in the "swing states."

Destroying one of the parties and creating a new party would be far more effective.

It is difficult for a third party to gain much support, because people know that they have no chance of winning and voting for them would make it so that the people would not have any say in the contest between the candidates of the two main parties. I think that we should change the system so that there is a runoff election between the two leading candidates if no candidate gains a majority of the popular vote (you would have to get rid of the electoral college to implement this); that way people can vote for third party candidates without throwing away their votes.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-22 14:45:17

So any proposals to replace the 12th amendment? The Electoral College is the primary reason I claim the US is a Republic, not a Democracy. There is a difference.

Quite right, we are by design emphatically not a democracy.

As for replacing the 12th Amendment, I'm not sure we should. Originally the electors voted twice, each choosing a President and Vice-President but not specifying which is which. Whoever gets the most votes is President, whoever comes in second is VP. That didn't work out so well, so the 12th Amendment required electors to vote for President and VP specifically.

If we dumped the electoral college entirely we'd still have a workable system, though one that would tend to marginalize the people residing in less populous states. State electoral votes might not matter, but state appetites for pork will endure, promise some goodies for Californians and New Yorkers and you're well on your way, without having to deal with those troublesome flyover voters. It would also severely undermine the federal idea behind our government, more and more authority being transferred from the states to the federal government. Direct-vote for the Presidency along with many other factors (increasing dependence on federal funding, federal law superseding state legislatures by funding mandates or other means etc) would draw into question why we continue to have state governments and more importantly on a practical level, why do we continue to pay for them?

Direct election of the President is one more move towards turning the federalist principle into an empty shell. If that's what we desire, better to hold a new constitutional convention and start fresh, otherwise we get a hodge-podge mess of incompatible garbage.

Of course no one will do this because advocating dumping the US Constitution is political suicide. But it would be the honest approach.

Also political suicide, it seems. :hm:

Palomar · 2004-10-22 14:49:26

*Just a few more comments:

It's more complicated than that, but one heavy, decisive factor though is undeniably the holocaust. In America you have the Indians and black slavery so the holocaust may not be so heavily emphasized, but over here it's the extermination of the Jews that count.
The reasoning goes something like this: so you're against immigration, so you don't like coloured people, so you're a racist, so you're a Nazi... aha, thought so!

*And that attitude is itself a form of racism. And it really torques me. I've faced that occasionally where I currently reside. Whites are the minority population in this area. Once in a while an acquaintance of my husband's will suggest that perhaps I didn't attend this or that party, didn't accept this or that invitation, on the basis of perhaps "not feeling comfortable around them" (which is a careful way of saying maybe I don't like Hispanics). This couldn't be further from the truth. I married a man who is Hispanic by ethnicity and culture, my very best friend back home is Asian (adopted from Korea at age 2), and I'm told my great-great grandmother was a Native American. But because I look entirely Scandinavian...

::sigh::

It's prejudice.

Sweden should be EXEMPT from this sort of thing. If your WWII history isn't an indication, what "proof" IS required? Manipulation and guilt-induction (especially of innocent parties!) serves only one purpose, of course: Obtaining power.

Me: Apparently the extensive media coverage and all the talking heads have enough people in a frenzy that reports continue to come in the news about people vandalizing political signs on others' private property -- defacing, ripping, even urinating on political signs. I'm beginning to seriously wonder if we shouldn't be GLAD for the Electoral College.
Robert: "People who are screwed with no recourse act out. If you empower them, they become much more civilized. I feel direct elections for president would make citizens more responsible, and candidates more accountable."

*I stand corrected. :-\

--Cindy

RobertDyck · 2004-10-22 15:09:16

Direct election of the President is one more move towards turning the federalist principle into an empty shell. If that's what we desire, better to hold a new constitutional convention and start fresh, otherwise we get a hodge-podge mess of incompatible garbage.
Of course no one will do this because advocating dumping the US Constitution is political suicide. But it would be the honest approach.
Also political suicide, it seems. :hm:

That sounds like a politician's arguement: add on stuff that isn't necessary, then claim it can't be done because of the additional stuff. Dumping the Electoral College doesn't not require dumping the entire constitution. How many amendments have been made so far? One more will not destroy it.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-22 15:36:00

That sounds like a politician's arguement: add on stuff that isn't necessary, then claim it can't be done because of the additional stuff.

I generally encounter that as an engineering argument

Dumping the Electoral College doesn't not require dumping the entire constitution. How many amendments have been made so far? One more will not destroy it.

Absolutely we could add an amendment that directly contradicts the Constitution itself, and maybe it would even work, but the reality is that the Constitution is written as the operating rules for a particular system, and directly electing the chief executive is a practice from a wholly different system. It's like trying to fix a car, but instead of using manufacturers parts bolting on anything that looks good at the time. It works for awhile, but keep doing it and you break down and no one can figure out how to fix the tangle mess.

Not that undermining the federal principle is my only objection, (bite for quoting ad nauseum in future anti-Cobra posts coming, grab it while it's hot) I don't like democracy, as opposed to a republic. I'll even go so far as to say that democracy, direct rule of the people, is unworkable in a modern industrialised state with a population the size of the US.

This just came to mind, attributed to a US Army publication from the 1920's.

CITIZENSHIP Democracy:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy

CITIZENSHIP Republic:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world. A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of

(1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their government acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.

Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.

Apocryphal or not, it's an apt description.

Direct voting for the Presidency is not part of our system any more than national referendums or runoff elections are. We're just not set up that way. We can do it if we really want to, but I for one see no need, nor would it merely be a question of passing an amendment, there are effects beyond the narrow scope of the law. There are a great many unintended consequences that will manifest in time, just as the decision to contest the 2000 election results in court will haunt us in innumerable ways for decades unless roundly put to rest this time through.

RobertDyck · 2004-10-22 16:11:55

Well, there's an extreme bias. Someone really has contempt for the average American. I've had some small experience; I was elected president of the community organization. There was one individual who wanted to force her neighbours to clean their yard (including the back yard) to suit her idea of neatness. I found it wasn't hard to argue for respect of private property. There will always be a few wackos, but most people are intelligent.

The quoted description not only expresses bias, it contrasts Direct Democracy with Republic. There isn’t any description of Representative Democracy. Direct Democracy requires citizens to vote on every bill, which becomes arduous. Most citizens don’t have the time to research the issues involved with every bill. The problem I see with a Republic is the inherent disrespect for average voters, and the concentration of power in the hands of an elite few. Presidential candidates all have university educations (mostly Ivy League) and come from rich families. Name one presidential candidate or senator who is the son of a mechanic or other blue collar worker, and graduated from a state college? I’m not the first to point this out; many Americans are concerned about abuse of power by the rich. Representative Democracy still elects legislators and executives who would spend all their time in the job to which there were elected, but it avoids the inherent bias toward the rich that occurs in a Republic.

::Edit:: Perhaps that is going a bit too far. I shouldn't get involved the internal paranoia against the "evil rich". However there is a disturbing perception America has replaced the hereditary monarchs of old with effective upper class "princes". Should we (you) make the American dream of equal opportunity for all, including the possibility of being President, a reality? Does anyone here know the electors from their state who represent them in the Electoral College?

Rxke · 2004-10-22 16:56:24

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … 910]Voting with different views on reality

Euler · 2004-10-22 17:10:37

Absolutely we could add an amendment that directly contradicts the Constitution itself, and maybe it would even work, but the reality is that the Constitution is written as the operating rules for a particular system, and directly electing the chief executive is a practice from a wholly different system.

No, all it would do is go from a de facto direct election of the president, but one in which the votes are counted in an irrational way that marginalizes people in non-swing states, to a de jure direct election in which the votes are counted in a rational manner. It would not radically change the system, and its effect would be smaller than that of many changes that have already occurred to the constitution. If there were states that did not assign their votes through direct election, then it would be a different story, but the concept of using other ways to assign the states' votes seems to be obsolete.

I'll even go so far as to say that democracy, direct rule of the people, is unworkable in a modern industrialised state with a population the size of the US

The semi-direct democracy in Switzerland seems to work fairly well. I would argue that democracy works far better in modern, industrialized states than it does in old fashioned pre-industrialized nations. This is due to improved standards of education, and improvements in information and communication related technology.

However, we would not be going from a republic to a democracy. We would instead only be going from a semi-indirect representative democracy to a direct representative democracy.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-22 20:04:01

Well, there's an extreme bias. Someone really has contempt for the average American.

Quite the contrary, I simply believe that a direct vote for the Presidency would result in even greater divisiveness and extremism than is already present, particularly if presidential primaries were accordingly changed.

On some level I like this idea since it would create openings for ideas presently doomed to obscurity, but I don't believe it would be good for the country. More passionate partisanship is not something we need.

Representative Democracy still elects legislators and executives who would spend all their time in the job to which they were elected, but it avoids the inherent bias toward the rich that occurs in a Republic.

How so? Candidates would still require funding to campaign, they would still have to either be rich enough to fund themselves or secure donations from rich contributors, always with implicit favors attached. Electoral politics will always be biased in favor of the rich.

Of course one can always run a grassroots campaign, but it's extremely difficult to win.

No, all it would do is go from a de facto direct election of the president, but one in which the votes are counted in an irrational way that marginalizes people in non-swing states, to a de jure direct election in which the votes are counted in a rational manner.

Eliminating the electoral college marginalizes people in smaller states by wiping out any influence of smaller states as states while retaining state boundaries for federal funds. Pander to California, Texas and New York, ignore the small states, they don't have enough warm bodies to matter. All the promises and goodies go elsewhere, the small population states become the electoral serfs to the big states, always subject to their whims. If a direct-vote scheme is to be truly equitable we have to marginalize the concept of states, one voter one vote can't be meaningfully implemented when state boundaries still define federal funds and profound legal divisions. Something would have to give. The American system was not designed as though the Union were a single entity, yet direct elections would treat it as such.

The electoral college is perfectly rational if one understands US history and the ideas behind our Constitution. I know that sounds condescending and that is not my intent, but it must be stressed. A direct vote for the Presidency is no less alien to our system than Presidents with life terms would be. Either could be implemented with a single amendment, either would undermine the rest of the Constitution in innumerable subtle ways.

However, we would not be going from a republic to a democracy. We would instead only be going from a semi-indirect representative democracy to a direct representative democracy.

We're wading into a semantic quagmire here. Direct representative democracy? If it's representative, as in people electing representatives who then make decisions, we're talking about a republic. Republics come in many forms and the parts aren't interchangeable between. the US is a republic, Canada is a republic, Britain, France and Germany are republics. Democracy doesn't exist in the modern world because it's unworkable for a large state. Yet we hold up an impossible ideal as the thing which we should emulate despite its unworkability. One might as well harp on the benefits of feudalism, if only it were as mesmerizing. While the faith of Democracy commands that all wisdom resides in the masses, historical reality doesn't bear it out. Were the proponents of increased democratization consistent in their arguments I'd have more respect for it, though I must note that from our few conversations here Robert seems to me to be a notable exception to what I'm about to say.

Generally those who most ardently call for increased direct participation of the people in government are also the most outspoken regarding increasing direct government involvement in the lives of the people. Implicitly they seem to be saying that while the average citizen is incapable of making proper decisions regarding their own lives, they possess uncanny wisdom regarding the governing of a modern state. I take the opposite view, that while a person can best decide for themsleves whether to wear a seatbelt, a helmet, how to spend their money and whether to eat that big greasy hamburger and fries, the governing of a modern state is a specialized field like any other. It requires qualities other than those that appeal strongest to a emotional crowd. Our present electoral system moderates the more extreme and visceral positions, balancing them against those with cooler heads. Direct election of the President would quickly result in an exodus to the fringes on all sides, marginalizing the much-vaunted moderates more than anyone. Both our Presidential candidates are bland and ideologically unreliable from the perspective of their respective bases, yet they are each capable of drawing large, if grudging backing. We lament the lackluster candidates we have to choose from, yet this moderating influence was intentional. If the American people decide that they want to dump the electoral college in some quest for "democracy" I certainly won't do anything rash to stop them, but I'll have little sympathy when things don't turn out quite so rosy as they intended.

I suppose that's enough for this rant.

RobertDyck · 2004-10-22 20:58:53

Eliminating the electoral college marginalizes people in smaller states by wiping out any influence of smaller states as states while retaining state boundaries for federal funds. Pander to California, Texas and New York, ignore the small states, they don't have enough warm bodies to matter. All the promises and goodies go elsewhere, the small population states become the electoral serfs to the big states, always subject to their whims. If a direct-vote scheme is to be truly equitable we have to marginalize the concept of states, one voter one vote can't be meaningfully implemented when state boundaries still define federal funds and profound legal divisions. Something would have to give. The American system was not designed as though the Union were a single entity, yet direct elections would treat it as such.

That's what the Senate is for; an equal number of senators per state. The current presidential election system still gives more populous states greater votes. That becomes automatic with direct elections. I disagree; it doesn't marginalize states at all.

The important thing is to realize there is only one voter. The federal government represents voters for federal issues, the state government for state issues, and municipal government for municipal issues. It only makes sense for voters to directly vote for their representatives for each level of government. Voters may elect legislators and executive from one party to represent them at the state level, but decide that a completely different party is appropriate at the federal level. That's a decision for voters, not officials representing the state government.

I'll give you a Canadian example. For decades we had 3 parties: the Liberal party is primarily centrist in policy but slightly liberal. The Progressive Conservative party is also centrist, but slightly conservative. The New Democratic Party tries to base their support on labour unions; they're quite left-of-centre, in fact they're slightly socialist. A few years ago the Reform party started; they're quite right-wing. The parties elected as provincial government in Manitoba and Saskatchewan are PC and NDP, voters like the clear difference they represent. In Ontario it was PC and Liberal; B.C. actually elected the Reform party. But at the federal level voters want moderation, so the extreme positions of the NDP and Reform parties disqualified them.

To avoid confusion I should explain further. After the absurd performance of the PC party under Brian Mulroney, the federal PC's were destroyed. The Reform party merged because they didn't have a hope of becoming the government on their own. However at the provincial level, the PC and Reform parties remain separate and just as strong as they were before Brian Mulroney.

I see no need to include state divisions in the presidential election.

the US is a republic, Canada is a republic, Britain, France and Germany are republics.

Canada and Britain are Parliamentary Democracies. The features of the US government that identify it as a Republic to me are separate executive from legislative branches, and election of the executive by a body other than voters.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-10-22 09:30:41

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#52 2004-10-22 10:56:17

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#53 2004-10-22 11:24:33

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#54 2004-10-22 11:41:51

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#55 2004-10-22 12:10:44

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#56 2004-10-22 12:11:23

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#57 2004-10-22 12:16:06

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#58 2004-10-22 12:35:55

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#59 2004-10-22 12:49:09

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#60 2004-10-22 12:52:19

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#61 2004-10-22 13:18:17

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#62 2004-10-22 13:25:53

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#63 2004-10-22 13:28:56

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#64 2004-10-22 13:38:02

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#65 2004-10-22 13:48:36

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#66 2004-10-22 14:06:01

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#67 2004-10-22 14:45:17

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#68 2004-10-22 14:49:26

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#69 2004-10-22 15:09:16

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#70 2004-10-22 15:36:00

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#71 2004-10-22 16:11:55

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#72 2004-10-22 16:56:24

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#73 2004-10-22 17:10:37

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#74 2004-10-22 20:04:01

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#75 2004-10-22 20:58:53

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

Board footer