posted
I am pretty new to Hatrack, some of you might recoginze my forum name. I was reading the "Where is our Locke" with the lowercase 'o' and I saw some talking about what would have to be done in the future in order to unite the governments. Or more generally, what is the perfect government. And how would we go about creating such a government. I think this question could tie together all other discussion topics. Except maybe the Plemet/Abyss conflict.
I think it would be pretty interesting to see if we could develop a different or collective form of government that could work more efficiently than some we have now.
What are your ideas?
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
I really havn't constructed any ideas, but you have to start somewhere. I think the worst problems with elections is 1. the amount of money involved, and 2. the porpaganda use. Democrats seem unfit to find the right democrat and republicans are unfit to find the right republican, everything is always it's better than the opposite party. I don't know how to solve 1., but perhaps a preliminary vote where the republicans choose the democrat candidate, and visa versa. I see the obvious problems with that, I'm just spitting out ideas.
Posts: 103 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I see what you mean, but I don't think the intermingling of party nominations is what we need. I do want to talk about partisanship because I think its a big problem in our country. I believe in the two party system because it is effective in our current democracy. I don't like the fact that instead of worring about the nations people, our politicians worry about party politics. That urks me.
Elections can be a little corrupt and I don't like the fact that our president is not directly elected. That might be because I wanted Gore, but...Those are some good points though.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact is, I didn't want Bush simply because I didn't agree with him, so I take part in the mudslinging about his intelligets etc. In truth, I know he is smarter than we give credit, and he has leadership qualities, I do think the Republicans could have done better, but a democrat dumber than him In would be happy with. The truth is, I didn't want Gore either, I thought he was a terrible democratic candidate, but as long as he saves Alaska from oil drillers, I was fine with him, in here lies the problem to our ever decreasing quality of polotics.
Posts: 103 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want to see decreasing quality of politics, go back and watch the democratic debate from south carolina last month. If I were a democrat, I'd be worried about the fact that the party couldn't come up with a single decent candidate. And no, I'm not saying that out of complete bias against democrats, I just don't think any of the candidates have distinguished themselves at all thus far.
posted
Hmm, I jsut wrote a reponse to this a few hours ago, and it dissapeared, I wonder what happened.
Anyway, what I said was basically, I didn't want Bush, because I am a democrat, so I obviously took part in the stupidity remarks aimed towards him. I do know that he has some leadership qualities, and he deserves more credit, I also thinkt eh republicans could have done better, but a democrat of less intelligents I would be happy with. I wanted Gore, because he was a Democrat, but I thought he was a terribvle candidate. But as long as he was saving Alaska, I didn't care, I think that is where the problem lies.
Posts: 103 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do like to think of myself as a Democrat because I am a liberal. Though now I am finding that, as has been said, there aren't any good candidates. I don't like Bush for my own reasons. I'm not really enthusiastic about any of the other candidates.
Which brings me back to my central question. What do we do now. Many people have said, not on this thread, but elsewhere in Hatrack, that the American Government is lacking in different things. I was wondering if there were ideas out there that we could put together to create a new kind of government with. I'm not talking about revolution. I'm just saying, "Where do we go from here?" what is the next step in our societal evolution of ideas.
I have my own beliefs, but they are just that, my own. I might be sounding selfish here, but I want us to come together and share our ideas on what we think should happen now to make us come closer to perfection. To better society. Do we need a Hegemony, a Locke? Or do we have what we need? Any ideas?
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the us government has plenty of strong points all governments will have weaknesses but i want to make a list, then maybe we'll see some suggestions.
good points A the president has control of the military, this is good because if congress led us in war we'de never get anywhere. Noone would agree on tactics and would undermine anyone else whenever they could.
B congressional branch of gov't creates the laws we live by, our congressmen hafto do what the massess tell them, if they want to get re-elected. so the people do have some power which is important.
C judicial system, this part is a good model of the other 2 the judge implements the sentance but the jury -again the people- choose guilty or innocent.
Major problems: A competition between power-hungry and often corrupt politicians. How many people in the gov't are on other payrolls? i have no idea but there are some, there are always some.
B I had wanted to say the 2 party division but there's only 2 parties because no one takes the other parties seriously. like the environmentalist and independant parties, independant isn't really a party but they dont belong to any other group and we hafto put them somewhere.
C the fact that the president is elected by a college bugs me too, i'm glad gore lost, he sounded like a child the way he squabbled at the debates. But the fact that a man could get elected while more people voted for the other guy bugs me.
I dont have any suggestions on how to better the system, a dictator would piss too many people off, other than scrap the Electoral College and actually let the people decide directly is all i can suggest.
What do you think?
~Brock
~I'm telling you, You hafto DIE. It would make us all real happy if you did. -sure. No biggie.
Posts: 46 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, you are old and cynical. We like you that way. <Blissfully ignores the fact that he is older than Tom.>
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For some reason this is the first time I've actually come to the Hatrack River site, though I've been a fan of Orson Scott Card's books since I read Ender's Game in 8th grade (I'm 25 now, for reference)
I wouldn't have imagined the first thread I would respond to would be one on contemporary American politics, but what the heck.
First off, I want to say that I don't think we're nearly as bad off as most people seem to think. I honestly don't think we need to revamp our government, what needs revamping is our voters.
Let me explain. Voters, while pathetically few choose to exercise it, hold all the cards in this country. We decide by majority who gets elected. Until the voter turnout statistics begin to approach a reasonable level, we have no right to complain that our politicians do not represent us as we would like.
And since it's a closely related subject, in our predominantly capitalistic economy, we also hold complete power over which companies become the richest and most powerful. The only reason we sometimes seem not to have this power is a result of blithely choosing whoever has driven their name deepest into our subconscious minds for decades before anyone seems to notice what the company is doing with our money.
Really, these two are both the same issue, and in my opinion are the two ways in which Americans are allowing the country to slowly crumble around us. People need to realize that voting, both at the ballot box and with your dollars at the mall, are not just a right but also a responsibility to the ideals this country was founded on.
Once people start taking this responsibility seriously, we'll be in a much better position to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the system itself. Doing so first is like returning your computer as broken because you never bothered to learn to use it.
Will Thomas
Posts: 7 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course our system of government is wonderful, it is one of the best in the world. (I say one of the best because I don't know the details of newer democracy, though I don't like the idea of a house of Lords in England.) What we want to do is improve, there were repucussions that our founding fathers just couldn't imagine.
1. The whole election system is off. Having representatives makes the people with power represent our ideas, but it works too well, we loose integrity when re-election is the sole priority. (conisdering its the law by which you vote by) The money aspect of an election is ludicrous, it costs a fortine to run, and we can't waste tax dollars on the poorer candidates. Then theres the porpaganda campaigns, the ignorance and lack of judgement in voters, and the massive amount of non-voters. (I live in Ma, and our last election, I 2was hoping for the Green party candidate to win, and I am a democrat, and tens of thousands of people agreed with me) I think our election process needs complete change.
The second thing is taxes. This is the basis for our economy, and almost every problem arises from it. Fundamentally, most democrats think it is necissary to function the country, and it should be spent of the various porgrams it was initially meant for. From what I see, republicans think that taxes are a degree of stealing that was agreed to in the Constitution, but stealing isn't "good" so we should limit it. Plus, even if we get a republican leader, we get corrupt ricvh people who don't care where the moneys going to come from, they jsut want to keep theirs. (Recently in Ma there was a huge tax cut plan, and to make up for the loss, they put forht the idea of putting tolls on school busses. The people who want this are consequently the ones funding the campaigns) We need a set amount, that can only be changed in emergancies. We need to solve the problem before it gets bigger. As Lincoln said "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
Edit: These are "in the mean time" ideas. We are destined (in the least religous weay possible) to unite. We just can't stay in peices, its coutnerproductive and agaisnt human nature. We can even see the beginnings of how, (If in this age) it will happen. The middle east conflict will be solved one way or another, China will start to leave its socialism government, and begin to becoem a super power greater than the U.S. And finnaly, the U.S. is way too powerful, and all the other countries know it. They've let slip their control, and we've grown, we can do something that the entire world dissagrees with, we can't be punished. Unless we push it waaaay too far, we can do anything we want within our own capabilities. It is a problem, as aanti-american as it soounds (I do love America) no country deserves that much power. With the combination of another cold war that could turn out differently with China, a new beginning in the Middle East and our country's bully tendencies, a polotician would have to simply say that becoming part of a world government, not United States enlarged, but have the United states a faction, putting restraints on our power, thye could sway many countries. POersuadfing the people would be as simple as, adding to the american dream, lubricating the machine. I know how flawed my little theary is, it's just what I think will happen, feel free to tear it apart, these types of things change every week in my head.
posted
Moozh, regarding your first point it ignores the main point of my previous argument. It is useless to discuss election reform when voter turnout is at the incredibly low level. When people argue about whether Gore or Bush really got the most votes, I have to laugh. The person who got the most votes was Noone. People who didn't bother to vote outnumber supporters of all candidates combined. Changing the election procecures won't change that.
As for taxation, I agree generally with your comments. My main objection is to your oversimplification of the Republican and Democrat positions on the subject. Everyone but anarchists will agree taxes of some kind are nessicary, if only to pay the president's salary. At the risk of getting onto a side tangent, there could definately be a lot of improvement in effective use of taxes; NASA has sent several probes to Mars now, and if my memory is serving me correctly each mission cost less than one fighter plane. Ignoring the much more complicated debate about the nessicity of war, I find it impossible to believe that it has to be as expensive as it is. There seems to be something hypocricical in saying "We believe in this issue so strongly, we will kill a lot of people to promote out side. But we don't believe in it strongly enough to allow our own troops to be in danger while they do all this killing, especially if an extra trillion dollars can reduce the risk from .3% to .2%"
Ahem. I seem to have gotten onto that tangent anyway. So I'll move on to your final comments and predictions about the position of America in the world now and in the future.
First, your predicted series of events certainly sounds plausible to me. That America will not hold it's position of disproportionate power will not last forever is as close to fact as anything in the future can be, and only ignorance of or willful disregard to history could allow anyone to think otherwise. That China appears set to take over the position when the time comes seems likely as well, though less certain; being on the verge of many technologies capable of reshaping the entire world make for a lot of unknown variables; for all we can really know, 150 years from now Mexico could be a superpower. It might seem like a funny idea to some people, but concider that American researchers pushing into hypothetical new territory of knowledge that is restricted by our government of the future might find the government of Mexico quite happy to have them.
Of course, that's just as much speculation, so I'm not really criticising your predictions, just trying to further illustrate the uncertainty you conceded yourself.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that our current system has its problems, most especially how we elect our president. But first in defense of the two party systems it is essentially for there to be two parties so that one group doesn't seize control, but I think that if there is more than two parties there would be too much discord to ever pass any laws. I heard alot of people complain, during the 2000 election that they were didn't really like either Bush or Gore and we've all heard of Clinton's proposal to end the term limits as long as the terms aren't consecutive.
I've always been partial to the British 'vote of confidence' idea. I think that once a president is elected he/she should keep the office until a member of Congress called for a vote of confidence (with in the congress) and that if the President loses there are six weeks until the next president must be elected and in office. This would cut down on the campaign price and time. As for the candidates themselves; the Congress should nominate six candidates from anyone who wants the job, at least on from each of the two main parties. Then the public votes in a majority wins election to see who wins. I think that having more choice will increase the quality of candidates, cause fewer close calls and inspire more people to vote because they are more likely to find a candidate who fits their opinions.
As for future world powers I vote for Brazil. It has a large portion of the world's population and a considerable amount of land. It is also a relativiely new democracy and like America a 100 years ago it is largely farming, logging, and fishing today, but given time it will grow in sophistication to take power just as America begins to fall. Who knows they may even help to push America over the edge when we begin to become too greedy and they react in the best interest of the world.
Posts: 349 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like all of your comments on the future of America. I thought now was a good time to interject some of my own ideas. I believe that economics is the foundation of every society. This must effect government. So my general belief is that the strongest nation, economically speaking, in a world wide view, will hold the super power status.
Just to digress, I never meant to say that I believed that the government needed to be changed, but like was said, improved. There is a natural evolutionary change in all human things and I wanted to know if, since we are the future, we had any ideas on what this evolutionary change might be
As for voting, taxes and the like: yes we need reform, but it goes deeper than that. Our government, the way it governs, changes little by little continuously. With new laws and acts of legislation, the scope of our government broadens and decreases. This will lead to a more perfect form of governing, in theory. Yes, I believe we have the most perfect, large-scale, practiced form of government there is.
We must discover ways to decrease the self-preservation in government and increase the "people politics" that will lead to the better society of the future. I want to add in some discussions that had come up in the Our Locke and our Locke forum threads. My new question is this(if anyone has an answer): what is the future of American and on a larger scal, world politics. What changes could be made to solve the current problems of world and more local governing? This is a big question and I know that we can't REALLY answer it, but we can have ideas and beliefs that can be used to create a better form of government. This is all theory, so we can't really be wrong so I encourage all posts. I fany of you have read Plato's Republic then I am looking for something like that. To, in essence, create our own form of government. Im a little crazy, but I think we can do it.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, I'd like to congradulate all participants on their general lack of party biases. Of course we will all be biased, but this is turning out to not be a mudslinging thread that ruined some other great ideas on this forum.
I was trying to be broad, there are millions of opinions, and I tried to sum them up in 2 sentances.
Parties are necissary, it provides growth, but their descisions shouldn't be so pivotal. We should once and for alll solve the major issues, create a permanant tax plan, that like other laws, can only be repealed by the Supreme Court. We should be scrimmaging over the small things, it just doesn't work on a huge scale. You can look at the Civil War, not that I think one is in our future, ever since the Constitution, 2 ideals survived, and they led to war. The south beleived the Constituion was a contract, and when the north didn't uphold their part, they had a right to break away, the north though it was the creating of a new entity out of newly freed contigants. They ignored the problem and it led to war.
It is disturbing to think about America's inevitable fall, but we can try to make something better out of it, we can learn from history. Just because human nature tells us to do one thing, doesnt mena we can't modify our methods with new information.
I think the major problem with America is we are all just too lazy. We live in a relativly easy world, we have fancy toys, and drinkable water. We can make forums etc. That was, dare I say, a plus in China's socialism, you needed to be SMART to succeed, and look whos on top of the technology front. In the beginning, we needed to be smart to survive, now we can survive, so evolution switches around priorities and we need to be attractive to mate, some things aren't problems. it's strange because these are our goals, but they are obviously counter productive. We are getting gradually dumber, and in current polotics there is nothing we can do about it. We have absolutly no chance of being part of a multipolar wolrd as a super power at the rate we are going. I know I am saying we need to change a problem instead of changing a government, but maybe changing things so that they are easier to fix these problems will help.
The fact is, we want to be forced to be better, but we don't want anyone forcing us, so conterversy arises, we need to fix that.
Posts: 103 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
I will restrict myself from the dozens of sideline comments I would like to make and say this. I think that a "meritocracy" is an impossibility and is in direct conflict with the open-market ("new frontiers") philosophy that seems to be driving the current administration.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll make a quick comment on the electoral college. It's an idea that looks wacky at face value but it does guard against some problems (which is why I suspect the founders put it that way). One, let's say that everyone in New York and California vote for Bush, and that in every other state, the race is much closer but that Gore wins every other state. who should win the election? Bush will win the popular vote by virtue of Cali and NY's populations but does that represent the nation? This set-up would also encourage more voter fraud (bribes, dead people, etc.) to pad your lead. Two, the way it worked in 2000, there was only a recount in Florida because it is the electoral votes that count. Imagine the chaos of a national recount because every individual vote matters. those are some quick points think about. For a more lengthy discussion, see Electoral College
posted
I see your point, but it is equally unfair for a candidate to get more votes and still loose. If Gore got less votes, he shouldn't be president (In your scenario), the presidents job is to please and govern the people, not the states the people are in. How do you expect to make people vote if thousands upon thousands of votes get lost in the shuffle.
Posts: 103 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I see your point, but it is equally unfair for a candidate to get more votes and still loose
Why? Gore didn't get a majority, he only got a plurality. Which means that the majority of Americans (who voted) do not want Gore. Obviously the same reasoning applies to Bush, but let's carry the scenario to its conclusion. Without the electoral college, I believe that fragmentation would occur with three or more parties getting in on the action, which could lead to an election where the leading vote getter garners 20 % of the vote. What is done then? Really, for a much better explanation of my position, see the link I posted a thread ago.
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me add one more thing. I understand that the president's job is to govern, help, please, whatever, the people, not the states the people are in. But that comment supports MY position, not yours. In my previous scenario, the winner (by a landslide) in NY and Cali. wins the popular vote overall. But he loses the popular vote in 48 of 50 states. Does that sound unfair? It's like a team going 2-48 but scoring more total points over the season than the other team (because the two wins were so one sided), then being declared the champion.
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you completely on the efficiency of the Electoral College(or collage, I can never remember), it's the, for lack of a better word, morality of it. It's not the states or districts that are supposed to be voting for the president, so 48-2 should just be an extra little statistic. If more people want one candidate, then that candidate should win (assuming they all vote). We don't have a great enough voting percent to worry about more democrats or more republicans. If more people in california and new York decide to vote, than good for them, they deserve a president who will stand up for them, if people in the other states don't vote, they have no right to complain. At riosk of sounding redundant, the presidents job is to act for the good of the country, which in most normal cases is what the majority of the country wants, so the person with the suport of the majority ofthe voting citizens deserves presidency, regardless of the state and district governments. We need a system as efficient as the Electoral College that allows for the candidate with the most support to win.
Posts: 103 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
what should we do about the tax problem? i've always thought a % would be best, everyone everywhere pays 20 % (I wouldn't want it to be that high but it's still less than i pay now) I kind like the idea that richer people pay a higher percentage especially when those rich ppl like willy gates has a net worth of 1% of all america's money, he should be paying a hell of a lot more than 20% because there's just no way he's going to spend all that money, at the same time if i were him i'd be saying: hey! I earned it!
If NY and Cali have the highest populations then they represent a national majority and should decide the countries leader, if the 1 million ppl of NH (where i live) have a problem with that then tough because there's more ppl on the other side. But i understand your point about recounts.
A vote of confidence would be a disaster, it'd be so easy to keep yourself in office through entrapment and such methods.
posted
Actually, I'm assuming everyone in every state votes. If everyone in the entire U.S. voted and my scenario happened, NY and CAli would swing the election for the canidate who had less overall support. He merely had more support in two isolated regions. Is everyone clear on the math here? For example: If there are only 5 states, and it goes like this---State 1: Bush 53 Gore 47, State 2: Bush 53 Gore 47, State 3: Bush 53 Gore 47, State 4: Bush 53 Gore 47, State 5: Bush 37 Gore 63. What are the overall total of votes? Bush 249 Gore 251. So Gore was the "people's choice" in only 1 of 5 states, yet managed to win the popular vote because of a landslide victory. The Electoral College helps defeat this kind of regionalism. Are we clear what I mean?
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get your point now, except there's one problem. In all the other states, Gore still gets some votes, so he is still wanted in general, not no where but in an isolated area. (Or did I get that wrong again, oh well) It depends how you look at the problem, with percents, represent majority, I am right, Bush would represent the largest region and the largest faction of the population. Your lookign at the different needs of a region, Bush's polocies fit the 2 regions with th most voters, but no one elses veiw, so he shouldn't win. Both are good arguments, whose to say, but I still think that the President runs the WHOLE country, and thus things should be looked at as a WHOLE, beingn percents. Let's take a poll:
For or against the Electoral College? (Don't answer without getting good idea of both arguments, since we can control this voting area better, we can get rid of pesky biases easier.)
Posts: 103 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am against the Electoral College. The fact that only one state, in that example, has Gore with the majority, he has it OVER ALL. What does regionalism matter if he is more general accepted? We aren't supposed to be voting as states, the states don't elect the President. The people do. Indirectly or directly, its still the people. If more people want Gore then thats the way it should be. Thats our decision as citizens of this country.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously, I am for it. I think it removes a lot of headaches. I would quibble with the statement that the states aren't supposed to elect the President. We don't live in a direct democracy. It wasn't intended to be. The Electoral College prevents California from electing the President for the other 49 states.
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point was what adeimantus said, if he almost made it in several states and barely made it in one and wins then good because it's still a majority of citizens no matter where they live.
As long as city dwellers dont try to put all the taxes on the farmers then what's the difference?
In this case though i'm glad it's electoral because i still think gore's a pinhead. what's worse is that because so many people dont vote and only the pinheads vote, they vote other pinheads into office, it's my firm belief that if everyone in this nation voted then gore would've lost by a landslide rather than a techinicality.
Posts: 46 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I fully believe that if we get rid of the Electorial College that eventually the United States will have a second Civil War with 45 States demanding annexation of the other 5 States who seem to hold so much power based on numbers. In fact, before the Second Civil War there will be a general drop off of most voters because they will feel they don't belong to the majority. It is true that you will seemingly have a majority of votes for one Party, but that will be a false statistic and less and less people from the other Party feel they have a chance. And, after this and probably before the Second Civil War there will be in-state wars where people will physically attack those who vote for the majority of the larger states. In a word, the Electorial College is a prescription against the tyranny of the majority.
Actually, I think its heading down that direction anyway considering the great cultural divide in the nation.
Isn't it amazing how close these threads can cling to the original topic? It would be much better if people could stop being lead like lambs to the slaughter and start evolving their own discussions.
I think a Civil War is a little dirastic, but the Electoral College is still based on population, still giving unequal power, I'm not really sure if it would cause a greater imbalance to loose the Electoral College, but it probably wouldn't be that great.
Democracy is founded on the principal of majority, to call it tyranny jsut plain doesn't make sense
Posts: 103 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, Jettboy, thats powerful. Yeah JLcke, I find it humorous, but I agree Moozh, its just the general digression to a more irrielavent topic. Isn't that what we love here though? To debate and argue on things that we either don't fully understand or ideas that are intangible and have no firm description? Its human instinct. The only good arguement to be made is one the in indisputable because there is no right answer just the one thats less wrong. And sometimes thats pushing.
But, anyway, I digress. Jettboy, I don't think that the dissolution of Electoral College will ignite Civil War and I don't agree with your prophecy, but in the infamous words of McDonald's "Hey, It Could Happen" (The caps are reminiscent of Plemet.)
I don't think that the Electoral College is appropriate any more. If you would research the original purposes for it you would find that the two party system, though generally disapproved of by the Founders, removes the need for the Electoral College. The Founders believed:
1.The people couldn't elect a President directly because there would be many different candidates based on personal choice. (thats taken care of to a certain extent with the 2-party system.)
2. The states could not elect because then we'd have 50 different candidates and the most populated state would win every time. Also the states would control the President and his/her job would become to win the favor of the states.
3. Congress could not because they would control the Presidential candidates future and thus remove the balance of power. Like the states.
So there you have it. I believe the dissolution, though its unlikely it will happen until a drastic change, like a world government, would make the people feel more influential and would increase the voter turnout. Many people are discouraged from voting because they don't like the complications of the Electoral College and 'Florida'. Thats my rant.
Edit:Democracy is founded on people. People can create factions and thus Democracy can create a kind of tyranny, but I get what your saying.
posted
Actually i am for the electoral college because that is how the founders set it up to be. The president was supposed to be elected by an "elite" group (the electors) because the founders were afraid that the "ordinary" people were not educated enough to make such an important decision. That still seems to be true today. I think the last number i saw was only 12% of people are idealogues-those who actually vote based off of conclusions of what the candidates stand for(Angus Campbell's "American Voter" study reslts of 1956-1972). Most people (about 42%) vote based on how it benefits a certain group-such as unions voting for a particular candidate because that is what helps them. The other 2 ways people vote are "Nature of the Times" (24%) and those No Issue content is a high percentage of 22%-those voting based off of whether or not the president looks good. Yet from reading Russel Neuman's "Paradox of Mass Politics" i found it goes to explain that despite the lack of knowledge about politics in general and the lack of people who actually vote, the system still works. Even though the electoral college has faced some opposition lately because of recent events, i think for the most part...it still works...no use fixing something that isn't broken.
posted
Rackham, those numbers are all well and good, but I don't see the relevance to this debate. It is unlikely that anything about those percentages would change if the electoral college were abandoned, and without some sort of explanation your post doesnt say anything about why that means we should keep the system.
Some people will tell you that it is broken, if they didn't believe that, then this debate would not exist.
Just to play devils advocate: Yes, the founding fathers wanted the president to be elected by an "elite" group of electors because the common man couldn't do it. The common man was an uneducated farmer who knew nothing about politics. Add that into the slow methods of communication, and it would be nearly impossible for enough voters to understand what the candidates election would mean.
I think that our education system has progressed a bit since then. Now, unlike the past, most people can read and write. Since the advent of TV and radio, people can also hear and see what these presidential candidates stand for. And although I am always the last to admit that people are smart enough to choose for themselves (as I am forced to deal with stupidity every day) I believe that a direct voting system might be the better choice in this modern era. The reasons that the electoral college was ever invented are null and void. It worked very well for the beginnings of our country, but just like people, countries need to grow and progress. So maybe now is the time we should start thinking about abolishing it.
EDIT to say: I actually do believe in the electoral system. I was merely playing devils advocate and pointing out that your numbers have nothing to do with this debate. Unless of course you can tie them in, in which case I am sorry. I would be interested in seeing it though. --ApostleRadio
posted
The electoral college helps to give the smaller states a say in who the president is. Without this overrepresentation of the smaller states, cities like new york could basically wipe out the votes of some states. If we had a popular vote, the smaller states would be ignored. By having the electoral college, all the states can be given a chance to express their opinion.
Posts: 306 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But in a direct election, it isn't the states that matter, it's all the people together. Why should we vote by state at all? Shouldn't the most popular candidate for the whole country be the winner?
posted
Razor, it isn't about the states. Its about the people. That states don't even elect the President now, its still the people. The only problem is the popular vote does not always indicate the winner and the electoral college does not have to elect the candidate chosen in there state. There are state laws, but in most cases there can be misrepresentation. Its the people that are electing and if there is a direct vote it isn't the states its the people as a whole.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That make no sense, the electoral votes are based on population, it should be the same with the general public. Actually, none of our arguments make sense. The electoral college is like taking a massive math equation, and simplifying it as far as possible, no matter what, the values of x and y will alyways be the samefor the equation. Come to think of it, the only reason I am against the electoral college is because propanda campaigns say its bad, and it discourages voters. Actually, the only other flaw is if a prewsident gets the greater popular vote and still looses the election, I'm not sure how exactly that happens, fix that, and another propaganda campaign can be launched and there will be no flaw in the electoral college.
Posts: 103 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"no matter what, the values of x and y will alyways be the samefor the equation."
This last election shows that this is not the case, actually. There have, for that matter, been a few other cases in history when someone has won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote, thus losing the Presidency.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
One problem with saying that it is the people and not the states, and why do we even have states, is that we do not live this way. The issues important to Californians are not necessarily the same as the issues important to New Yorkers. Or North to South, for a more extreme example. The electoral college removes the opportunity of a populous state or region from overpowering the smaller states or regions with sheer numbers. Other wise, someone could campaign in New York, Cali., and Texas and effectively ignore the rest of the country and STILL win a national election based on popular vote.
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When was the last time we voted on a President because of benefits to a certain state?
Edit: they already do that, the ignoring the small states. The states don't have equal numbers of candidates, its equal to thhe amount of seats held in Congress, so your theory doesn't work.
posted
I think that all governments should be communist. No not like the Russians or in China. I mean to use it in the way that it should be used. The sharing of all the resources of any country for all the people to use. Not just the ones that can afford it but everyone. Sure that could hurt a country aconomically but I don't think it would have that great an effect. I know anyone could tweak it enough so that it would wokr and not trun inot a dictatroship. I hope I have not offended anyone.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
the problem with communism though-the way it should be-is that it can't be that way because people are selfish by nature. We all want more and strive to have more. People mostly work to benefit themselves in some way. Everyone sharing the same resources is a nice idea but with the way people are it just doesn't work.
Posts: 306 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the problem to everything is that 1. people as a whole wont give up something unless soemthing esle equally good or better can take its place. (Hence the unsovleable drug problem), and 2. we have nothign to give in most casxes that is better without creating more porblems.
Posts: 103 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
the only other problem is communism means to abolish capitalism. Thats the driving force of this country. and I agree that people would not accept the communism. There would be too much regulation and it would not a decade just to have America communized. I don't think thats what we need.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you are all right in saying that peopel are greedy by nature and won't give up what they have unless they can trade it in for something better. What if they believed that commuism was better than the system we already have? Wouldn't they then, based on human nature, want communism? Or if you called it something else making it seem like the greatest things since the fire wouldn't they all buy into?
Posts: 3 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
