Tweet
Judo Guy said,
"No, I think that your statements that there are no geographical considerations are ridiculous. Any reading of an almanac will tell you that there are large differences in regional economies, resources, etc. These things have a heavy impact on voting considerations of the electorate. Besides, every person semiliterate on our political structure understands that the union is a federation of 50 sovereign states."
RESPONSE:
LOL, no, what's ridiculous is your misinterpretation of what I said
I did not say there weren't different economies in different locations. What I said was they should not get an extra "spin" via the electorate for being different and small. If certain locales represent a small percentage, then they are at the mercy of being considered by the larger percentage. Yes, I realize there are fifty so-called "states." But what matters within each state are the PERSONS within; the actual land or geography is meaningless. And each PERSON in each state should get one vote, and then all votes get tallied to produce a TRUE result. An electoal college sometimes makes one vote many, or many not even one, and as such is a fraudulent result.
Judo Guy said,
"Again your statement about a majority of the people having spoke is ridiculous. There has been no majority of the people electing a president in the last 3 elections. 57 percent of the people voted against Bill Clinton in 1992. There has been a plurality. Bill Clinton ran his presidency with far fewer votes and percentage than either Gore or Bush. Was his presidency a sham? Not in my opinion."
RESPONSE:
Why is it ridiculous? It would merely be the TRUE result of an election, not a doctored result. And, yes, Bill Clinton and everything surrounding him is/was/and always will be a sham.
Judo Guy said,
"Now it is conceivable under a popular vote that we could have numerous 3rd parties that fragment the vote until the winning candidate has the favor of only a small percentage of the population. How does that benefit the people? I don't think it does. Ross Perot a third party candidate collected 19 percent of the vote in 1992 but 0 electoral votes. The electoral college is a safeguard against mischief that can be created by 3rd parties."
RESPONSE:
Why is it mischief to have a 3rd party? A 3rd party would bring in vitality - maybe even make an existing party obsolete eventually. It has happened in the past, has it not? This is called EVOLUTION. The electoral college ensures stagnation. You can call the electoral college a "a safeguard against mischief" if you want, but in reality it is a roadblock to change ... and to the possibility of better leadership via new views.
Judo Guy said,
"But this debate has come down to nitpicking on the pros and cons of both systems of voting. I take for granted that the electoral college is not perfect. I take for granted that the popular vote is not perfect. When I weigh all the considerations in my mind, I still prefer the electoral college which is really nothing more than a popular vote being honored in 50 different sovereignities."
RESPONSE:
All debates are merely nitpicking pros and cons, are they not? What you take for granted with the electoral college is what I take seriously as its rending asunder the possibility for progression into a better tomorrow. The electoral college insures the boring stagnation of "status quo" between the two parties and prevents the possibility, really the need, for both the Will of the People being accurately represented ... as well as the bringing in of new blood into the political arena.
[Edited by Pit Dog on 11-11-2000 at 06:23 PM]
"No, I think that your statements that there are no geographical considerations are ridiculous. Any reading of an almanac will tell you that there are large differences in regional economies, resources, etc. These things have a heavy impact on voting considerations of the electorate. Besides, every person semiliterate on our political structure understands that the union is a federation of 50 sovereign states."
RESPONSE:
LOL, no, what's ridiculous is your misinterpretation of what I said
I did not say there weren't different economies in different locations. What I said was they should not get an extra "spin" via the electorate for being different and small. If certain locales represent a small percentage, then they are at the mercy of being considered by the larger percentage. Yes, I realize there are fifty so-called "states." But what matters within each state are the PERSONS within; the actual land or geography is meaningless. And each PERSON in each state should get one vote, and then all votes get tallied to produce a TRUE result. An electoal college sometimes makes one vote many, or many not even one, and as such is a fraudulent result.Judo Guy said,
"Again your statement about a majority of the people having spoke is ridiculous. There has been no majority of the people electing a president in the last 3 elections. 57 percent of the people voted against Bill Clinton in 1992. There has been a plurality. Bill Clinton ran his presidency with far fewer votes and percentage than either Gore or Bush. Was his presidency a sham? Not in my opinion."
RESPONSE:
Why is it ridiculous? It would merely be the TRUE result of an election, not a doctored result. And, yes, Bill Clinton and everything surrounding him is/was/and always will be a sham.
Judo Guy said,
"Now it is conceivable under a popular vote that we could have numerous 3rd parties that fragment the vote until the winning candidate has the favor of only a small percentage of the population. How does that benefit the people? I don't think it does. Ross Perot a third party candidate collected 19 percent of the vote in 1992 but 0 electoral votes. The electoral college is a safeguard against mischief that can be created by 3rd parties."
RESPONSE:
Why is it mischief to have a 3rd party? A 3rd party would bring in vitality - maybe even make an existing party obsolete eventually. It has happened in the past, has it not? This is called EVOLUTION. The electoral college ensures stagnation. You can call the electoral college a "a safeguard against mischief" if you want, but in reality it is a roadblock to change ... and to the possibility of better leadership via new views.
Judo Guy said,
"But this debate has come down to nitpicking on the pros and cons of both systems of voting. I take for granted that the electoral college is not perfect. I take for granted that the popular vote is not perfect. When I weigh all the considerations in my mind, I still prefer the electoral college which is really nothing more than a popular vote being honored in 50 different sovereignities."
RESPONSE:
All debates are merely nitpicking pros and cons, are they not? What you take for granted with the electoral college is what I take seriously as its rending asunder the possibility for progression into a better tomorrow. The electoral college insures the boring stagnation of "status quo" between the two parties and prevents the possibility, really the need, for both the Will of the People being accurately represented ... as well as the bringing in of new blood into the political arena.
[Edited by Pit Dog on 11-11-2000 at 06:23 PM]
Comment