Re: The Electoral "College" and combinatorics
From: Nora Baron (norabaron_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/28/04
- Next message: David Feuer: "Re: uncountable product of discrete two-point spaces"
- Previous message: The Last Danish Pastry: "Re: pimes"
- In reply to: Bart Goddard: "Re: The Electoral "College" and combinatorics"
- Next in thread: Bart Goddard: "Re: The Electoral "College" and combinatorics"
- Reply: Bart Goddard: "Re: The Electoral "College" and combinatorics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 28 Jul 2004 09:58:28 -0700
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<Xns95337FC29F5E8goddardb@129.250.170.88>...
> Nora Baron wrote:
>
>> It's an illogical, archaic system and it has flouted the will of
>> the people
>
>It is not true that it is "illogical".
See below.
>There are very sound
>reasons for using it. You might make a case that the sound
>reasons are archaic, but that, too, is snobbery.
How do you know until the case is made? Are you
telepathic?
>(Instead
>of the elitism you complained about, you have instead a
>chronological snobbery where we think we're so much more
>clever and insightful in the 21st century then folks were
>200 years ago. An assertion I doubt.)
I didn't assert it and don't assert it. You asserted it
on my behalf. We do however know some things that folks 200 years
ago did not. We know that this system has elected presidents who
were not favored by a plurality of the voters. That is not cleverness
or insightfulness; it is just empirical data that they did not have.
>
>
>"The will of the people" is not always "majority gets its way."
>What the people want is for elected officials to be more informed
>than the average guy and to make decisions based upon that
>superior information. When we elect someone, we're saying
>"please go study the issues and make choices that benefit us."
>
Right. We have a representative democracy, not a true
democracy. I don't argue with that and cheerfully vote
for Senators and Representatives about whom I know something.
However, I know nothing about members of the Electoral
College. In no sense do I choose them individually. Further,
when I vote for a Senator or a Representative,they are in part
specifically representing my state in the national
legislature. When I vote for President, I intend that he
represents my *country*, perhaps even against the narrow
interests of my state. People that I vote for in general must
take responsibility for what they do, with the only exceptions
being the members of the Electoral College.
>
>The "tyranny of the majority" is something to be avoided, and
>the framers of the Constitution knew it.
*All* tyranny is to be avoided presumably. But the Electoral
College opens up the possibility of a tyranny of the minority.
Why is that preferable?
>California, with all
>of its referendums which are so easily put on the ballot is
>a case study. If it's easy to have votes on things, AND the
>majority always gets its way, then silly things happen:
>
>1. Let's get a referendum going to raise minimum wage to
>$100/hour. Such a thing would surely pass.
It would not! In places that have referendum powers now it
has not happened or come within miles of happening.
>And would
>surely cause horrible inflation if it did not completely
>destroy our economy.
>
You must think the electorate is a pack of idiots.
>2. Likewise, we could vote away our taxes. (CA being an
>example.) We're all for that, but what a disaster.
>
You may be all for that. I am not. Even California, oddly
enough, has *not* voted away its taxes.
>3. If the "will of the people" is that all blondes become
>indentures slaves, then should it happen?
>
You illustrate what I like about a representative democracy.
We cannot all micromanage government. That does not mean that
when I vote for Mr. X, I prefer that some unknown intermediate
is chosen to hopefully vote for me. That is carrying representative
government to a second level. If that is what you prefer,
why not carry it to third, fourth or fifth levels? Why vote
for anyone directly? Why not always vote for intermediates who
I do not know and have themselves been selected by a back-room
process and do not take responsibility for what they decide?
>The majority does not get to override the Constitution, and
>for good reason. We are not a country of "majority rule",
>but of "constitution rule." And thank God.
>
'God' thankfully does not appear in the Constitution,
at least not yet. The USSR too was not a country of "majority
rule", but rather of rule by a party elite, probably in
perfectly good agreement with their constitution or its
equivalent. The point being, "constitutional rule" is not good
in itself - not good in particular unless you have a good
constitution. Ours is good, but not perfect; the Founding
Fathers were wise, but not infinitely so. That's why we have
Amendments.
>The checks and balances here are that candidates have to
>please the people to stay in power.
That aspect of checks and balances would not be weakened if
the Electoral College were eliminated. So your point is ...
>The people can't have
>zero taxes AND the roads fixed at the same time, no matter
>how much they vote to change the economy. But if the "ins"
>don't upset them too much and the garbage gets picked up,
>then the "ins" stay "in".
>
Again, you are just providing support for the idea of a
representative democracy, which I think is a very practical
compromise between anarchy, total gridlock, micromanaging and
dictatorship. But the Electoral College is not consistent with
it. Suppose you voted for legislators without being able to know
anything about them except that they were selected by party officials.
Suppose they are elected to cast one vote, and then leave office.
Suppose you never even know who they are, but you delegate to
them the entire responsibility for choosing a President. Tell
me that's *logical*.
One last question on this - if the Electoral College were not
already in place, would you have favored an Amendment to include
it?
Nora B.
>Bart
- Next message: David Feuer: "Re: uncountable product of discrete two-point spaces"
- Previous message: The Last Danish Pastry: "Re: pimes"
- In reply to: Bart Goddard: "Re: The Electoral "College" and combinatorics"
- Next in thread: Bart Goddard: "Re: The Electoral "College" and combinatorics"
- Reply: Bart Goddard: "Re: The Electoral "College" and combinatorics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
