Europe, are you nuts?

Yep...everyone should read Scott J's post, it is a great summary of the value of the electoral college.

 

I do, but only if I can keep my French nationality as well - I would have been able to vote against Bush.

Corinne

 

What you have is more like a dictature. The electoral college is a mockery. It worked fine when you had to ride a horse to transport results of votes, but nowadays, it desserves democracy. </font>[/QUOTE] NO! Absolutely, positively not!

We have a form of government that by design protects rights rather than promoting majority opinion. I don't want a democracy. I like my rights and my freedoms that remain and am very interested in restoring those that have been diminished. I am not interested in having a system where crooked, liberal (in the American, not classic sense) politicians can garner 50.00000001% then deny my rights.

The 20th century saw the protection of rights break down to an extent as secularization, democratization, and populism undermined the American ideal of what constitutes a "right". Judicial activism was the vehicle used to circumvent what was an intentionally difficult process of changing our Constitution.

We have a "dictature". That's a joke. Even with a Republican majority in Congress and President Bush, sweeping changes are not all that likely. Our system is intentionally deliberate and slow. If the people continue to vote conservatives into office, we may see significant change in 10 or 20 years.

Bush is far from having dictatorial powers. For one, the Dems are motivated by a white hot hatred of him and are watching for any slip. Second, most of the national political media in America (something like 90%) are liberal Democrats. Bush has not and will not get a free ride.

The electoral college isn't a product of transportation limitations. The electoral college ensures that the citizens of every state have a say in who gets to be President.

If it were purely democratic then only the concerns and desires of the people of NY, California, Texas, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvannia would be considered important since that is where the greatest concentrations of votes can be found. Under the electoral college, the rights and concerns of North Dakota, Alaska, New Mexico, Montana, and the other low population states count. </font>[/QUOTE]Well it is interesting to note that the most populated areas in the US are blue (democrats) and the less populated ones are red (republicans). And typical of a conservative to want a minority of the population to hold the majority hostage to its wishes. That is why the electoral college still exists. Were it not there, conservatives would have a much tougher time electing their Presidents.

Corinne

 

Europeans understand quite well the electoral college, we are not daft. It is not that complicated. What we do not understand is why you have kept this prehistoric way of electing your president. Why not have a direct popular vote and find out who has the majority of votes, once and for all. It looks scandalous to us to have the ballots you have, with dozens of names and elections all on the same piece of paper (when lucky enough to not have a Diebold voting machine without a paper trail). Arrows not even pointing at the name of the candidate? Hanging chads? Voting machines manufactured by conservative sympathizers? Felons lists?

Banana republic methods.

Corinne

 

I suspect that if Iran had the nuclear bomb, it would contemplate nuking the US long before contemplating nuking France. Just a feeling I have.

Frankly, the US need Europe as much as Europe needs the US, that is why we are allies. Allow Iran to nuke Europe and they will nuke everyone. all it takes is a few unchecked containers in a few unprotected american harbours.

Corinne

 

CMG
"Europeans will always attack the American republic"
"
My country was already a republic when the USA was simply another British colony.

 

"Europeans understand quite well the electoral college, we are not daft. It is not that complicated. What we do not understand is why you have kept this prehistoric way of electing your president. Why not have a direct popular vote and find out who has the majority of votes, once and for all. It looks scandalous to us to have the ballots you have, with dozens of names and elections all on the same piece of paper (when lucky enough to not have a Diebold voting machine without a paper trail). Arrows not even pointing at the name of the candidate? Hanging chads? Voting machines manufactured by conservative sympathizers? Felons lists?

"Banana republic methods."

Corinne, if you understand the electoral college so well, why do you complain that it is undemocratic when we have a republic here and not a democracy? Read what Scott J. wrote above.

By the way, Bush also had a popular majority so the issue does not apply to him.

 

This time. But, Corinne, I know you are French but you live in the UK and those of us here should not be so quick to accuse the Americans of being undemocratic (even though CMG and Scott seem to view this as a compliment!) where we have an arguably-less democratic system whereby if your party gets 40% of the vote at a General Election then you get to be Prime Minister. It's called 'First Past the Post' (similar to 'Winner Takes All' in the States), in case you were wondering.

No, if it's democracy you want, there's no need to abolish the Electoral College and thus break the link between the Presidential Election and the individual States; all you (and we in the UK) need do is get rid of the 'Winner Takes All' system ie: if Bush got 51% of Florida's vote and Kerry the other 49%, they would have got 15 and 14 respectively of the 29(?)Electoral College places for that State

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I complain because Bush always talks about democracy and how it is best for everyone. So you have a republic? Well, what is he talking about then? Explain that to me. The US is a republic and wants to impose "democracy" in foreign parts of the world? Er.... explain that too.

I complain because to me, the concept of a republic does not work if you do not also have a democracy where the majority decides and the minority accepts the decision of the majority.

Corinne

 

Ah, the Founding Fathers took in part their inspiration from the Roman Republic, not Greek democracy,as did the French under Napoleon, to a degree; neither were particularly what we today would call 'democratic'.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

This time. But, Corinne, I know you are French but you live in the UK and those of us here should not be so quick to accuse the Americans of being undemocratic (even though CMG and Scott seem to view this as a compliment!) where we have an arguably-less democratic system whereby if your party gets 40% of the vote at a General Election then you get to be Prime Minister. It's called 'First Past the Post' (similar to 'Winner Takes All' in the States), in case you were wondering.

No, if it's democracy you want, there's no need to abolish the Electoral College and thus break the link between the Presidential Election and the individual States; all you (and we in the UK) need do is get rid of the 'Winner Takes All' system ie: if Bush got 51% of Florida's vote and Kerry the other 49%, they would have got 15 and 14 respectively of the 29(?)Electoral College places for that State

Yours in Christ

Matt </font>[/QUOTE]Hi Matt

Well I happen to disagree completely with the way the English elect their Prime Minister. Being French I am used to (and quite like) voting for a man, rather than letting Parliament decide for me who is worthy of the job. In France, anybody can be candidate to the presidency. You only need to gather 500 mayoral signatures and you are on the ballot for the first round. You are almost certainly going to get creamed, but being on the ballot means you will be able to express yourself as much as the most valuable candidates. You will have the same amount of free media time as them, even if only 600 people are going to vote for you. If America had such a system (and the UK for that matter), you would hear different ringtones, something which is always good in a democracy, or in a republic.

Corinne

 

Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).

France is also a republic, in which democracy is exercised. We value individual freedom but we also value national solidarity (which requires a democracy).

Corinne

 

Europeans understand quite well the electoral college, we are not daft. It is not that complicated. What we do not understand is why you have kept this prehistoric way of electing your president. Why not have a direct popular vote and find out who has the majority of votes, once and for all. It looks scandalous to us to have the ballots you have, with dozens of names and elections all on the same piece of paper (when lucky enough to not have a Diebold voting machine without a paper trail). Arrows not even pointing at the name of the candidate? Hanging chads? Voting machines manufactured by conservative sympathizers? Felons lists?

Banana republic methods.

Corinne </font>[/QUOTE]Nobody said you were daft. I still don't think you truly understand it any more that I understand proportional voting in Ireland.

If you did you would not insult it by calling it "banana republic methods."

Your insults are are stinging as the American insults you take such offense to.

 

The popular misuse of the term democracy to apply to the American republic is now worldwide. When Bush speaks of bringing democracy to other nations, he means getting rid of unelected governments and replacing them with elected governments.

That use of the term does not mean that the USA does not have a republic. In a republic, I have representatives who look out after my interests. I elect these representatives at various times. The electoral college issue really is not an issue at all because almost every time that a candidate has a majority of the popular vote, he also has a majority in the electoral college.

The idea that big American cities should rule the nation is wrong. The big cities have a lower standard of living and are unable to exist without high taxes and handouts from Washington DC.

 

I think you'll find that the most urbanized states contribute most of the tax money that supports services in other states.

You have it backwards.

 

Sigh... the confusion is deafening in here.

I was just visiting England, and I thought it was quite nice.

 

Jesus, what is wrong with the statement that abortion is murder of the unborn child?

 

He isn't Jesus.

 

I think if you look at the "red" counties as opposed to the "blue" counties you will find that your the point you are trying to imply does not hold water.

BTW, I am interested in the statistics that back up your claim. Do you have a link?

You also avoided the crux of CMG's point. While more populous states may contribute more in taxes, it is very doubtful that the residents of our nations cities pay as much per capita as those outside of cities.

Take away the votes of the top two cities in every state that Kerry won and Bush would have probably won all of them except maybe Vermont. He would have been competitive in Massachusetts.

 

I think if you look at the "red" counties as opposed to the "blue" counties you will find that your the point you are trying to imply does not hold water.

BTW, I am interested in the statistics that back up your claim. Do you have a link?

You also avoided the crux of CMG's point. While more populous states may contribute more in taxes, it is very doubtful that the residents of our nations cities pay as much per capita as those outside of cities.

Take away the votes of the top two cities in every state that Kerry won and Bush would have probably won all of them except maybe Vermont. He would have been competitive in Massachusetts. </font>[/QUOTE]I think the point was that traditionally conservatives score better in small populated areas than large cities. Election 2004 proved that point - again.

Corinne