So now I don't get a vote?

[Alex]

We're a republic that selects its representatives through democratic means (it is entirely possible to be non-democratic republic).

Jazzman, you could be right. And like I said it is a matter of prioritization, not absolutes. However, if our modern technological society truly has conquered the problems I see that support something like the electoral college then I would say it is too soon to know for sure and therefore too soon to toss it based solely on that hope.

However, I don't know that I agree with the assumptions in your premise. I don't know that people are more informed now than in the past, though I do agree that they have the ability to be more informed and likely are much more informed on topics of specific narrow interest. And even if better informed I don't know that it would have the impact you expect. History pretty much demonstrates that the capacity of unimpacted people to express outrage at the slighting of others is pretty limited.

Besides, if Person A in Minnesota is going to be outraged at the insult to Coloradoans because maybe you'll insult them too, then Person B in Miami is just as likely to approve because maybe it is safe to assume that this candidate will reliably put the interests of urban development above the interests of mangrove swamps.

Maybe we've been taught to think globally for years but I don't see much sign that many actually do so.

[sleepyjeff]

For those who say we don't need the electoral college I ask why not take it to the next level?

Why not just have the Senate comprised of the 100 top vote getters? Sure, about 75 of them would probably be from either New York or California, but at least Democracy would rule out.

Why not do the same with Congress? Sure, we wouldn't have reps from states like Oregon or Montana anymore....too bad. The people who live in those states will just have to trust to democracy and good will that they will be treated fairly by their new reps whose true constinuents reside in Americas 6 or 7 largest cities.

[Alex]

It's not an unreasonable position to say that at least one branch of the federal government should be directly elected by the consensus will of the nation. And if so, then the presidency is the obvious candidate since no matter what you ultimately end up with just one person who can't realistically represent multiple viewpoints on the same issue.

An it isn't inconsistent to not extend this to every branch.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

It is not splitting hairs, in this particular conversation, to be specific about a "democracy" vs a "republic".

Originally Posted by Jazzman

If a candidate were to do that in today's society of instant news coverage and independent blogs, his promise to L.A. would go out over the airwaves and most likely piss off more than just the Coloradoans (Is that how you collectively refer to Colorado residents?) since everyone nowadays has an opinion on everything.

While I do know that people hear more and more about what goes on in far corners of the country, I would never believe that we hear of one-quarter the shenanigans that go on. Add in that there are plenty that I hear about and really don't care about. We hear all the time about politicians favoring one group over another, be they geographic, racial, or monetary in nature, and is anyone a) surprised or b) up in arms about it?

Anyway, on the topic at hand - I can't say I love the electoral college, but I'm sure that if the current generation of representatives changed the Constitution we'd fvck it all up.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

A "true democracy" has all of the affected persons (you and I) voting on each and every issue that comes to hand - a logistically impossible scenario in all but the smallest of entities.

The fact remains that we are not a true democracy, so to claim that having a representative process for electing the President is somehow anathema to our system of government is ignoring the fact that there is almost no part of our government that acts on a directly democratic vote. It is not antithetical to what we use democracy for. It may very well be that a democratically elected President is a good idea, but, "It's undemocratic to do it otherwise" is an argument that doesn't hold much water.

[dlrp_bopazot]

Here in France we'll have our presidantial Elections at the end of the month .

[Tramspotter]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

Smilie aside, this is a stupid and inane post.

No I won't go smile outside!

And yur teh stupid! Talkin all gay n' stuff. Go to starbucks and get yerself er taken care of or something. And like talk normal and junk. so like where's your barcode you should get scanned for jerkyness and what not.

[sleepyjeff]

Am I missing something?

[Tramspotter]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Am I missing something?

Apparently you and it would seem KB haven't seen Mike Judge's Idiocracy.

[innerSpaceman]

Not many people have.



I've seen it, and I didn't like it well enough to recognize the reference. Sorry, Tramspotter, but your quotidigitation of Idiocracy idiosynchracies does not differ enough from your own confusaspeech to have been generally attributed to a foreign source outside your own brain.

Best to remember to attribute weird style choices to their source, lest someone around here takes them as fightin' words.




.