Silent_One
Newcomer
And what does belong in a "modern" nation? I offen wonder what you consider to be "better".
You're an American if..
- Thread starter Himself
- Start date
And what does belong in a "modern" nation? I offen wonder what you consider to be "better".
CosmoKramer
Newcomer
Silent_One said:
I'm pretty sure that no other western nation (federal or not) has institutionalized arbitrary (as in the electoral college members not necessarily following the popular vote in their states) filters for choosing their leaders.
I find myself thinking about Turkey where there is a military council that must approve of the civil government's decisions. Nasty.
The filter is no more of a disgrace than a Senator going against the wishes of the voters. We have a republic to stop the tyranny of the majority. The filter is there in case something really bad happens in an election. The fact that people can even vote directly for the president or senators is a privelege, it's not covered by the constitution, and used to be handled by appointment. Direct election of senators didn't happen until the 17th amendment.
Unlike the comparison of Turkey, if people disagree with the electors, then they can kick out the local state legislature, punish the governor, or his politcal party next state election.
The election of the US president is not really different than the presidency of the EU (all of EU can't vote for single EU president in general election, merely appointed by rotation or some other rule), or representatives at the UN. And this is because historically the US was a federation of independant STATES. The civil war changed this and radically strengthened the federal government to the point that people now view the US as a state, and individual states as mere provinces.
We still have a senate and electoral college because of our history and we still have the 10th amendment as well, because fundamentally, Americans want their states to be free so that they have a real non-homogenous choice in where to live.
If I want to live freer in a gun-friendly society with lower taxes, I go to Texas. If I want to live in a socialist state, I go to California.
I don't all ths states harmonized anymore than I sure British don't want all of their unique laws harmonized with the EU. They want there to be differences.
Unlike the comparison of Turkey, if people disagree with the electors, then they can kick out the local state legislature, punish the governor, or his politcal party next state election.
The election of the US president is not really different than the presidency of the EU (all of EU can't vote for single EU president in general election, merely appointed by rotation or some other rule), or representatives at the UN. And this is because historically the US was a federation of independant STATES. The civil war changed this and radically strengthened the federal government to the point that people now view the US as a state, and individual states as mere provinces.
We still have a senate and electoral college because of our history and we still have the 10th amendment as well, because fundamentally, Americans want their states to be free so that they have a real non-homogenous choice in where to live.
If I want to live freer in a gun-friendly society with lower taxes, I go to Texas. If I want to live in a socialist state, I go to California.
I don't all ths states harmonized anymore than I sure British don't want all of their unique laws harmonized with the EU. They want there to be differences.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
DemoCoder said:
It really is a shame that more people don't understand this.
CosmoKramer
Newcomer
Joe DeFuria said:
I can guarantee that this concept is very easy for the vast majority to understand.
The problem is that you don't understand that an electoral college is not in any way needed to protect the sovereignty of the states. An electoral college is not needed for the weighting system. Think about that.
No, I want to live in a state with great weather all year around and with the diversity level that I desire. I could live elsewhere much richer. I just bought an $800,000 house that would have cost me $300,000 in other parts of the US.
California was a state where people went to pursue their dreams, so alot of entrepreneurs ended up here. Now they appear to be leaving.
California was a state where people went to pursue their dreams, so alot of entrepreneurs ended up here. Now they appear to be leaving.
DemoCoder said:
Sounds like a bunch of suckers are staying
Forbidden Donut
Newcomer
Himself said:You're an American if..
7. You always talk about pizza and politics.
Or rant about politics after having a bit to drink...I'm guilty of that
Exactly Legion... the ongoing missperception of what makes a good environment for investment has been generalized in the political discourse in America... Taxes rarely get in the top 5 of reasons for Canadian and US corporations that were asked the main reasons for being in business up here.
The problem with these countries like China for instance that are going half way on matter is that they leave open the possibility for left wing economic policies. [analogy]Sure I will do business in your mall but I will keep my bags packed and my hand on the door to get the heck out ASAP if you come in with taxes, interventionist policy, guns or whatever to take what is mine.[/analogy] In a way the US by resisting leaning left on economic and social policies is giving them a place to go. Now in my books that just makes good sense and it ensures a degree of success.
CosmoKramer said:
The electoral college system exists for two reasons:
#1 When the constitution was created, people were citizens of STATES, not "The United States". They voted for their local legislature and governor only. It was then the state government's job to appoint senators and electors to Washington, the same way we appoint ambassadors today, or the EU states appoint members to the European Commission.
The founders had a deep distrust of the people direct appointing a man with so much power vested in him. They wanted a more reflective, deliberative body, influenced by the public will, but not immediately and continuously accountable to it.
Thus, one function of the electoral college is to make the Presidency a deliberation among legislators, and not a popularity content. Popularity contests are what elects dictators and populists.
#2 The second function is to guard against "factionalism", especially regional factionalism. The founders were concerned that politicians obtaining power by simple majority could go against the general will of all. For example, without the electoral college, a president could be elected by simply paying attention to the residents of a few US states, or say, campaining in thee South and ignoring the North.
A direct popular vote makes it possible, due purely to chance geographic distribution, that a president could totally ignore the local needs and views of people in certain areas of the country.
This has a moderating factor on politicans. Rather than say "We're banning all guns" and piss off everyone in the south, or "we're not touching the 2nd amendment" and thus pissing off everyone in the North, Presidents have to balance the differing viewpoints and offer gradual policies that don't polarize the country.
The electoral college increases the chances that the President will visit and cater to weaker states. No matter what, the president would visit California and Texas and New York, but would they bother with Maryland?
California has 7 times the population of Maryland, but only 5.4 times the electoral college votes. Rhode Island has a population of 1 million. That's 35 times the population, but their electoral advantage is only 13.5.
Is the electoral college the only way of "weighting"? No, you could simply multiple each vote that comes from Rhode Island by 13.5 to balance Rhode Island voters identically with Californians for example (but this is too far)
On the other hand, the popular vote does not ensure that the president will visit Rhode Island, because it's not a winner take all, so he doesn't have to lose everything if he ignores the state. Moreover, the direct popular vote makes the presidency into a mere popularity contest. There is no possibility of invalidating a candidate that the majority picked.
Direct Democracy is a recipe for tyranny and instability, and Californians are already starting to feel the effects. (looks like we won't have a governor soon, and we just elected him!)
CosmoKramer
Newcomer
[sarcasm]So the premier reason for this arbitrary filter called "electoral college" is that the people can't be trusted. After all, even the unemployed 18 year olds get to vote. [/sarcasm]
Other countries manage without this arbitrary filter and uses their constitutions to prevent dictators from getting power...
Furthermore, Mr DemoCoder, what exactly prevents members of the electoral college from being not easily influenced by (potentially) harmful interests? That was a rhetorical question.
I see no point continuing this discussion. Mr DemoCoder has shown that the argument boils down to whether the people can be trusted or not. Clearly, such views are only held by a special kind of people, the kind of people I will never see eye to eye with.
Other countries manage without this arbitrary filter and uses their constitutions to prevent dictators from getting power...
Furthermore, Mr DemoCoder, what exactly prevents members of the electoral college from being not easily influenced by (potentially) harmful interests? That was a rhetorical question.
I see no point continuing this discussion. Mr DemoCoder has shown that the argument boils down to whether the people can be trusted or not. Clearly, such views are only held by a special kind of people, the kind of people I will never see eye to eye with.
Legion the socio economic structure is part of it. Heck one interview with CEO AT&T Canada said so. He even frustrated the Alliance Neo Con who was there who was trying to impress our 'high taxes' and overly 'socialist system' what might have kept the company from making more investments in the country. The CEO never once blinked. Taxes and the social infrastructure wasnt part of his equation. Canada was a wealthy country and simply a good place to do business he said.
Social stability and health of the local market is affected by the health and educational level of the societies citizens whic is directly linked to the social infrastructure. We live a bit longer because we have more socialized health care not less. Look at Cuba there. For all its oppression and poverty and lack of a free enterprise their health care is up there with first world nations along with life expectancy.
Social stability and health of the local market is affected by the health and educational level of the societies citizens whic is directly linked to the social infrastructure. We live a bit longer because we have more socialized health care not less. Look at Cuba there. For all its oppression and poverty and lack of a free enterprise their health care is up there with first world nations along with life expectancy.