The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

"RogerM" wrote in message

One man, one vote. What's unjust about that?

Nothing. That's what we have now.


If more people live in
urban centres, shouldn't the interests of city-dwellers be given
proportionate influence?

Enhanced emphasis, perhaps, but not to the exclusion of the non-urban
population. The electoral college system gives us exactly that -- a
proportional level of influence -- since it is based to a large degree on
population. Since the system we have does what you want, why would you want
to change it?

John Gaquin wrote:

"RogerM" wrote in message

One man, one vote. What's unjust about that?

Nothing. That's what we have now.

If more people live in
urban centres, shouldn't the interests of city-dwellers be given
proportionate influence?

Enhanced emphasis, perhaps, but not to the exclusion of the non-urban
population. The electoral college system gives us exactly that -- a
proportional level of influence -- since it is based to a large degree on
population.

"based to a large degree on population" So it's only somewhat
undemocratic?

Since the system we have does what you want, why would you want
to change it?

Because it doesn't provide for 'one man - one vote'. 'To a degree' isn't
sufficiently democratic. What about the degree to which it goes against
the will of the majority?

In any case, as I understand it, the electoral votes aren't constrained
by law to reflect the popular vote of the particular state. It's more of
a 'gentlemen's agreement' that the votes will go to the candidate who
garners the highest popular vote.

Why not have a system where every voter is equal?

--

People who go looking to be offended will rarely be disappointed

The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.

For those who ca it's would HAVE, should HAVE, and could HAVE.

"RogerM" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"RogerM" wrote in message

One man, one vote. What's unjust about that?

Nothing. That's what we have now.

If more people live in
urban centres, shouldn't the interests of city-dwellers be given
proportionate influence?

Enhanced emphasis, perhaps, but not to the exclusion of the non-urban
population. The electoral college system gives us exactly that -- a
proportional level of influence -- since it is based to a large degree on
population.

"based to a large degree on population" So it's only somewhat
undemocratic?

Since the system we have does what you want, why would you want
to change it?

Because it doesn't provide for 'one man - one vote'. 'To a degree' isn't
sufficiently democratic. What about the degree to which it goes against
the will of the majority?

In any case, as I understand it, the electoral votes aren't constrained
by law to reflect the popular vote of the particular state. It's more of
a 'gentlemen's agreement' that the votes will go to the candidate who
garners the highest popular vote.

Why not have a system where every voter is equal?

Why not indeed? But it won't happen because the states that presently have more
critters than they have voters will have even less to say about how things are
run than they presently have. Not only are they not apt to go along with a
scheme like that, but they'll gang up into a pack to make sure that it doesn't
happen.

George Z.

RogerM wrote:
John Gaquin wrote:

"RogerM" wrote in message

One man, one vote. What's unjust about that?

Nothing. That's what we have now.

If more people live in
urban centres, shouldn't the interests of city-dwellers be given
proportionate influence?

Enhanced emphasis, perhaps, but not to the exclusion of the non-urban
population. The electoral college system gives us exactly that -- a
proportional level of influence -- since it is based to a large
degree on population.

"based to a large degree on population" So it's only somewhat
undemocratic?

Since the system we have does what you want, why would you want
to change it?

Because it doesn't provide for 'one man - one vote'. 'To a degree'
isn't sufficiently democratic. What about the degree to which it goes
against the will of the majority?

Why should it? We are not a pure democracy. Our founding fathers
never meant for us to be controlled by something as erratic as the
will of the majority.

In any case, as I understand it, the electoral votes aren't
constrained
by law to reflect the popular vote of the particular state. It's more
of
a 'gentlemen's agreement' that the votes will go to the candidate who
garners the highest popular vote.

Why not have a system where every voter is equal?

--
Later
Kal

--

---------------------------------------------------------
/ /
/ /
/ This space for rent /
/ /
/ /
---------------------------------------------------------

Kal Alexander wrote:

RogerM wrote:
Because it doesn't provide for 'one man - one vote'. 'To a degree'
isn't sufficiently democratic. What about the degree to which it goes
against the will of the majority?

Why should it? We are not a pure democracy. Our founding fathers
never meant for us to be controlled by something as erratic as the
will of the majority.


The problem with that, is that the alternative is control by the will of
a tiny minority. Do you really think that is better?

--

People who go looking to be offended will rarely be disappointed

The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.

For those who ca it's would HAVE, should HAVE, and could HAVE.

RogerM wrote:

...."based to a large degree on population" So it's only somewhat
undemocratic?

What? Do you even know how the Electoral College is formulated? Each state
has a number of electors equal to its number of Representatives and
Senators. Since a state's number of Representatives is based on population,
but its number of Senators is not, I used the phrase "based to a large
degree on population". Undemocratic has nothing to do with it.


....Because it doesn't provide for 'one man - one vote'. 'To a degree'
isn't sufficiently democratic. What about the degree to which it goes
against the will of the majority?

[sigh....] see above response.

...In any case, as I understand it, the electoral votes aren't constrained
by law to reflect the popular vote of the particular state. It's more
of a 'gentlemen's agreement' that the votes will go to the candidate who
garners the highest popular vote.

Why not have a system where every voter is equal?

The framers of our Constitution looked out over the landscape and saw a
country where a large percentage of the population was semi-literate, huge
numbers of citizens couldn't even sign their own name, and most were rural
dwellers at the end of a four to six month communication line. In short, a
place where the preponderance of the population might easily be subject to
misinformation and manipulation. This was one of the reasons that our
government was formed as a Republic, and not a Democracy, and similarly
justification for the Electoral College. In a Republic, the population
elects regional representatives of [hopefully] knowledgeable, sober, mature
judgment, and said representatives exercise their best judgment in making
decisions of state. There is always an insulating layer of supposedly good
judgment between the population as a whole, and the crucial and oft-times
irrevocable decisions of state. In today's world, literacy , of course, is
drastically improved, and speed of communication is no longer a factor. But
we still have that pesky little problem of misinformation and manipulation.
Fully one-quarter to one-third (at a minimum) of the voting population is
easily vulnerable, and huge portions of our population live in different
worlds from one another (urban v rural, etc.). The aforementioned
"...insulating layer of supposedly good judgment..." together with the
equalizing and stabilizing effect of the Electoral system remain, imho, a
good thing.

John Gaquin wrote:

RogerM wrote:

Why not have a system where every voter is equal?

The framers of our Constitution looked out over the landscape and saw a
country where a large percentage of the population was semi-literate, huge
numbers of citizens couldn't even sign their own name, and most were rural
dwellers at the end of a four to six month communication line. In short, a
place where the preponderance of the population might easily be subject to
misinformation and manipulation.

Oh how things have changed...NOT!

This was one of the reasons that our
government was formed as a Republic, and not a Democracy, and similarly
justification for the Electoral College. In a Republic, the population
elects regional representatives of [hopefully] knowledgeable, sober, mature
judgment, and said representatives exercise their best judgment in making
decisions of state.

Putting their own corrupt interests above those of the voters. Great
system, there. How are these elite selected?

There is always an insulating layer of supposedly good
judgment between the population as a whole, and the crucial and oft-times
irrevocable decisions of state. In today's world, literacy , of course, is
drastically improved, and speed of communication is no longer a factor. But
we still have that pesky little problem of misinformation and manipulation.

Not to mention the corruption of the elite class.

Fully one-quarter to one-third (at a minimum) of the voting population is
easily vulnerable, and huge portions of our population live in different
worlds from one another (urban v rural, etc.).

This part is pure comedy.

The aforementioned
"...insulating layer of supposedly good judgment..." together with the
equalizing and stabilizing effect of the Electoral system remain, imho, a
good thing.

You are taking so much on faith, it is hard to believe.

--

People who go looking to be offended will rarely be disappointed

The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.

For those who ca it's would HAVE, should HAVE, and could HAVE.

"RogerM" wrote in message

Fully one-quarter to one-third (at a minimum) of the voting population
is
easily vulnerable, and huge portions of our population live in different
worlds from one another (urban v rural, etc.).

This part is pure comedy.

Why is that?

The aforementioned
"...insulating layer of supposedly good judgment..." together with the
equalizing and stabilizing effect of the Electoral system remain, imho,
a
good thing.

You are taking so much on faith, it is hard to believe.

Why is it hard to believe? This system has served us well these past 225
years and is not, imo, in need of drastic repair. Show me another country
[I'll give you Britain] of constitutional representative government that can
match our record of over 200 years of constancy and stability. Explain to
me why we should emulate Italy, which has had the pleasure of somewhere
around 200 changes of government since WWII.










--

People who go looking to be offended will rarely be disappointed

The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.

For those who ca it's would HAVE, should HAVE, and could HAVE.