The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

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.