Generation Q

[Aliantha]

Just curious. I think it's a bit presumptuous that's all. I'm pretty sure it's going to get you in trouble when a few others see it.

[bluecuracao]

He must be trying to be funny. And it worked--it's hilarious!

[Urbane Guerrilla]

And Ali, I remain serene. Experience shows I can handle any amount of their sort of trouble.

Tw would be among the last to use the phrase -- he is so very much the anti-patriot.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Just curious. I think it's a bit presumptuous that's all. I'm pretty sure it's going to get you in trouble when a few others see it.

UG's views represent all Americans as much as tw's do. Everyone has an opinion. But let us not forget that is all they are, from any of us.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Just curious. I think it's a bit presumptuous that's all. I'm pretty sure it's going to get you in trouble when a few others see it.

I think she prefers "you Americans!!!" to "us or we Americans".


Just jokes....don't threaten to remove my smilies again.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Cicero

I think she prefers "you Americans!!!" to "us or we Americans".


Just jokes....don't threaten to remove my smilies again.

No, I meant you personally. I don't think the whole population of a country should be held responsible for the ramblings of one person.

[queequeger]

The connection, Zen, is that as a republic we elect people to vote for us rather than just voting directly. While I agree with 95% of that quote, btw, it seems a little biased in language. I do think a direct democracy with separation of powers (something that was somewhat under-discussed in the Federalist papers) would have a fair chance of succeeding, especially if states retained their rights.

The whole point is that if we do away with the electoral college, we will create a direct democracy which has little buffer against reactionary actions. I don't really see how it DOES this in presidential elections, though.

It makes more sense that congressmen, being elected by their states and not directly by the entire country, would act as a fine buffer against despotism of sorts. The president, however, should be directly elected. The whole reason he's NOT is so that the country can give a 'mandate' to their leader. It would eliminate the almost unavoidable two party system if we did directly elect, though, because now all we have are people voting for the lesser of two evils.

[ZenGum]

Thanks for your answers guys. Alas, I still can't see a reason, or at least much reason, to keep the colleges system.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Zen, as a general rule, we Americans consider that the workings of political power should not be either too swift nor for that matter slickly efficient. The ultimate example of a swift and highly efficient working of power would be an autocracy -- a real "L'etat, c'est moi," the purest sort of dictatorship, one where only the dictator has rights, and all his subjects are appendages of himself. A fine system... for ants.

The excitement about the Electoral College this and the Electoral College that rather obscures one subtle but necessary point: the Presidency and with it the Vice Presidency are the only such elected offices in the entire Federal system. Everyone else is directly elected. This is inserted as a check and balance, however toothless it may or may not be.

Re your Paragraph One: Yes, the most extreme example of efficient government is one neither of us wants. But it is fallacious to infer that any movement at all in that direction is therefore bad. Run the argument the other way: the most extreme example of inefficient government is total chaotic anarchy (or at least mob rule), this is bad, so we must make government more efficient. Neither argument is good. What we need is to decide if we would be better off by with a governmental system a little more efficient, or a little less.

Paragraph Two: If I understand you correctly, you're arguing that because congress is elected directly, you need the president to be elected indirectly as a balance. As well as toothless, this seems unnecessary, and possibly counterproductive.
Toothless because (if my facts are wrong, do let me know) the colleges meet once every four years, can't dismiss a president once he (or she) is in office, and are expected to vote for the candidate they always said they would (although I've heard they don't absolutely have to ... is this true?).
Unnecessary because there are plenty of other restraints on the president: congress with its over-ride and impeachment powers, the supreme court, the consciences of 300,000,000 citizens, and UG's personal arsenal.
Counter-productive because it allows an extra opportunity for would-be tyrants to meddle with the system.
Maybe your point does carry some weight, but it seems very little to me, and thoroughly outweighed by considerations against it.

Originally Posted by queequeger

The connection, Zen, is that as a republic we elect people to vote for us rather than just voting directly. While I agree with 95% of that quote, btw, it seems a little biased in language. I do think a direct democracy with separation of powers (something that was somewhat under-discussed in the Federalist papers) would have a fair chance of succeeding, especially if states retained their rights.

The whole point is that if we do away with the electoral college, we will create a direct democracy which has little buffer against reactionary actions. I don't really see how it DOES this in presidential elections, though.

It makes more sense that congressmen, being elected by their states and not directly by the entire country, would act as a fine buffer against despotism of sorts. The president, however, should be directly elected. The whole reason he's NOT is so that the country can give a 'mandate' to their leader. It would eliminate the almost unavoidable two party system if we did directly elect, though, because now all we have are people voting for the lesser of two evils.

It isn't really clear, but it sounds like you'd rather use the popular vote.
Your point that "(t)he whole reason he's NOT is so that the country can give a 'mandate' to their leader" has me baffled. What better way could a country give a mandate to someone than by directly electing them?

In general, I simply do not buy the idea that a direct democracy is any more likely to slide into autocracy than the representative system. In fact, the electoral colleges provide an extra opportunity for would be tyrants to meddle with the system.
Even if, as UG suggests, it is some kind of balance to the direct system used for everything else, I think this benefit is greatly outweighed by the problems of the battleground states phenomenon and the perpetuation of the two party system.

Well, it's your country and you guys can run it how you like. I think we are getting close to DEAD HORSE time on this discussion, unless you have something scintillating to add. Thanks for your thoughtful replies, though.

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

... and are expected to vote for the candidate they always said they would (although I've heard they don't absolutely have to ... is this true?).

Many states have passed laws that force them to vote for the winner of the state, and most are selected by the winning party, because there have been folks who didn't vote for their candidate (though it's never changed anything).

Originally Posted by ZenGum

It isn't really clear, but it sounds like you'd rather use the popular vote.

Your point that "(t)he whole reason he's NOT is so that the country can give a 'mandate' to their leader" has me baffled. What better way could a country give a mandate to someone than by directly electing them?

I do think direct election makes more sense. The mandate in this sense means 51% or more. Some of the penmen of the constitution thought that if we elected somebody with, say, 35% of the popular vote (i.e. we had more than one candidate), that it would mean the country didn't really want him in office. All I see happening is people voting for the person they MOST agree with rather than someone they fully agree with. Even Washington (8 foot 20, fucking killing for fun) foresaw this creating a two party system, which it has. I'm all for popularly elected federal executives.

[Aliantha]

Well tw doesn't use terms like 'we Americans' in every other post like UG was doing last night.

It was like 'you Americans' were all of a sudden united in your fight against...ummm...well, whatever UG said you were united about.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Well tw doesn't use terms like 'we Americans' in every other post like UG was doing last night.

It was like 'you Americans' were all of a sudden united in your fight against...ummm...well, whatever UG said you were united about.

tw is no better, in fact he is worse.

[Aliantha]

You're just saying that because you never agree with him while you sometimes agree with UG. lol

[Aliantha]

but by your definition, so would I be...and yet you don't seem to loath me the way you do him.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

but by your definition, so would I be...and yet you don't seem to loathe me the way you do him.

Of course not -- not because you're non-U.S. with a non-U.S. perspective, but because you're not a leftover Soviet communist, and you show better character than he does and better manners as well. You're more sensible.

There are things about how we live in the American republic that you don't have the background to really understand, and you don't understand that, or why, we like 'em that way, better than all other possible choices, good or bad. So far we've had our share of difficulties communicating just why we choose as we do, advocate what we do.

ZenG, yeah -- all these points have been raised and mulled over and they're worth thinking about. Our political philosophers have written reams about them. There isn't a great deal of motivation to start the Constitutional amendment process -- another one of those lengthy workings of power, btw -- because we're just not seeing a great injustice here that needs remedying.

The winner-take-all Electoral College vote system of itself pulls political parties into a two-party system. Proportional voting would engender by the same token three parties or more, as is seen in some other undeniable Republics.

The Equal Rights Amendment -- for women only -- from the 1970s went down because of a general suspicion that this was hardly the proper sphere of the Federal government, especially the way it was written -- unintended consequences would have been detrimental. Really, the Fourteenth Amendment should cover anything actually needed.

[Aliantha]

There are things about how we live in the American republic that you don't have the background to really understand, and you don't understand that, or why, we like 'em that way, better than all other possible choices, good or bad. So far we've had our share of difficulties communicating just why we choose as we do, advocate what we do.

I may not live in America UG, but I also don't need to know I'll hurt myself if I jump off a cliff. I may not experience the actual pain, but I can imagine it fairly well.

What I also know is that bit by bit, the rest of the western world is falling prey to a lot of the same problems you have in your country because of the 'homogenization' of western society. I use the word homogenization because some people take offence to being told the world is becoming Americanized in the true sense of the word.

Do I like this? There are some good points, and some bad points. The worst part about it for me is the loss of culture for everyone else.

You make a lot of assumptions about a lot of things you know very little about UG. Personally I don't care what you think, but I will tell you that if you think you're going to condescend to me I'll just stop responding to you. Maybe you wont care. So be it. I'm telling you now though, you will influence far more people to your way of thinking if you treat them as equals instead of underlings.