Majority rule.
Lets pretend for a minute that our system of electing the president in the U.S. is not the electoral college.
If less then 50 percent of eligible voters vote. Then the president is really elected by a majority of the minority.
It has been my observation that the majority rarely rules, ever, in any system.
Fuck majority rule.
Oh wait, minority rule is worse. Fuck that too.
In fact, fuck 'rule' altogether.
There we go.
Ibram, you're coming across a little angry this morning. :rolleyes:
I've been mulling a lot on things I've been reading on here, and elsewhere. I think we have one of the best deals going, here in the states, having been a few other places. Europe, the middle east, and south of the border.
I don't think that 90 to 98 % of laws are made for the majority of our population. For instance, in most if not all countries it is illegal to commit murder. The majority of the population does not commit murder. In thinking about this it struck me that our laws and elected officials are not made by the majority either. This looks like me, to be the norm around the world, historically as well.
Doesn't have much to do with anything important. Just thinking "out loud" a little today.
I
I don't think that 90 to 98 % of laws are made for the majority of our population. For instance, in most if not all countries it is illegal to commit murder. The majority of the population does not commit murder.
But surely the majority of the population don't want to
be murdered. This law is "for" them.
Meh, there must be plenty of other examples that better illustrate your point. Find some obscure law controlling the import of some agricultural product - thus protecting a tiny number of farmers at the expense of the majority of consumers.
Even with all it's faults the elimination of the electoral college would be a bad thing for rural states.
I'm not lobbying for the elimination of the electoral college. I don' think the average joe really knows how the president is elected in our country.
Which wasn't my point either. I'm not sure I had a point, well maybe that the majority rarely is the push behind any government action. Anywhere.
I'm not lobbying for the elimination of the electoral college. I don' think the average joe really knows how the president is elected in our country.
I think that was probably true pre-2000, before Florida and the hanging chads. I don't think it's true today. I bet I could head down to the mall and get a moderately accurate explanation of the electoral college system from 7 out of 10 random people.
lol - I'll take that bet, smoothmoniker. They may have known for a little while, but not too much anymore. They are more interested in the happenings of Britney and Paris and the like.
Well, sure. "They" are always dumb. Those others. Not like us. We're the smart ones.
"The Cellar: We know you are, but what are we?"
We're the smart ones.
Who is
we?
What makes
we the smart ones?
Don't worry, you're one of us. Not one of them.
you're one of us.
:biggrin: Ok, as long as I'm included, no objection.
Any conversation about politics that starts with the presumption of the stupidity of the masses will inevitably lead to some very scary conclusions. After all, if the wisdom of the few exceeds the wisdom of the many, then don't we few wise ones have an obligation to enact our wise plans, for the benefit of those foolish masses?
...our wise plans,
Nicely put.
Lets pretend for a minute that our system of electing the president in the U.S. is not the electoral college.
If less then 50 percent of eligible voters vote. Then the president is really elected by a majority of the minority.
It has been my observation that the majority rarely rules, ever, in any system.
Give a list of candidates for the Presidency and vote. It's very simple. But we have bias here: friends, Old boy network, gooooood Lawyers, gerrymandering, all sorts of manipulations. Truth is: it does not matter who you vote for the Government always gets in. In Britain we have the first past the post system, electoral seats = winner. Even if the total national vote was overwhemingly against that result. It IS strange how a minority vote can lead to the power.
I think that was probably true pre-2000, before Florida and the hanging chads. I don't think it's true today. I bet I could head down to the mall and get a moderately accurate explanation of the electoral college system from 7 out of 10 random people.
lol - I'll take that bet, smoothmoniker. They may have known for a little while, but not too much anymore. They are more interested in the happenings of Britney and Paris and the like.
yeah....i want on that action too! i'll even give you better odds.....say less than 30 out of the first 50....
i'd go with the under on 7 of 10 exiting the polls at a presidential election....
I have a prediction that either Hillary or Obama get the vote to lead the democrats against Guiliani. Hilary might just get there. Vote on...
... Guiliani ...
Can't win the primary. Social conservatives won't matter much in the general, but they own the Republic primary process.
Any conversation about politics that starts with the presumption of the stupidity of the masses will inevitably lead to some very scary conclusions. After all, if the wisdom of the few exceeds the wisdom of the many, then don't we few wise ones have an obligation to enact our wise plans, for the benefit of those foolish masses?
I didn't say that the masses are stupid. I said that only a minority of voters actually vote. I guess the majority does vote, by abdication.
That is what I meant to start the conversation with.
sorry joe, I wasn't responding directly to what you said, just comment on the general tenor of conversations about politics that begin by lamenting how few people do "the right thing" when it comes to casting their vote.
But, but, but, I'm sure everyone that doesn't vote the way I do, is a moron that's not paying attention, or has an evil, subversive agenda.
And thus, must be protected from their own ignorance by me and my wise friends making their most important choices for them. It's in their best interest!
Well according to one source in the 2000 election
Voting age population (Census Bureau Population Survey for Nov. 2000): 205,815,000
Percentage of voting age population casting a vote for president: 51.3%
So technically a majority of the population did vote. But I think we can all agree that more than 51% are bitching about the result.
I didn't say that the masses are stupid. I said that only a minority of voters actually vote. I guess the majority does vote, by abdication.
That is what I meant to start the conversation with.
The masses aren't stupid, but they are inundated with stupidity from the mass media. It isn't just the Brittany Spears news that's distracting them, it's also the rest of the media, including network news, news magazines like Newsweek and Time, and most newspapers. Unfortunately, the media think that negative whiny news sells. Maybe it does, but it doesn't mean positive stories about America or Americans belong on page 23, while minor scandals belong on the front page, so to speak, above the fold.
I've been recently thinking that the American people are much more informed than many think, just that we are too cyncial to show it.
The masses aren't stupid, but they are inundated with stupidity from the mass media. It isn't just the Brittany Spears news that's distracting them, it's also the rest of the media, including network news, news magazines like Newsweek and Time, and most newspapers. Unfortunately, the media think that negative whiny news sells. Maybe it does, but it doesn't mean positive stories about America or Americans belong on page 23, while minor scandals belong on the front page, so to speak, above the fold.
If what is in the mass media didn't make a profit, it would not sell. The masses control what is printed or put on the tv, and other places in the mass media market with their dollars. It's not the "media" fault It's our own.
If what is in the mass media didn't make a profit, it would not sell. The masses control what is printed or put on the tv, and other places in the mass media market with their dollars. It's not the "media" fault It's our own.
I partly disagree. I believe there are three forces which dictate what will be on the news.
First, what you pointed out, the natural market.
Second, the media's agenda. There is a clear difference between the agenda's of CNN and FOXNEWS so we can't say that the media's agenda does not play a role in this. The American people do have a major role in it, but the media companies are to blame as well.
Third, the government has to some filitering system. I am not talking about conspiracy theories here but there has to be some single source where all the media gets there information from and to think that the government doesn't filter or alter some infromation is very tough to believe since they have their own agenda as well.
Pssst pierce - everyone has an agenda, Thats the grand conspiracy. Selfishness. Everyone is doing what makes them the most money or gives them the most power. There are VERY FEW who are not. I'd bet none of them are in Gov't or the media.
classic, there are many public servants in the employ of the Government who are incredibly selfless. They aren't doing what they do for the money.
classic, there are many public servants in the employ of the Government who are incredibly selfless. They aren't doing what they do for the money.
How much power do they have?
A lot. In thinking about that answer, any large organization, one as large as our government, has to have lots of compartments. Many, many, leaders, managers and workers. Leadership does not always reflect the organization...especially when that leadership rotates every 2 to 4 years. Different parts of the organization do not reflect other parts.
Most organizations have a few people who have been working through two or three, sometimes years worth of leadership changes. These guys are the real go to guys and gals. If I wanted to get something done, I wouldn't go to the leadership, I'd go to them.
That's power.
But at the same time, if they were paid nothing, you can bet they wouldn't do it anymore.
That's not the test for whether someone's in it for the money. The test is whether they could do the same amount of work somewhere else for more money, and they don't.
classic, there are many public servants in the employ of the Government who are incredibly selfless. They aren't doing what they do for the money.
You are right Joe - I meant politicians - see what happens when you rush a post cuz its christmas.