Clusterheadaches.com Message Board
        (http://www.clusterheadaches.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        New Message Board Archives >> 2007 General Board Posts >> Something to think about
        
(Message started by: BlueMeanie on May 31st, 2007, 10:57pm)
Title: Something to think about
Post by BlueMeanie on May 31st, 2007, 10:57pm
I normally don't start threads and am not hear to debate this theory, but found it to be very interesting.

How much longer do we have?

About the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.

A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.

From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years.  During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage"

Prof. Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Gore: 19; Bush: 29

Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580, 000; Bush: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by: Gore: 127,000,000 Bush: 143,000,000

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:                             Gore: 13.2;   Bush: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phases of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some 40 percent of the nation's population already         having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to 20,000,000 criminal invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by catlind on May 31st, 2007, 11:22pm

Quote:
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phases of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some 40 percent of the nation's population already    having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.  


I am not interested in getting into political debates, however, the above figure seems really really high to me for a country that doesnt' have that many social programs compared to other countries.  Where does the 40% figure come from (obviously not the Olson connection, but where did he get his figure and can you lead me to the reference etc.)?

Cat
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by BlueMeanie on May 31st, 2007, 11:46pm
Cat,

I agree it DOES sound like an awful HIGH % dependency rate. But if you take into account anything handed out nowadays, there could be SOME truth to it. As far as any reference, I have no idea where it originated as it was just an e-mail forwarded to me. I just thought it was interesting and can see where it could hold some merit, maybe NOT 5 years, but it sounds like the direction where heading IMHO.
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by catlind on Jun 1st, 2007, 12:41am
Ahh ok, gotcha.  If you find out anything about the origination of the data in the email let me know.  I find it a fascinating topic, and would love to be able to check some of the resources to verify the information and check the data they are using for their numbers.

It's not the first time I've heard the analogy or had it compared to the fall of Rome.  I'm a history nut so I find it interesting from the historical aspect and the historical data and accuracy of the general theme that all large democracies eventually fade and that others take the place (such as the US has taken the place as the superpower over the UK as far as military might etc.)

It's a fascinating realm of theory and I'd love to be able to do some research for my own information based on what has gone on historically and what is presented with the post.

Cat
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by Charlie on Jun 1st, 2007, 2:01am
Candidate that most people voted for: Gore.

Robert Frost:

"The Past Is a Bucket of Ashes"

                          1

    The woman named Tomorrow
    sits with a hairpin in her teeth
    and takes her time
    and does her hair the way she wants it
    and fastens at last the last braid and coil
    and puts the hairpin where it belongs
    and turns and drawls:  Well, what of it?
    My grandmother, Yesterday, is gone.
    What of it?  Let the dead be dead.

                          2

    The doors were cedar
    and the panel strips of gold
    and the girls were golden girls
    and the panels read and the girls chanted:
        We are the greatest city,
        the greatest nation:
        nothing like us ever was.
    The doors are twisted on broken hinges.
    Sheets of rain swish through on the wind
    where golden girls ran and the panels read:
        We are the greatest city,
        the greatest nation:
        nothing like us ever was.


                          3

    It has happened before.
    Strong men put up a city and got
        a nation together,
    And paid singers to sing and women
        to warble:  We are the greatest city,
            the greatest nation,
            nothing like us ever was.

    And while the singers sang
    and the strong men listened
    and paid the singers well
    and felt good about it all,
        there were rats and lizards who listened
        ... and the only listeners left now
        ... are ... the rats .. and the lizards.

    And there are black crows
    crying, "Caw, caw,"
    bringing mud and sticks
    building a nest over the words carved
    on the doors where the panels were cedar
    and the strips on the panels were gold
    and the golden girls came singing:
        We are the greatest city,
        the greatest nation:
        nothing like us ever was.

    The only singers now are crows crying, "Caw, caw,"
    And the sheets of rain whine in the wind and doorways.
    And the only listeners now are ... the rats ... and the lizards.

                          4

    The feet of the rats
    scribble on the doorsills;
    the hieroglyphs of the rat footprints
    chatter the pedigrees of the rats
    and babble of the blood
    and gabble of the breed
    of the grandfathers and the great-grandfathers
    of the rats.

    And the wind shifts
    and the dust on a doorsill shifts
    and even the writing of the rat footprints
    tells us nothing, nothing at all
    about the greatest city, the greatest nation
    where the strong men listened
    and the women warbled:  Nothing like us ever was.


Perhaps not relevant to this silly thread but I was reminded. It's one of those things you read in school that you never forget.

Charlie
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by ivanov on Jun 1st, 2007, 4:31am
Richard Dreyfuss Sr. Advisor Oxford University on Democracy

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fd7p1SGMuqU


Dan
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by john_d on Jun 1st, 2007, 7:08am
I have definitely thought about the fact that a large voting block of poor and uneducated that is being brought about through immigration would lead to lower standard of living through voted-in taxation and socialization.   The latin americans already here think that bigger latin voter block will be good for them, but they don't realize that we are competing on a global scale and that much unskilled labor is only going to be a huge drain on most of this countries resources, it's not worth it and it will bring us all down rather than lift them up.



on 05/31/07 at 22:57:07, BlueMeanie wrote:
I normally don't start threads and am not hear to debate this theory, but found it to be very interesting.

How much longer do we have?

About the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.

A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.

From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years.  During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage"

Prof. Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Gore: 19; Bush: 29

Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580, 000; Bush: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by: Gore: 127,000,000 Bush: 143,000,000

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:                             Gore: 13.2;   Bush: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phases of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some 40 percent of the nation's population already         having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to 20,000,000 criminal invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by ivanov on Jun 1st, 2007, 8:49am
This just didn't add up-
It is in fact an Urban Legend-

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp

Dan
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by catlind on Jun 1st, 2007, 10:37am
Ok, that makes more sense to me.  I thought some of those numbers were way off and wanted to find out what those references were.

It's not the first time I've heard the analogy, although not through this email, it was actually a topic for discussion in the final classes I had to take when I went back to school, and it was compared to the fall of Rome.

Thanks for the info Dan, it is an interesting theory, even if it's an urban legend.

Cat
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by Charlie on Jun 1st, 2007, 11:10am
It's an old one too. It's been around several years.

Charlie
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Jun 1st, 2007, 11:19am
Yeah, it sounded like bullshit to me.  I didnt have the heart to tell Meanie.  

Look at the welfare statistics by region.
Look at the abortion rates by region.
Look at the sex with animal rates by region.
Look at the average household income by region.
Look at the divorce rates by region.


After you look at these regions, you can determine that the people that are on welfare, get abortions, think sex with animals is ok, have lower income and get divorces are, on average, the ones that voted for Bush.

I'm not open to debate this theory, its just interesting.
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by Brewcrew on Jun 1st, 2007, 11:23am

on 06/01/07 at 11:19:19, BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote:
Yeah, it sounded like bullshit to me.  I didnt have the heart to tell Meanie.  

Look at the welfare statistics by region.
Look at the abortion rates by region.
Look at the sex with animal rates by region.
Look at the average household income by region.
Look at the divorce rates by region.


After you look at these regions, you can determine that the people that are on welfare, get abortions, think sex with animals is ok, have lower income and get divorces are, on average, the ones that voted for Bush.

I'm not open to debate this theory, its just interesting.


B - Put down the koolaid, back away slowly and nobody gets hurt.
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Jun 1st, 2007, 11:25am

on 06/01/07 at 11:23:30, Brewcrew wrote:
B - Put down the koolaid, back away slowly and nobody gets hurt.


Look those rates up, Bro.

I didnt state anything, I just told you to go look these up.
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by Brewcrew on Jun 1st, 2007, 1:47pm

on 06/01/07 at 11:25:20, BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote:
Look those rates up, Bro.

I didnt state anything, I just told you to go look these up.

I'm not doing your homework for you. ;;D
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Jun 1st, 2007, 1:53pm

Quote:
Look those rates up, Bro.




on 06/01/07 at 13:47:15, Brewcrew wrote:
I'm not doing your homework for you. ;;D


Hows that kool-aid taste?  
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by Brewcrew on Jun 1st, 2007, 2:03pm

on 06/01/07 at 13:53:36, BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote:
Hows that kool-aid taste?  

I'm not sure I remember. I'm a recovering liberal.
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by burnt-toast on Jun 1st, 2007, 2:13pm
Don't be deceived. America was founded as a republic - not a democracy.  The Constitution is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. One most recently criticized is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states could not demographically run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states.  This was a conscious restriction on the majority’s power to make decisions for all.  

The founder’s loathed democracies for their unrestrained corruption, mob rule, unchallenged power of omnipotent central governments, suppression of individual rights and freedoms, division of citizenry/social classes, and history of collapse in chaos and bureaucracy.  Statements of the founder’s are clear – they did not establish a democracy nor did they intend the United States ever become a democracy.  

The word "democracy" appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, the two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."  Our pledge of allegiance is "to the republic for which it stands," not "to the democracy for which it stands" and "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" is not "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy".
 
In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or indirectly through control of elected representatives.  As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be, laws are not universal or stable, and do not represent reason – only the current will of the majority.   Laws become the power to restrain individuals and the minority while empowering government or an omnipotent majority.  Rights and freedoms become privileges and permissions granted injudiciously by those with power and can be rescinded without challenge.  In democracies there are no Constitutional limits on the legislature or standard of justice.  It is correct to say that democracy offers no protection, rights or freedoms to individuals or the minority.  Every whim of  the majority is law no matter how whimsical, arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian. Citizens are obligated to government without right of redress, while government's only obligations to citizens are those legislatively defined for it by the majority.
 
The founder’s established a Republican form of government that limited powers of government and the majority to preserve (as the founder’s put it) individual God-given, unalienable rights.  Nothing in our Constitution makes government the grantor of rights.  Instead the Constitution and Bill of Rights puts into practice the principals of the Declaration of Independence granting government only "just powers," and “limited powers” and binding government to protect individual God-given, unalienable rights.  The founder’s vision was a system of government immune from the influence of snob-rule, a governing Elite, and mob-rule that historically suppressed individual rights and freedoms for the benefit of the elite.    

In recognition that Congress posed the greatest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases against Congress throughout the Constitution such as: shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law defined by a Constitution.  All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same law. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society based on common law, protects its citizens against force and fraud, but does not intervene in peaceable or voluntary exchange or restriction of individual rights and freedoms to appease a majority.  In a Republic, the people have no obligation to government; instead, the government, hired by the people, is obliged to its owners and that includes individuals and the minority.    

I am appalled to hear elected representatives and people freely refer to our form of government as a democracy.  Damn democracy, it is a fraudulent term used, by ignorant persons and more often by intellectual fakers pushing an infamous mixture of socialism, communism, graft, confiscation of property, and suppression of individual rights and freedoms to establish an elite class of society.

Tom  
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Jun 1st, 2007, 2:14pm

on 06/01/07 at 14:03:19, Brewcrew wrote:
I'm not sure I remember. I'm a recovering liberal.



Looks like you are fully recovered based on your unwillingness to look up those stats while poo-pooing them.

[smiley=crackup.gif]
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by catlind on Jun 1st, 2007, 2:18pm

on 06/01/07 at 14:13:30, burnt-toast wrote:
Don't be deceived. America was founded as a republic - not a democracy.  


Good point and true.  It's what makes the theory so fascinating, as past republics of history have not ever been set up the way the US has.  I'm just a history nut who loves to examine the current status to the past governements and empires to see what was done differently and what might or might not work.

This is truly a first experience based on most of the historical scenarios.

Cat
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Jun 1st, 2007, 2:22pm

on 06/01/07 at 14:13:30, burnt-toast wrote:
In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states could not demographically run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states.  
Tom  


I dont know much about why we do it this way, but if this was the reason it was set up, it is a complete failure.  

I'd have to check the math, but I think the 10 most populated states can control the entire election......winning the entire country with just 10 states.  This means the 10 most populated states run roughshod over the 40 smaller ones.
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by seasonalboomer on Jun 1st, 2007, 2:32pm
Nope....it would take the top 11 electoral states to run roughshod over the smaller ones. But that would take amazing zeal to line up these geographically and socially diverse states to line up to take out the little guys. Just as it would take an amazing coalition to line up all the little ones plus one bigger one to take down the big states.  It's a freaking amazingly well thought out process and one that has served our country pretty well.

Scott
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by Mosaicwench on Jun 1st, 2007, 2:33pm
I am appalled to hear elected representatives and people freely refer to our form of government as a democracy.  Damn democracy, it is a fraudulent term used, by ignorant persons and more often by intellectual fakers pushing an infamous mixture of socialism, communism, graft, confiscation of property, and suppression of individual rights and freedoms to establish an elite class of society.  

Tom    

You're my new hero.
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Jun 1st, 2007, 2:47pm

on 06/01/07 at 14:32:29, seasonalboomer wrote:
Nope....it would take the top 11 electoral states to run roughshod over the smaller ones. But that would take amazing zeal to line up these geographically and socially diverse states to line up to take out the little guys. Just as it would take an amazing coalition to line up all the little ones plus one bigger one to take down the big states.  It's a freaking amazingly well thought out process and one that has served our country pretty well.

Scott


But how would this better serve the people rather than a straight popular vote?

I think in the electoral college silences the minority in each state.  If each state split their votes, rather than a winner take all system, I think it would be better.

What do you think?
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by seasonalboomer on Jun 1st, 2007, 2:59pm

on 06/01/07 at 14:47:57, BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote:
But how would this better serve the people rather than a straight popular vote?

I think in the electoral college silences the minority in each state.  If each state split their votes, rather than a winner take all system, I think it would be better.

What do you think?


Who ever said the minority should have their say? That's why they count votes and let the ones who got more votes be the winner.....The system encourages the minority by telling people that if you want "your way" you better get more people to buy into your deal, or change your thinking to attract more people to think like you do, or find a way to get the majority to share your objectives. Electoral college is a nearly perfect system.


Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Jun 1st, 2007, 3:09pm

on 06/01/07 at 14:59:46, seasonalboomer wrote:
Who ever said the minority should have their say? That's why they count votes and let the ones who got more votes be the winner.....The system encourages the minority by telling people that if you want "your way" you better get more people to buy into your deal, or change your thinking to attract more people to think like you do, or find a way to get the majority to share your objectives. Electoral college is a nearly perfect system.


I kind of hear you, that is a good point.  The one who loses the election has no say.

But the problem is that the person to get more votes does not necessarily win.  The person who gets more electoral votes wins.  

How does the electoral system prevent the highly populated stated from steam rolling the smaller states?  If you take California's 55 votes against Rhode Islands 3 votes, that is a steam rolling.  Even if the 10 smallest states all vote one way, they can still be outvoted by the sheer numbers in California.  
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by seasonalboomer on Jun 1st, 2007, 3:15pm
The system is genius. Because you will rarely find that all big states have corresponding needs -- and they instead compete for governmental resources -- most big states need to make sure they keep small states from becoming too disenchanted, since they are needed allies versus the other larger, equally resource-hungry states.  It works. And for those that in R.I. that are still disenchanted, let them move to NY and have a bevy of electoral votes.
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by Brewcrew on Jun 1st, 2007, 3:16pm

on 06/01/07 at 14:14:18, BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote:
Looks like you are fully recovered based on your unwillingness to look up those stats while poo-pooing them.

[smiley=crackup.gif]

The burden of proof is on you, my friend. ;)
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by Brewcrew on Jun 1st, 2007, 3:19pm
And by the way, nobody ever fully recovers. One must remain ever vigilant.
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by Jonny on Jun 1st, 2007, 4:59pm

on 05/31/07 at 22:57:07, BlueMeanie wrote:
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to 20,000,000 criminal invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA


This guy should know!

Head of Border Patrol Bill King now retired.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f92_1180729125
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by burnt-toast on Jun 1st, 2007, 5:56pm

on 06/01/07 at 14:47:57, BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote:
But how would this better serve the people rather than a straight popular vote?

I think in the electoral college silences the minority in each state.  If each state split their votes, rather than a winner take all system, I think it would be better.

What do you think?


Far from failing miserably - the Electoral College worked as intended.  States with heavily populated cities and issues/agendas specific to very dense populations could not override the vast number of states geographically voting differently - even though select states controll "by population" the popular vote.  And what vision the founders had, the Electorial College only matters when the popular vote is very close and although it hasn't been tested yet the popular vote is a tie.  

How does it better serve the people over a stratight popular vote - it ensures that the outcome of elections is the result of choices made across the entire country.  Not excluesively states with heavily populated cities.  Consider that without the Electorial College voting in most parts of the country could become meaningless as heavily populated states would fully control the outcome of every key federal election.  

Expand your definition of minority, it's not just a definition of race, ethnicity or groups within states.  Entire states and vast regions of the country are a minority in terms of population.  The founder's recognized the potential problems and chose to ensure that even the minority has to be considered in key federal elections.

Tom              
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Jun 1st, 2007, 6:20pm
Thanks, Tom.  I appreciate your input.  I still fail to see how the electoral college helps the rural areas population count against big cities.  

Lets say there was a Presidential candidate, and the Bay area of California and the LA area all vote for candidate A.  This would probably carry the entire state, even if all other areas vote for candidate B.  So, the electoral college would use ALL of California's 55 votes toward candidate A.  
Now lets say Oregon votes 100% for candidate B, and Washington also votes 100% for candidate B.  California's 55 electoral votes is much more than Oregon and Washington combined. (which are more rural states.)  How does the electoral college system help the sparsely populated areas?

I think the vote should go by the popular vote.  If more people vote for candidate A, candidate A should win, regardless of the districts that the votes were taken in.  A vote is a vote, whether you live in a dense city or in the middle of nowhere.  The 'all or nothing' nature of the electoral college specifically puts the rural voters at a disadvantage, and that is what I don't like about it.  

What do you think are the negatives of the popular vote?


Edited to add:  Oh, my definition of minority in the election is just the loser.  Like in the 04 election, my state was about 55%Kerry/45%Bush.  The people that voted for Bush are the minority, and got screwed because Oregon gave 100% of the electoral votes to Kerry.
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by Charlie on Jun 1st, 2007, 8:15pm
The electoral college is beloved by the right more than the left and for good reason.

They wouldn't be happy in Australia.

Charlie
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by burnt-toast on Jun 2nd, 2007, 10:26am
The Electoral College represents our federal system emphasizing state and individual rights to participate in the selection of presidents.  The Electoral College is not archaic and serves to avoid selection of President’s via pure democracy, a system of mob-rule government that the founder’s feared greatly.

The electors have one responsibility: to select the president and vice president. When the candidate wins the popular vote of a state (or District of Columbia), the electors assigned to that candidate are the ones who vote in the Electoral College. They meet in their respective states about five weeks after the November presidential election to cast their votes. Normally, the meeting is a mere formality. The electors vote for the presidential candidate who received the greatest number of votes in their state.

The distribution of Electoral votes in the College tends to over-represent people in rural States. This is because the number of electors in each state is determined by it’s number of members in the House (more or less reflecting the State's population size) plus the number of members it has in the Senate (always two regardless of the State's population).  For example, in 1988 the combined voting age population (3,119,000) of the seven least populous states of Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming carried the same 21 Electoral votes as 9,614,000 persons of voting age in the State of Florida. Ignoring the interests of voters in these states to concentrate on gaining Florida’s higher popular vote would be disastrous because the Electoral College essentially provided the smaller number of voters in these combined states higher weighted Electoral vote value than voters in the more heavily populated but individual state of Florida.    

States decide how their Electors vote.  As of 2000, the District of Columbia and all states except Maine and Nebraska had adopted the winner-take-all system. Under the winner-take-all system, the electors assigned to the candidate who won most of the vote in their state represent the Electoral College.  Maine and Nebraska employ the district system awarding two electors to the winner of the state’s popular vote with the remaining electors awarded to the popular vote winner in each state’s congressional districts.  

In most cases the candidate who wins the nation’s popular vote also wins the Electoral vote. If the election is close, however, as was the election of 2000, the Electoral College may end up picking a candidate who did not receive most of the nation’s popular vote. The candidate who wins the presidency is the one who wins a majority of Electoral votes based on the outcome of voting from states across the entire nation, rather than just a majority of the nation’s population which geographically tends to be more concentrated.  On four occasions in U.S. history—in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000 - the candidate with the most popular votes did not win the presidency because he did not win the most Electoral votes due to the outcome of voting from each state.  

The Electoral Collage allows voters in every state to participate and have a voice, including the small states. These states would be overlooked if elections depended solely on candidates seeking the most votes. It prevents sectionalism by requiring Presidential candidates to gain support across the entire nation.  It is intended to contribute to political stability by forcing major parties and candidates to represent a wide range of national interests instead of focusing solely on the interests of states with high populations.  It also forces recognition of minority interests (not just race and ethnicity) because these can play a significant role in deciding close presidential elections.  

It’s not that difficult to comprehend what the founder’s intended.  It’s not a left vs. right thing, these are terms used by our current corrupt democratic system to divide and conquer gullible voters.  The Electoral College is necessary to ensure that the diverse interests of an entire nation are considered in presidential elections.

Tom    
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by klusterkopf on Jun 2nd, 2007, 12:29pm
[b][/b]If my American history is correctly remembered, Bush won the election against Gore based on the, according to some people, somewhat questionable results of the votes in Florida (remeber Chaff?)-Gore chose not to contest it and Bush won, but it was a VERY close election.

Concerning the Electoral College, we were taught that the Electors (members) have the right to IGNORE the popular vote and give their state's electoral votes to whomever they want-fortunately, that has never happened.  It appears that the Founding Fathers put that in because they were mostly aristocrates and really did not trust the common people.  Am I correct?
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Jun 2nd, 2007, 1:21pm

on 06/02/07 at 12:29:15, klusterkopf wrote:
[b][/b]If my American history is correctly remembered, Bush won the election against Gore based on the, according to some people, somewhat questionable results of the votes in Florida (remeber Chaff?)-Gore chose not to contest it and Bush won, but it was a VERY close election.

Concerning the Electoral College, we were taught that the Electors (members) have the right to IGNORE the popular vote and give their state's electoral votes to whomever they want-fortunately, that has never happened.  It appears that the Founding Fathers put that in because they were mostly aristocrates and really did not trust the common people.  Am I correct?



Hey, thats a great first post.  
Dont I know you from somewhere?
You have a lot of Kopf schmerz?

::)
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by klusterkopf on Jun 2nd, 2007, 1:28pm
Dear Monee,
I only know you from reading the board and I enjoy your posts.  I am chronic and am in severe pain most of the time-my doctors have to keep switching my medications as I develop a tolerance.  I am now taking morphine sulfate, long and quick release, which has been effective as I've only been on them for a week.  Thanks for the compliment on my post!  By the way, some of my best friends are accountants ;)!
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by Charlie on Jun 2nd, 2007, 3:14pm
Welcome to the madhouse Kopf. It's populated by a lot us that can't shut up. Your history is good.

On that.........

Of course the founders had no real idea of letting the population at large vote. There were a lot of obsticles, based on money of course and position. The electoral college owes its existence to thinking of the time.

Too bad we can't put it to popular vote.

Charlie
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by Kevin_M on Jun 2nd, 2007, 7:10pm

on 06/02/07 at 10:26:40, burnt-toast wrote:
The Electoral College is not archaic and serves to avoid selection of President's via pure democracy, a system of mob-rule government that the founder's feared greatly.


This is concisely in accordance with James Madison's view and influence:


...The definitive rejection of the election of the President by popular vote was based, however, on more than the large State - small State issue.   In essence, it was based on a understandable distrust of a direct or pure democracy, based on their experience and knowledge of history. This concern was stated very clearly during  the debates on July 17th by Charles Pinckney who said on July 17th : "An Election by the people being liable to the most obvious & striking objections. They will be led by a few active & designing men. The most populous States by combining in favor of the same individual will be able to carry their points."  

... Madison's own words on this issue.  In Federalist 10 he discusses his now well known concerns about "domestic faction."  He recognized that although all are equal before the law:  

(long, ending only)

"... it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual.  Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."


In a letter to General Washington dated January 28, 1788,  Madison (1884) expressed his concern  that distrust of men of property or education was having an adverse effect in the States on ratifying the Constitution. To Jefferson he wrote on February 19, 1788 that although Massachusetts had ratified by a narrow 187-168 margin "the opposition was comprised primarily men sympathetic to Shay's rebellion, as well as other ignorant and jealous men."  Later, again to General Washington, Madison wrote, in response to New Hampshire failing to adopt the constitution, "The opposition, I understand, is composed precisely of the same description of characters with that of Massachusetts, and stands contrasted to all the wealth, abilities and respectability of the State."  In a letter to John Adams dated October 28, 1813 Jefferson wrote "For I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men.  The grounds for this are virtue and talents."

Alexander Hamilton as exemplifying the constrained vision when he wrote "It is the lot of all human institutions, even those of the most perfect kind, to have defects as well as excellencies- ill as well as good propensities.  These result from the imperfections of the Institutor, Man."  And Madison observed "if men were angels no government would be necessary."  


Madison:

Election of the executive posed a seemingly insoluble problem. Madison shared some of George Mason's fear that to allow election directly by the people was like referring "a trial of colours to a blind man," and Gouverneur Morris' fear that if a legislative body chose the executive "it will be like the election of a pope by a conclave of cardinals." Madison eventually supported the idea of an electoral college as a hedge against both dangers.

...

Madison's realism about the irrepressible causes of faction led him, in framing the Constitution, to guard against their influence and against any concentration of power that would allow greed and ambition to be dangerous to liberty. But he also regarded virtuous (that is, nonpartisan) leadership as vital to the public good, and he was willing, indeed determined, to encourage such leadership even if it meant putting some restraint on direct, popular government. ...




taken from these links, both lengthy

http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Washington-Johnson/Madison-James.html

http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/preselection2000.html


   
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by Jonny on Jun 2nd, 2007, 8:27pm

on 06/02/07 at 13:21:45, BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote:
You have a lot of Kopf schmerz?


Thats because it is him!

Hi John  [smiley=wave.gif]
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by nani on Jun 3rd, 2007, 12:14am

on 06/02/07 at 13:28:56, klusterkopf wrote:
Dear Monee,
I only know you from reading the board and I enjoy your posts.  I am chronic and am in severe pain most of the time-my doctors have to keep switching my medications as I develop a tolerance.  I am now taking morphine sulfate, long and quick release, which has been effective as I've only been on them for a week.  Thanks for the compliment on my post!  By the way, some of my best friends are accountants ;)!


John, please tell your dr that no matter how many he tries...narcotics will not cure your personality disorder.  ::)
Title: Re: Something to think about
Post by catlind on Jun 3rd, 2007, 12:25am
Kevin, I swear I just went back to school again...

In the signature series we were required to take to graduate, it is an inspection of the various aspects of the Republic and how the constitution and the bill of rights handled these issues.  We were required to examine and evaluate the federalist papers ad nauseum...(among many other readings to include the communist manifesto, plato, aristotle and the letters of John Adams and his wife, velikovksy and the scientific method and 12 intense weeks worth of other readings)

You did a great job of summarizing some very lengthy reading and pointing out why the electoral college came into existence and what it's intent was - to avoid faction and the inevitable result of charismatic men with an internal agenda gaining power over the people not for their best interest, but for his own agenda.

Kudo's.

Cat


Clusterheadaches.com Message Board » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1!
YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved.