I can’t tell you why you should care.  If thinking those guys are nutjobs is wrong, I don’t want to be right.

i don’t know of a single person who has been in your home who would agree with that absurdity.

I do take some consolation that some DU regulars were pointing out to the “11/3/04” choosers how absurd they were being.  But not much.

Also ironic is that the “11/3/04” voters don’t realize that attitudes like theirs helped lead to the real-world vote on 11/3/04.

I think you care because it’s so disheartening that there are some Americans that have that mentality.  I’m appalled that someone would actually consider the 2 in the same light

Bitter, infantile sore LOSERS.

I’m still wearing my ‘I Voted’ sticker. It’s my silent but effective middle finger extended to all these asshats. I don’t think I’m EVER going to take it off.

<gloat>

I scanned through that thread and what bothered me most, aside from the insane uneducated rantings, are the little propaganda things. Taking the old WW2 poster about the SS and applyign it to Ashcroft, or the Fascist Coulder blow up doll. The infitile bullshit is just nerve racking! Another thing is they like to complain afte 2000 about the popular vote compared to electorate… Had Kerry won Ohio he would have won the Presidencey and recieved 3.5 million less votes. Do you think they would have used that as an example of a system that needs retooling as they did before?

Could someone let me have a link to that site?  I’ve been an interested observer here for a while - and whilst I agree with very little of your politics, that is the wrong attitude to take - nothing says ‘throwing the toys out’ quite like that.

By the way, your system of electing the President does need updating.  People in New York have about as much say as I do in England.  You should follow the French route (as much as it may pain you), and elect your President through direct suffrage.

My point of view,
I am a liberal from an unquestioned blue state.  I voted democrat, but really wish there were a better option.  I voted Kerry, because like many others, I am afraid of Bush in the Whitehouse.  Just as you honestly believe that Bush is best for the nation I honestly believe that he is leading us toward a dismal era that will take decades to pull out of if we ever can.  I believe this because I believe his foriegn policy decisions are leading to a less stable world and alienating allies.  I believe this because I believe his domestic policies are further dividing the nation, and weakening the middle class. 
I do agree with you about the “Michael Moore” type media liberals, they too are doing more damage than good, and they portray those of us who do agree with some of what they say as similar fanatics.  As I would argue Rush and O’Rielly do for conservatives. 
I think it will be a difficult four years (at least) to come, because the fanatics on either side are driving the middle further apart.  I’m trying as hard as I can to understand those who support Bush (I don’t mean this as an attack on them, there just seems to be such a vast difference in mindsets that I truely can’t understand how someone can believe that we are working in the right direction).  This is why I came to this site, and why I would ask people who respond to explain (not try to convice me) why they belive the way they do.
Thank you.

Why do I feel the way I do about Bush? Why did I vote for him? Simple. In 1999 I did not give a shit about politics. I simply didn’t care. Then came the election of 2000. Big news, supposedly a president “stole” the election. Wow, I thought, this is pretty big. I looked around, and it seemed like everytime I heard the “right-wing” perspective, it rang true to me. Left-wing nutballs (as illustrated in the above article) were not offering any evidence as to why thier case was right, just screaming and crying like a bunch of kids. Enter people like Moore, the dixie chicks, springsteen, etc.. You wonder why they would risk alienating half of thier audience, well, it’s because they are idiots. I went to a Brooks and Dunn show recently, and I know they are Bush supporters, and they didn’t mention it once - and trust me, it would have made the crowd happy if they did.  But thats the difference.

My own personal support for Bush basicially comes from his success in the war on terror. Believe me, if they had the capacity to carry out another attack on us, it would have happened last tuesday. But it didn’t, voters came out in record numbers, and I found that being a Bush supporter didn’t mean I was a minority.  President Bush (still sounds good...) has brought my 30k/year family of 4 a HUGE tax break, we paid 75 bucks in income tax last year. Tax cuts for the wealthy my ass.  In spite of 9/11, we still have a low unemployment rate, and the economy is getting better. Hey, he did inherit quite a mess from Clinton, add that to 9/11 and you get one screwed up economy.

Most of all, Bush stands up for what he believes in. You know what you are getting. Polls don’t matter, he does what he thinks is right. Kerry? No dice, he needs a gallop poll to see which side if the bed to get out on.

Please, liberals, get it through your heads. There is a LARGE peice of land between NYC and LA. Believe it or not, many people live there, and they vote. Take some time to study an electoral map, and see the pretty colors. Well, the pretty red anyway, especially if you look at a county map.

Right or wrong, the electoral college is never going to change.  In order for that to happen, the smaller states are going to have to willingly cede their disproportionate power and ratify an amendment.  I seriously doubt that will ever happen.

What the country needs more is term limits.

I actually support the electoral college system completely, but MAN OH MAN do I support term limits!

Two terms.  ALL federal elected offices.  Period.

Let the state and local people decide what they want, but federally?  Two terms.  You can run for the House and serve two, then try to run for Senate (or the other way around) then try for the Presidency.  But you get two terms in any body to which you are elected.

I actually support the electoral college system completely, but MAN OH MAN do I support term limits!

I knew there was a reason I loved reading your site Jim! I can’t agree enough with these sentiments.  Frankly we need to bish slap anyone that thinks term limits are bad back to reality.

I think that that most people want to move from the electoral college to a popular vote because they don’t understand the benefits of the electoral college. They know how it works, but they don’t really know why it was designed the way it was, or what the advantages of the system are.

For those people, I highly recommend reading The Electoral College, by the Deputy Director of the Office of Election Administration at the Federal Election Commission.

That’s all very good swagger.  I still don’t agree.  There are very good early reasons for an electoral college, but they don’t quite stand up any more.  The arguments in favour of it can easily be picked apart, especially the one about it encouraging a two-party system.  I don’t think there’s anything good about that.  If reports are to be believed, both parties are about to split in two - the Dems between the loony left and the moderates, and the Reps between religious fundamentalists and moderates.  There’s nothing wrong with a bit of pluralism.  Also, the point about it enhancing minority interests is a bit silly really given that a Republican in New York - a minority interest - has no say in the oucome whatsoever under the current system.  I’m not saying the college is totally defenseless, but if your president in going to represent everyone, then he needs to be elected by everyone - not just a few people in Ohio.

Paul,

The electoral college system was not put in place to ensure a two party system.  It was put there to prevent the most populated states in the Union or a block of states with a pupulation major and an agenda from for ever deciding who would be the president. This would allow persidential candidates to cater to such a pupular group at the expense of the rest of the nation.

I for one don’t want California and New York picking who will run this country as long as they are rn over by lefty nutjobs, and will fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening. And the best vehicle to make sure that is the case is the electoral college.

But that link that was meant to convince me went on about keeping a two party system and so on.  Now I don’t know much about American demographics, but I guess you have some 200m eligible voters.  I bet not even 60m live in those two places.  Besides, it’s not terribly democratic to limit people’s ability to choose, which is really what the electoral college does in my view.  You see, the President doesn’t have his job because the guys in Congress that back him were good at winning local elections (like what happens here in the UK); he’s above Congress.  He has a more direct relationship with the people, so what better way to elect him than by direct suffrage?

But that link that was meant to convince me went on about keeping a two party system and so on.

Having seen a multi-party system at work, I will be the first to say you are an idiot if you think it solves anything. Governments are forcibly formed by a coalition of parties - because it is rare a single party gets enough vote to form the government on it’s own - where one of the members will hold both the government and the elected president hostage to it’s ambitions or the government collapses. The issue we are talking here is electing a president, and as far as I am concerned the electoral college is the damn best way to make sure everyone in the country is represented.  And it does not oppose a third or fourth party as history has shown us.

Now I don’t know much about American demographics, but I guess you have some 200m eligible voters.  I bet not even 60m live in those two places.

I also get the impression you are not an American and I thank god for that. Having lived in Europe, Asia, and South America I have often been exposed to the “intellectual superiority” of all these nations that don’t enjoy the successes of the American system they think is so deficient.  The left here is permeated by the idiotic ideas I saw in Europe and you will pardon me when I say the fewer of them we have the better off we will remain. The only European countries with a chance are Britain, which was lucky to have Thatcher fix their economy for them, and Italy, now with Berlusconi trying to fix the last 2 decades of run away communist ideas that has nearly destroyed it.  The Spanish chose to get rid of Aznar and go back to the failed social ideas that are eventually going to bury Germany and France.  The EU talks big but will go nowhere unless it makes the needed changes to allow their economies to work more like that of the US and less like that of the old USSR.

You miss the point entirely Paul.  California and New York account for 55 million Americans.  Throw in liberal New England, and you have over 80 million people. Bush won by a tad under 60 million. Why worry about the rest of the nation when pandering to 5 states can hand you the White House every time?

Besides, it’s not terribly democratic to limit people’s ability to choose, which is really what the electoral college does in my view.

America is not a democracy: we are a republic. We are not limiting the people’s ability to choose with the electoral college, we are making sure all people count when that choice is made.  No mob rule please. And that is infinitely more important.

You see, the President doesn’t have his job because the guys in Congress that back him were good at winning local elections (like what happens here in the UK); he’s above Congress.  He has a more direct relationship with the people, so what better way to elect him than by direct suffrage?

The president has the job of representing all Americans.  I already showed you how pandering to a small block of states can guarantee a presidential spot and that’s the reason for the electoral college.

Firstly, there’s no need to take that tone.  Correct, I’m not American, and I certainly don’t agree with the politics on here, but by contributing and being open-minded, I might just learn something. 

I’m not suggesting your executive should be forced into making coalitions.  You elect your President directly and you’re better for it, but it’s sad that they rely on being the Democratic or Republican nominee to become President - an independent could get 25% in a state and still get nothing in the electoral college.  You could elect your President directly, have him as the sole source of executive power, leave him free to make and break his governments, but why not have a few more parties in congress?  What is wrong with that?  The first two years of Bush’s term proved that a president and thus the government can function without majorities.  I’d prefer not to be lectured on European politics, but I can sincerely say that the only decent thing that Thatcher did with regards to our economy was ensure that the Labour Party got elected.  Oh, (and I apologise that this is a bit fragmented - I haven’t quite worked out those funky formatting options yet), a US President can currently be elected by pandering to a small block of states - I remember reading that if Kerry carried five states (I don’t remember which), he would be something like half way to the White House.  We should probably agree to disagree - you can’t say I’m totally wrong or that I’m an idiot, and you have some perfectly valid points.  Ultimately, your system wouldn’t fall apart if you used direct suffrage, but the electoral college has survived, despite anomylies (sp?) that it allows.

Here’s what people always fail to grasp about America, and the thing I think you are failing to grasp here, Paul.  And the lesson holds true for Wal-Mart, our government, anything else that people love to complain about:

If someone makes something or says something or does something that enough people like, that something immediately becomes popular and viable.

The lesson here is, if a third-party candidate were to say something, by which I mean create a platform that could energize people rather than turn them off to third parties, that person would gain power and recognition until they became a real force.  By another example, Wal-mart is a runaway success because people shop there.  It’s that simple.

Am I making the point clearly?  We have a two-party (for all intentes and purposes) system because that’s the way people have decided they like it.  Sure, you’ll hear lots of bitching, but notice that almost overwhelmingly, those same bicthers voted for one or the other of the two major party candidates.

Everyone likes to talk a good game about diversity in politics, but when the curtain closes in the voting booth, 98-ish percent of them chose a major party candidate.

And when the choice is mom and pop store and 60% mark-up or the “evil Wal-Mart” they choose Wal-Mart.

Same logic, same philosophy.  These two parties because the default because of their overwhelming popularity.  Wanna break the stranglehold?

Come up with a more popular alternative.

Ultimately, your system wouldn’t fall apart if you used direct suffrage

Oh, and as for this statement: Yes it would.  Because we’re human, and like all humans, we are subject to human nature.  And the founding fathers of this country were smart enough to not make a futile effort to work AGAINST human nature, but rather to implement some pretty intelligent controls on that nature.

The reason direct elections will not work is in order to subjugate 49.9995% of the nation at any given moment, you simply have to convince 50.0005% to go along with you.  That is called “mob rule” and it has failed dramatically everywhere it has been tried as a means to govern large numbers of people.

Pick an issue.  Gay rights, guns, abortion, church & state, whatever.  It doesn’t matter.  If you rule by the mob, the rights of the few are held to the whims of the many.

Our system *intends* to keep the rights of the individual balanced against the whims of the masses.  Sometimes we get it wrong and we end up in court.  Most of the time we do OK.

Mob rule NEVER protects the rights of the few.  It will ALWAYS err on the side of crushing the individual based on the whims of the many.  And hence it is not only useless as a form of government, but dangerous to the very ideals of western civilization.

Also, you’ll note that almost no nation of any reasonable size or economic strength governs that way.  Do you suppose that is an accident?

Mob rule NEVER protects the rights of the few.  It will ALWAYS err on the side of crushing the individual based on the whims of the many.  And hence it is not only useless as a form of government, but dangerous to the very ideals of western civilization.

Isn’t this Mill’s Tyranny of the Majority stuff in his essay On Liberty (trying to remember from my College days)

Something that the “victim” mindset has done is cause the “Tyranny Of The Minority”, where a disproportionally small group can have a disproportionally large impact on events and circumstances.

Case in point: Gay marriage. The majority has spoken in a vast majority of the states, but one judge in a very small state can affect laws nation-wide.

(Ducks)

Two terms.  ALL federal elected offices.  Period.

Will you try to do this when u end up in the House or Senate Jim?

Drum: NO need to duck!  I see your point, I just think that this is one of the cases where the rights of the minority are being trampled by the will of the majority, and it *will* land us in front of the Supreme Court before this is all over.

But luckily that’s our system.  The majority and the minority have outlets to air their grievances!

doorik; I’m not clear on what you’re asking, but I appreciate the confidence that I *will* end up there!  Although I think I’m unelectable and would prefer to be the Karl Rove of the team.  :)

DUH!  It hit me as I hit submit...term limits.

Oh hells yes, if I were ever elected to anything, I would introduce a term limits bill.

It isn’t “just” gay marriage, JimK. I also refer to PC speech, where we have to use terms specifically chosen not to “offend” people, as though a life free from offense is one of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights, and have gotten the courts (or other governmental, corporate, or educational entity) to enforce those wishes at the expense of those who expressed their First Amendment-protected Speech.

Insult a “victim group”, lose your job. Or worse.

That is what I mean by “Tyranny Of The Minority” with one offended person getting the government to not only protect their safety and general welfare, but also their overly sensitive feeeeeeeelings.