Here is an update on the soldier who refused to go!

[alanschu]

those in higher population areas should warrant greater presidential attention, in mind

 

They already get increased attention.

[Sand]

So there won't be any significant changes with the elimination of the Electorial College.

[alanschu]

This coming from the guy that says Tyranny of the Majority is just what people use to attack democracy.

[Sand]

Its not like ToM would happen in the US government with its checks and balances with the three branches of government we have.

[Guard Dog]

I'm confused. I don't like the electoral college, but how does it link?

because with electoral college only certain states get attention paid to them

 

 

You won't find this going away without the Electoral College. There's already a huge amount of attention paid to states like Florida and California, two states which get "the shaft" when it comes to the amount of people represented by their electoral college votes. Getting rid of the Electoral College will shift the already lopsided focus moreso in favour of the more populous areas.

 

As it should.

 

No you are wrong on this one Sand. Politically speaking the country is very different in the less urban, more rual areas compared to the major urban population centers. However, under a popular vote a candidate who captures the majority vote in only a handful of the urban centers will overwhelm the remainder of the vote from the rest of the country. Look at the election map in 2000 as an example. Gore did poorly in "Heartland America" or what the west coast liberals refer to as "Flyover Country". Under a popular vote states like Mississippi, Arkansas, Nebraska, and others of the like will never even see a presisdential candidate visit them. Much less listen to their concerns. This diagaram is all the evidence I need to oppose removing the Electoral College.

 

 

By the way, had the 2000 elections ended the other way and Bush won the popular vote but lost the electoral college I would bet you would not be in favor of scrapping it then.

[Sand]

Um... I have been in favor scrapping the electorial college way way way before the 2000 elections.

[metadigital]

Just to be clear, I think the Australian (Federal) bicameral system is a pretty good model (no surprises as the later democracies tend to implement innovations earlier than the older ones, like secret ballot a century ago); they have a preferential vote for the lower House (Representatives) and a proportional vote for the upper House (Sentate) where the states (from the populous NSW, to the less so Tasmania) each have the same quantity of Senators.

 

The House of Representatives crafts legislation (Legislature) and the Senate (the Executive) signs it into law (or votes it down). Thus the Tyranny of the Majority can be managed (and minimized) by the Senate, but the will of the people (Rousseau's "sovereign") writes the Bills.

[Gorth]

As I said, there are (at least) two ways you can approach this:

1. re-engage with society, or
   
2. run away.
   

Based on personal experience, I recommend option 2. It's way more exciting

[Sand]

Just to be clear, I think the Australian (Federal) bicameral system is a pretty good model (no surprises as the later democracies tend to implement innovations earlier than the older ones, like secret ballot a century ago); they have a preferential vote for the lower House (Representatives) and a proportional vote for the upper House (Sentate) where the states (from the populous NSW, to the less so Tasmania) each have the same quantity of Senators.

 

The House of Representatives crafts legislation (Legislature) and the Senate (the Executive) signs it into law (or votes it down). Thus the Tyranny of the Majority can be managed (and minimized) by the Senate, but the will of the people (Rousseau's "sovereign") writes the Bills.

 

Sounds like a decent way of doing it.

[Calax]

You say that the people of Mississippi and Oklahoma and alaska wouldn't get their points of view represented because the candidates would rarely (if ever) enter the states. This kinda gets me because according to my local newspaper, California was reguarded by candidates primairly as wellspring of funding for their campaigns and would rarely have rallies or other events here because it wasn't that big of a deal (its primarys were at first way behind everyone else, then moved to the big 8 day, and finially are being shoved into Feb. of 08). Now the state has decided to make itself of consequence in the election by moving its Primary date up to Feb 23 (I think).

 

How the most populous state in the union (and the fourth largest economy in the world) can be sidelined by a state that has a grand total of THREE electoral votes boggles my mind.

 

and Meta, if the entire purpose of the presidential campaign is to put the person who the PEOPLE think should be in charge, in charge, why does tyrrany of the majority dictate that he shouldn't and the minority candidate recieve the presidency for collecting a total of 11 states (Texas (34 votes), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), North Carolina (15), New York (31), New Jersey (15), Michigan (17), Illinois (21), Georgia (15), Florida (27) and California (55)) This would cause everyone in every single of the other states feeling like they were Ignored completly by the current president.

 

 

 

BTW, your little quote on voter apathy is saying the American Governmental system has failed utterly and should be eliminated. Is that your stance?

[Cantousent]

California is not currently up for grabs. Candidates for the general election would be more willing court the voters here if the Democrats didn't take them for granted and the Republicans hadn't taken for granted that the state is out of play. It's all or nothing with the Electoral College, so there's no reason to spend the time and money campaigning somewhere unless you have some chance of carrying the day. As much as you folks rail against the Electoral College, it's probably not going to be eliminated any time soon. Whether or not, as ~Di suggests, some folks view it as a gift from God, the Constitution is difficult to Amend.

[Guard Dog]

Whether or not, as ~Di suggests, some folks view it as a gift from God, the Constitution is difficult to Amend.

Count me in the number that say "Thank God" the Constitution is difficult to amend.

[Sand]

I agree that it is good that the Constitution is difficult to amend, but I won't be thanking God for that. I'll thank those who had a hand in writing it.

 

Still, it is not perfect.

[Walsingham]

I think I understand better now. We have a similar issue - I think - in teh Uk with our MP system. I whole-heartedly oppose reform of the UK system for the reason GD mentions.

[Walsingham]

Back to the soldieer... I note our 'Black Prince' is off to Iraq:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6383747.stm

 

As was said in the commentary to the article. "If he wasn't going to go to war he shouldn't have joined the Army."

[Sand]

Good luck to him.

[metadigital]

You say that the people of Mississippi and Oklahoma and alaska wouldn't get their points of view represented because the candidates would rarely (if ever) enter the states. This kinda gets me because according to my local newspaper, California was reguarded by candidates primairly as wellspring of funding for their campaigns and would rarely have rallies or other events here because it wasn't that big of a deal (its primarys were at first way behind everyone else, then moved to the big 8 day, and finially are being shoved into Feb. of 08). Now the state has decided to make itself of consequence in the election by moving its Primary date up to Feb 23 (I think).

 

How the most populous state in the union (and the fourth largest economy in the world) can be sidelined by a state that has a grand total of THREE electoral votes boggles my mind.

 

and Meta, if the entire purpose of the presidential campaign is to put the person who the PEOPLE think should be in charge, in charge, why does tyrrany of the majority dictate that he shouldn't and the minority candidate recieve the presidency for collecting a total of 11 states (Texas (34 votes), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), North Carolina (15), New York (31), New Jersey (15), Michigan (17), Illinois (21), Georgia (15), Florida (27) and California (55)) This would cause everyone in every single of the other states feeling like they were Ignored completly by the current president.

 

 

 

BTW, your little quote on voter apathy is saying the American Governmental system has failed utterly and should be eliminated. Is that your stance?

I'm not an expert on the US political system, so I can't really give you a definitive statement ... I'm not actually sure what you're asking, actually.

 

As for Rousseau's commentary on the failure of a government, well Yes, I did notice that and I hoped you would too.

 

Is it my stance? No, I don't think the government has failed, per se, but I do think that the system isn't optimal. (I added some detail to the wikipedia if you are interested.) Rousseau also believed that democracy only worked with smaller nations, as the administration for larger states would overwhelm the population (cost too much, basically, and the ministers (he called them "magistrates") would be too far removed from the people they represent).

 

I think the only way to optimize it, though, is to get involved and ground level, with lots of other like-minded people, and work up. That was the beauty of his Social Contract: that it works because it is a truly equitable basis for a social system.

[taks]

Rousseau also believed that democracy only worked with smaller nations, as the administration for larger states would overwhelm the population (cost too much, basically, and the ministers (he called them "magistrates") would be too far removed from the people they represent).

that's why most democratic systems, the US' included, are actually republics. that's also why the US is split into separate, smaller states, in order to leave day-to-day operations up to fairly small governments, all modeled after the larger, national government. unfortunately, in the US, the national government has taken on many powers not specifically assigned to it, leaving the states with less and less authority as time passes. the cost is becoming prohibitive, and as suggested, the leaders are pretty far removed from the people they represent.

 

taks

[SteveThaiBinh]

Back to the soldieer... I note our 'Black Prince' is off to Iraq:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6383747.stm

 

As was said in the commentary to the article. "If he wasn't going to go to war he shouldn't have joined the Army."

Are we calling him the Black Prince now? When did that happen? Doesn't bode well, as the original Black Prince massacred thousands.

 

I imagine he was willing to go to war when he signed up. The question was always whether sending him into combat, being such a celebrity and therefore a target, put him and his fellows in too much risk, i.e. they'd have to spend so much effort protecting him that they wouldn't be able to do the job they were there to do. I hope someone competent has made an objective assessment and decided that he'll do more good than harm. I hope the Royal Family hasn't just insisted that their boy should get what he wants regardless of the consequences.

[Gfted1]

How did he earn that nickname?

[metadigital]

Wearing a Hitler outfit to a fancy dress party?

[Walsingham]

Back to the soldieer... I note our 'Black Prince' is off to Iraq:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6383747.stm

 

As was said in the commentary to the article. "If he wasn't going to go to war he shouldn't have joined the Army."

Are we calling him the Black Prince now? When did that happen? Doesn't bode well, as the original Black Prince massacred thousands.

 

I imagine he was willing to go to war when he signed up. The question was always whether sending him into combat, being such a celebrity and therefore a target, put him and his fellows in too much risk, i.e. they'd have to spend so much effort protecting him that they wouldn't be able to do the job they were there to do. I hope someone competent has made an objective assessment and decided that he'll do more good than harm. I hope the Royal Family hasn't just insisted that their boy should get what he wants regardless of the consequences.

 

I actually dubbed him that. Remember you heard it here first. I think it suits him though. I know he's had a tough time, all told. But he is a bit of an idiot on occasion. . ...Come to think of it, I guess that makes me the Black Moderator.

 

As for making him a target I don't think that is necessarily such a terrible thing. Knowing where an opponent will try and strike is half the job in counter-insurgency. Would _I_ enjoy being in his troop? Not bloody likely! However, you could at least rely on not being short of things like vests and rations.

 

I think from the point of view of the monarchy itself I think it does a lot of good for them. However, it will be interesting to see how the Murdoch press twists this against them.

[Sand]

Nevermind.

Edited February 22, 2007 by Sand

[Cantousent]

Back to the soldieer... I note our 'Black Prince' is off to Iraq:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6383747.stm

 

As was said in the commentary to the article. "If he wasn't going to go to war he shouldn't have joined the Army."

Are we calling him the Black Prince now? When did that happen? Doesn't bode well, as the original Black Prince massacred thousands.

 

I imagine he was willing to go to war when he signed up. The question was always whether sending him into combat, being such a celebrity and therefore a target, put him and his fellows in too much risk, i.e. they'd have to spend so much effort protecting him that they wouldn't be able to do the job they were there to do. I hope someone competent has made an objective assessment and decided that he'll do more good than harm. I hope the Royal Family hasn't just insisted that their boy should get what he wants regardless of the consequences.

 

What a surprise, Steve. You know, if it looked, even a little, as if the kid were trying to avoid going to the war, then he'd be pilloried. Folks would call him a coward or worse. Now, if he insists on fulfilling what he undoubtedly feels is his obligation, then folks can charge him with being selfish. How pathetic.

 

He is a member of the armed services. As such, he should fulfill whatever obligations are necessary to act within the role of his commission. That's regardless of how many people want to make it a no win situation for the prince. Even if some so-called "Objective" arbiter made the decision that he should not serve in Iraq, folks would still blame the royal family. After all, it would have been fixed. Undoubtedly it would be a conspiracy. :Eldar's disgusted look icon:

 

...And what message would it send to the good people of Great Britain? Folks already claim that money and power insulate the rich from risk. When one of the royal family, as part of a regular deployment, is sent to a war zone, he's just getting "what he wants regardless of the consequences."

 

It's not even that I'm a fan of the royal family. Mostly, I don't care about them. Still, your argument seems particularly unfair. Of course, I'm not surprised.

[alanschu]

I'd be impressed if, in the middle of a firefight, someone was able to point out "Hey, that's Prince Harry! Shoot him shoot him!!!"