How can we give them democracy if they insist on voting?

[shereads]

Thats a very easy position to take. You are a liberal and if it were that way we wouldn't need an election, you could just pick the democrat you wanted to lead every four years. If you look you will see Gore carried practically no states except the seaboards.

By that plan no Republican would ever win. I on the other hand would prefer that ]

Instead we have the Republicans determining the outcome of local elections via creative redistricting. Shift the lines here and there, and you can turn minority precincts into a minority of precincts.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I would feel the same regardless of how the majority of the country voted. Look at what you're saying Colly. Essentially, you are saying we shouldn't have a direct democracy because, if we did, the party that the majority voted for would win. I don't think the presidency of the United States should be about playing nice and making sure both sides get a chance.

Not to mention the fact that I don't think you are correct in saying the liberal candidate would always win. Most people couldn't care less about politics and only pay enough attention to provide a backlash against whichever party is currently in office.

I still stand by my opinion that it doesn't matter where the majority of the population live. It only matters how the majority of the population votes.

- Mindy

If the president was elected by direct majority his campaign would be based on more government hand outs, improved social serices, federal tax dollars for revitilizing urban negiborhoods, federal tax dollars for rebuilding urban infrastructure, federal tax dollars to rebuild urban roads and higher taxes on the upper middle and upper class. He might throw a bone here or there to some special interest, but that would essentially be it. He would carry all the heavily urban areas and much of the suburban areas and the rest of us could go take a flyihng leap for all he cared.

In the current system you cannot win based on such a narrow platform. You can't just appeal to one segment of the population. In the current system such a plaform would only net you the heavily urbanized states and you could still loose the election. In the curent format a candate must appeal to retiree's in Florida, New England fishermen, Peensylvania steel workers, West Virginaia coal miners, Tensessee hill folks, Mississippi cotton farmers, Detroit auto workers, Nebraska wheat farmers, Colorado services industry employees, Califonia wine growers, Washingston apple farmers and enough of everyone inbetween to assure himself that not only the majority of people support him, but that the majority of the states support him.

In the current format everyone has a say and a president is forced to represent the broadest possible spectrum of concerns from the populace at large. Your format, direct democracy would represent the view of the majority of people, but it would do so at the cost of allowing the legitimate concerns of a huge section of the populace to have no meaning whatsoever.

Your basic argument can be boiled down to if you live in the middle of the country without highly urbanized centers you can elect represenatives, you can elect senators, but you will have no say in who is president. While I suppose it is democratically more represenative of the majority, it gains that at the cost of represnting only a small minority of the concerns the populace has. I don't see it as a good trade off.

-Colly

 

[sweetnpetite]

It is a very pretty idea, I agree, but without representation we (every legal voter *dead or alive in florida* would be responsible for weighing in on every single issue up for vote and I for one don't have enough knowledge of all issues or the time to master that knowledge. Nor do I believe enough people with the good sense to make those decisions have it either.

Anyway, I know the balance seems tilted at this point, but am not so sure the direct democracy is the answer...

E- humbly venting

I don't think she means direct democracy in the sence of voting for each and every issue- I'm pretty sure that she was really only talking about 'one person one vote'

She also said 'we have congress for regional representation' or something to that effect, so I'm sure she's still for *representaional* democracy. I think it was just a misunderstanding (correct me if I'm wrong minsue)

 

[lucky-E-leven]

my mistake, then. i'll blame it on low-bloodsugar this time, but next time we're definitely moving me up to idiot status, K?

e

 

[sweetnpetite]

If the president was elected by direct majority his campaign would be based on more government hand outs, improved social serices, federal tax dollars for revitilizing urban negiborhoods, federal tax dollars for rebuilding urban infrastructure, federal tax dollars to rebuild urban roads and higher taxes on the upper middle and upper class. He might throw a bone here or there to some special interest, but that would essentially be it. He would carry all the heavily urban areas and much of the suburban areas and the rest of us could go take a flyihng leap for all he cared.

In the current system you cannot win based on such a narrow platform. You can't just appeal to one segment of the population. In the current system such a plaform would only net you the heavily urbanized states and you could still loose the election. In the curent format a candate must appeal to retiree's in Florida, New England fishermen, Peensylvania steel workers, West Virginaia coal miners, Tensessee hill folks, Mississippi cotton farmers, Detroit auto workers, Nebraska wheat farmers, Colorado services industry employees, Califonia wine growers, Washingston apple farmers and enough of everyone inbetween to assure himself that not only the majority of people support him, but that the majority of the states support him.

In the current format everyone has a say and a president is forced to represent the broadest possible spectrum of concerns from the populace at large. Your format, direct democracy would represent the view of the majority of people, but it would do so at the cost of allowing the legitimate concerns of a huge section of the populace to have no meaning whatsoever.

Your basic argument can be boiled down to if you live in the middle of the country without highly urbanized centers you can elect represenatives, you can elect senators, but you will have no say in who is president. While I suppose it is democratically more represenative of the majority, it gains that at the cost of represnting only a small minority of the concerns the populace has. I don't see it as a good trade off.

-Colly

Ahh, but if as you say, only Liberal Democrats will win, we will help anybody our heart bleeds for, not just city folk.

 

[sweetnpetite]

my mistake, then. i'll blame it on low-bloodsugar this time, but next time we're definitely moving me up to idiot status, K?

e

I wouldn't go that far. I believe that she did misuse the term 'direct democracy' -- Easy mistake - on both of your parts.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Instead we have the Republicans determining the outcome of local elections via creative redistricting. Shift the lines here and there, and you can turn minority precincts into a minority of precincts.

Jerrymandering is a time honored tradition and you can bet that the republicans aren't the only ones to do it nor are they even the best at it.

For many years African-Americans, Democrats, civil rights activists and even some republican's like myself decried the fact that my home state hadn't sent an African American to congress since reconstruction ended. So they started tinkering with the district that includes Jackson, our most heavily urbanized area. Eventually a gent named Mike Espy was elected as well as a man named Bennie Thompson, who had worked tirelessly for the benefit of the urban poor as public service commissioner for years. To achieve this however the district looks like a Rosarch Test plate. I have seen slides of Amoeba's that look less spread out.

Accusing republicans of doing that is literally the pot calling the kettle black. Both parties do it whenever they get a majority, despite the fact that it is supposedly illegal.


-Colly

 

[Somme]

Give them all Diebold maschines.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Ahh, but if as you say, only Liberal Democrats will win, we will help anybody our heart bleeds for, not just city folk.

King William the conqueror worked for anyone his heart bled for too. I am not ready to go back to monarchy

-Colly

 

[sweetnpetite]

Accusing republicans of doing that is literally the pot calling the kettle black. Both parties do it whenever they get a majority, despite the fact that it is supposedly illegal.


-Colly
-Colly

So you see why they (the poiticians) want to keep the system as it is.

As far as I'm conserned, what you've both done is point out that Districts are meaningless thereby leding support -in my mind at least- t the consept oof one person one vote.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

hey min and per...room for me to sip a cosmo next to you at the bar?

I'm still laughing over the concept of "appointing a democratic government"...that's beautifully contradictory. By definition, a democratic government is voted into office by the people of that country (or the state that your brother is governor of just "happens" to have all sorts of electoral problems resulting in them deciding to vote for....gasp...YOU).

An Iraqi government appointed by the American government would be what is known as a "puppet government." In other words, we'd be pulling the strings.

The 2000 election should have caused rioting in the streets...the people were fooled by a lying former cokehead.


Hey W...I've got a few questions and an observation for you...So where are those WMD? The one's you swore under oath that you knew existed and had proof that existed? You know, it's funny...you should thank your lucky stars that you're not getting impeached...by comparison I think that lying about a reason for going to war is a much bigger "fuck you" to your constituents than lying about who you're fucking.

Too bad congress doesn't have the balls to impeach him

As I mentioned in an earlier thread, Lying to the populace about something isn't a high crime and misdameanor. Blooking an intern is. If you want to make lying an impeachable offense then we won't ever have a president sit his four years. Can you honestly think of a politician who is wholly truthful 100% of the time? Even honest Abe made campaign promises he couldn't keep and stretched the truth about the news from the front in the Civil war on more than occasion.

-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

So you see why they (the poiticians) want to keep the system as it is.

As far as I'm conserned, what you've both done is point out that Districts are meaningless thereby leding support -in my mind at least- t the consept oof one person one vote.

Districts exist so that people at a fairly local level can send someone to the big stage who represents, at least for the most part their views. In the case of my curent state it means that upstate rural people can send a delegate to congress who represents their views on such things as free trade, farm subsidies, and other rural concerns. If you do away with districts you do away with local concerns being debated in the larger format of government at the federal level. No one would ever come out of this state who wasn't representing the views of NYC residents if all our reps were chosen by direct vote of the populace at large.

Do you really advocate that?

-Colly

 

[shereads]

In the current system you cannot win based on such a narrow platform. You can't just appeal to one segment of the population. In the current system such a plaform would only net you the heavily urbanized states and you could still loose the election. In the curent format a candate must appeal to retiree's in Florida, New England fishermen, Peensylvania steel workers, West Virginaia coal miners, Tensessee hill folks, Mississippi cotton farmers, Detroit auto workers, Nebraska wheat farmers, Colorado services industry employees, Califonia wine growers, Washingston apple farmers and enough of everyone inbetween to assure himself that not only the majority of people support him, but that the majority of the states support him.

No wonder it's so expensive to run a campaign that you have to promise Halliburton they can have Mars! Otherwise, you'd never scrape together the $100 million to talk to those apple farmers and hill folks.

 

[shereads]

Colly, I know that's how it's supposed to work, but the system assumes that most voters will want to know the platform.

All a candidate really needs is twice as much money for bumper stickers and commercials. The commercials don't need to say anything about the platform, but they do need memorable, inoffensive soundbites like, "I'm a uniter, not a divider," and "I'm not a Washington insider."

The bumper stickers do the rest.

Platform? That's for the people who fund the campaigns.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Colly, I know that's how it's supposed to work, but the system assumes that most voters will want to know the platform.

All a candidate really needs is twice as much money for bumper stickers and commercials. The commercials don't need to say anything about the platform, but they do need memorable, inoffensive soundbites like, "I'm a uniter, not a divider," and "I'm not a Washington insider."

The bumper stickers do the rest.

Platform? That's for the people who fund the campaigns.

That's a given. With the system you currently have, you can't really talk about an electoral campaign, it's all just advertising.

Not only there is no need to address any issue (both parties have stereotyped visions of the world so completely opposite that everyone knows already anything they could possibly say), but raising those issues and coming up with a credibly feasable plan would left them completely exposed to attacks. No real policy can appeal simultaneously to appeal to retiree's in Florida, New England fishermen, Peensylvania steel workers, West Virginaia coal miners, Tensessee hill folks, Mississippi cotton farmers, Detroit auto workers, Nebraska wheat farmers, Colorado services industry employees, Califonia wine growers and Washingston apple farmers. But slogans can.

 

[shereads]

deleted. giving up for now. broken and tired.

 

[minsue]

It is a very pretty idea, I agree, but without representation we (every legal voter *dead or alive in florida* would be responsible for weighing in on every single issue up for vote and I for one don't have enough knowledge of all issues or the time to master that knowledge. Nor do I believe enough people with the good sense to make those decisions have it either.

I think the shitty thing about elections (and it's no one's fault but their own) is that there is such a large part of the country that doesn't even bother to vote. I think the problem is not so much in the design of the system, but how we fail to utilize it to our benefit. Majority can't speak if majority doesn't vote and it seems as though the majority (barring the election fiasco that has driven you to drink tonight) that is voting has been heard soundly for the last several elections before it.

I do not say these things lightly, either, as I am a resident of TX and our state gvmt. is currently trying to redraw all districts (majority in power is rep.) so that they might gain even more chairs in next round of voting. Redistricting was done not even two years ago and is not scheduled again for quite some time, but that is not stopping our fantastic gov. rick perry, who gallantly stepped in from Lt. Gov. position when G.W.B. hauled ass for Washington, from calling 3 special sessions back to back (raping my pocket book) in order to get it done. (This is where No Child Left Behind, does not count in TX because we are really busy spending $$$ on special sessions we do not need so that there may be a republican heiney in every seat.)

But you'd be so proud, Minsue! Our Dems fled the state twice to avoid the first two sessions and halt the redist. effort! I really got off on it simply because it's been a long time since I've seen something bold done for such a good cause. They were ultimately unsuccessful and I believe the whole fiasco is moving up through circuit courts as we speak, but I will say no more to embarrass my beloved home state (even though it does not have a good history for cranking out presidents) Anyway, I know the balance seems tilted at this point, but am not so sure the direct democracy is the answer...

E- humbly venting

SnP is correct. I really meant one person one vote as opposed to one person votes for someone else that I think would do a better job voting than I would (ie electoral college). Sorry for the term "direct democracy". It's been a long time since my highschool govt class so I got terms jumbled in my head.

As to your state Democrat reps, I was proud. I thought it was a truly sad state of affairs, but is was good to see people standing up for their beliefs in the only option left to them.

- Mindy, who votes in a gerrymandered district that weaves around a large portion of the state

 

[minsue]

That's a given. With the system you currently have, you can't really talk about an electoral campaign, it's all just advertising.

Not only there is no need to address any issue (both parties have stereotyped visions of the world so completely opposite that everyone knows already anything they could possibly say), but raising those issues and coming up with a credibly feasable plan would left them completely exposed to attacks. No real policy can appeal simultaneously to appeal to retiree's in Florida, New England fishermen, Peensylvania steel workers, West Virginaia coal miners, Tensessee hill folks, Mississippi cotton farmers, Detroit auto workers, Nebraska wheat farmers, Colorado services industry employees, Califonia wine growers and Washingston apple farmers. But slogans can.

What Lauren said.

- Mindy, running late for work

 

[Colleen Thomas]

That's a given. With the system you currently have, you can't really talk about an electoral campaign, it's all just advertising.

Not only there is no need to address any issue (both parties have stereotyped visions of the world so completely opposite that everyone knows already anything they could possibly say), but raising those issues and coming up with a credibly feasable plan would left them completely exposed to attacks. No real policy can appeal simultaneously to appeal to retiree's in Florida, New England fishermen, Peensylvania steel workers, West Virginaia coal miners, Tensessee hill folks, Mississippi cotton farmers, Detroit auto workers, Nebraska wheat farmers, Colorado services industry employees, Califonia wine growers and Washingston apple farmers. But slogans can.

I have to disagree with you based on people I have know,specifically farmers. Good folks, hard working, honest, most of them religious and family men with strong ties to the earth they worked. The average one might not know who was on the supreme court, probably couldn't tell you what our policy toward Shri lanka was, maybe not even what our policy in the mideast was, save in the broadest of terms. If however you asked about farm subsidies, or how the banning of a certain pesticide would hit thier crop yeilds, or who was on which side of these issues, they would surprise you with the breadth and depth of thier knowledge.

Most of the groups I named have a core concern, or a very narrow band of policies they care deeply about, the rest is just fluff. So you can make a policy that appeals to all.

Retiree's in Florida: A strong medicare reform plank would appeal here and not hurt you seriously with the others.
New England fishermen: A plank to ban some of the more unethical practices of the big fisheries that are putting small independents out of bussiness would apeal here without stepping on anyone's toes.
Peensylvania steel workers: A protective tariff on steel would have these folks happy and bother noone else (granted it would make the candidate face severe pressure from outside the U.S., but they don't vote)
West Virginaia coal miners: Stronger legislation to make the big coal companies more responsible for the working conditions in the mines would be a hit here and bother noone else.
Tensessee hill folks: As a group they are hard to define, but I can promise inceased funding for the TVA and creation of more jobs within would go over well with the majority and not hurt the ohters.
Mississippi cotton farmers: A subsidy to let a field lie fallow each year would do them worlds of good and harm no one else.
Detroit auto workers: Forcing a fair tade agreement with the japansese on opening thier markets would be a hit here and wouldn't pissoff anyone else most likely.
Nebraska wheat farmers: Include wheat farms in your subsidy package and they would be happy.
Colorado services industry employees: As mostly seasonal employee's a requirement for companies to refill seasonal work with people who worked the season before being given priority would help.
Califonia wine growers: A nice tarrif on imported wines.
Washingston apple farmers: Less stringent controls over what preservatives they can use would be a boon here.

There is a diverse group and a set of policies that appeal to each without really bothering the others. Thats the give and take in politics. The farmer might love you for his protections through subsides, but curse you when he had to pay more for his tractior since the steel tarrif made it more expensive, but in the end he will love you more than he hates you most of the time. A diverse and wide range of people and issues and since you have to carry the states these people live in you have to work to take their concerns seriously.

There is no slogan that will make farmer Brown forget you are going to slash his subsuides. There is no jingle so catchy the Bob the fisherman will forget you are for big insdustry taking over the fishing industry cause it's more efficient, Carl, who works down at Ford won't see a bumper sticker that makes him forget you are against doing anything that changes the status quo in our trade with Japan, Ed, the steelmill worker won't catch a soundbite that impresses him so much he will forget you are against a tarrif.

The jingles, buzz words and catch phrases are for middle class folks like myself who can take an interest in foerign policy because there isn't a policy that effects me so severely that it threatens my world as I know it. With the advent of Bush Co's attack on women that has changed dramatically. I now feel threatened on a personal level and thus have an issue that is of overriding importance.

I think the current system works well, in that it makes politicians listen to practically everyone's views.

-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly, I know that's how it's supposed to work, but the system assumes that most voters will want to know the platform.

All a candidate really needs is twice as much money for bumper stickers and commercials. The commercials don't need to say anything about the platform, but they do need memorable, inoffensive soundbites like, "I'm a uniter, not a divider," and "I'm not a Washington insider."

The bumper stickers do the rest.

Platform? That's for the people who fund the campaigns.

Sher,

If you truely believe the population at large is wholly ignroant of what a candidate stands for how do you think changing the system will help?

-Colly

 

[shereads]

deleted double post. can't type, shouldn't try - up until 5 a.m. waiting for cops to fingerprint house, finally locked gate and went to bed, got call at 5:15 am from police, mad at me because I wasn't available when fingerprinter arrived.

 

[shereads]

New England fishermen: A plank to ban some of the more unethical practices of the big fisheries that are putting small independents out of bussiness would apeal here without stepping on anyone's toes.

Except for the big fisheries

Detroit auto workers: Forcing a fair tade agreement with the japansese on opening thier markets would be a hit here and wouldn't pissoff anyone else most likely.

It would open the door to other countries to demand why we use subsidies to keep their own products from competing fairly here. Big Sugar holds godlike power in Florida politics while some Caribbean sugar-producing nations sink deeper into poverty, because of subsidies and protections that are essentially no different than the ones you'd be asking Japan to remove. Globalization will mean that it won't matter where the markets are, eventually. The jobs will be in India, Mexico, and wherever Detroit's executive offices can find cheap labor.

There is a diverse group and a set of policies that appeal to each without really bothering the others.

I don't see that in in any of the cases you sited, Col. You might think it shouldn't reallly bother others, but if there are stringent controls on preservatives, or pesticide bans, there is a group somewhere battling to keep them in place of even strengthen them, for reasons that they believe are as good.

So it comes down to money. The entire reason for political corruption is that candidates have to raise money to fund their campaigns and that the money runs the system. As things are now, if the sugar farms have more money than the environmental lobby in Florida - to which the answer is "well, duh, what else is new," it doesn't mean the environmental lobby will be given nothing. The system works because the weaker side is tossed a bone now and then, and sometimes forces a victory of significance, so that there's an appearance that everybody has a fair chance to be heard. Nobody in Florida will ever run a political campaign that's openly anti-environment. Even grandma would sit up and take notice: "Eh? What's that? Jeb hates trees and is gonna kill Flipper and Bambi? Why, that young scallywag!" Jeb wouldn't survive in office that way, and the people who need him there know it. They allow a little "give" while they mostly "take." It's not fair, and can't be while politics in the U.S. is essentially a bidding war for campaign funds. Some controls on "hard money" won't do a thing to stop "soft money" from working the system in a sneakier way.

Gerrmandering is proof that the system is not fair and not intended to be fair. Just as hiring a professional jury-selection consultant proves that justice is not blind and that the smarter side is the one who does not WANT a fair jury.

I don't know what the answer is, but I think one-man/one-vote would be a less easy structure for PACS to manipulate. The more complicated any system is, the easier it is to hide what's really going on.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Except for the big fisheries



It would open the door to other countries to demand why we use subsidies to keep their own products from competing fairly here. Big Sugar holds godlike power in Florida politics while some Caribbean sugar-producing nations sink deeper into poverty, because of subsidies and protections that are essentially no different than the ones you'd be asking Japan to remove. Globalization will mean that it won't matter where the markets are, eventually. The jobs will be in India, Mexico, and wherever Detroit's executive offices can find cheap labor.
I don't see that in in any of the cases you sited, Col. You might think it shouldn't reallly bother others, but if there are stringent controls on preservatives, or pesticide bans, there is a group somewhere battling to keep them in place of even strengthen them, for reasons that they believe are as good.

So it comes down to money. The entire reason for political corruption is that candidates have to raise money to fund their campaigns and that the money runs the system. As things are now, if the sugar farms have more money than the environmental lobby in Florida - to which the answer is "well, duh, what else is new," it doesn't mean the environmental lobby will be given nothing. The system works because the weaker side is tossed a bone now and then, and sometimes forces a victory of significance, so that there's an appearance that everybody has a fair chance to be heard. Nobody in Florida will ever run a political campaign that's openly anti-environment. Even grandma would sit up and take notice: "Eh? What's that? Jeb hates trees and is gonna kill Flipper and Bambi? Why, that young scallywag!" Jeb wouldn't survive in office that way, and the people who need him there know it. They allow a little "give" while they mostly "take." It's not fair, and can't be while politics in the U.S. is essentially a bidding war for campaign funds. Some controls on "hard money" won't do a thing to stop "soft money" from working the system in a sneakier way.

Gerrmandering is proof that the system is not fair and not intended to be fair. Just as hiring a professional jury-selection consultant proves that justice is not blind and that the smarter side is the one who does not WANT a fair jury.

I don't know what the answer is, but I think one-man/one-vote would be a less easier structure for PACS to manipulate.

I didn't sit down and work out a political party Sher. I just put forth policy that would appeal to my admittedly totally fictious groups and not necceissarily cause problems with others within the group. It was meant only to show that a candidate must put together a policy that appeals to enough of the people to get elected and at the same time he has to appeal to a wide enough range to carry majorities in a diverse group of states.


I don't know what the answer is, but I think one-man/one-vote would be a less easier structure for PACS to manipulate. [/B][/QUOTE]

One man one vote dosen't need manipulation. The outcome is foregone. You don't need to appeal to farmers, they don't have enough votes to matter. Nor do you need to appeal to enviormentalists, they too are an insignifcant minority. You have to appeal to urbanites, suburbanites, and perhaps pick a minority group or two you can appeal to as well that has a significant voting block and whose needs don't conflict with those of urbanites and suburbanites and yet don't make up significant blocks of urban voters.

Put it this way, the population of NYC is around 8.45 million. Thats more than Kansas (2.7), Iowa (2.8) and Mississippi (2.8) combined.

Three rural states don't match the population of just one urban center. No politician would bother with the concerns of people in these states. Just make promises to the urbanites and count on the admittedly sparce urban populations in each to give you part of the vote there. One man one vote dosen't solve anything, you just make it easier for the pol's to pitch themselves since they only have to appeal to a narrow band of voters and ideas.

And all of us who have concerns about things but don't live in urban centers or closely asscosiated Suburban areas? Tell it to your congressman, you have no influnce at the executive level.

-Colly

 

[deliciously_naughty]

As I mentioned in an earlier thread, Lying to the populace about something isn't a high crime and misdameanor. Blooking an intern is. If you want to make lying an impeachable offense then we won't ever have a president sit his four years. Can you honestly think of a politician who is wholly truthful 100% of the time? Even honest Abe made campaign promises he couldn't keep and stretched the truth about the news from the front in the Civil war on more than occasion.

-Colly

First let me state that in no way shape or form do I believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or honest politicians.


But you forget that Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not fucking an intern. That's a little thing we like to call perjury. Bush essentially commited perjury when he swore under oath that he had proof of WMD in Iraq and that that was his reason for taking our country to war.

And when it comes down to lying about who you're screwing or why you're throwing the country into a war...I have a much bigger problem with the latter.


We liberals also care about the poor people in the country...

However, here's the thing. There ARE 8 million people in nyc. Therefore they do have a bigger voice than say Podunk Iowa. But why should a town of 2000 have the same influence on policy as a city of 8 million?

But, to balance that out...you're working on the assumption that everyone votes. In reality, the older populances vote in significantly higher numbers than other demographics. And the elderly tend to be VERY conservative. The most liberal age demographic is mine, that of the 18-30 crowd. And we vote in record LOW percentages. The middle aged crowd is fairly evenly split.

And hence we end up with a 50/50 mix for the most part. The senate is almost perfectly balanced, and even if you look at the numbers of the popular vote as opposed to the electoral vote, it was almost still a 50/50 vote in the last election.

I would actually be very interested to see what would happen if every person who was eligible actually voted. Of course, what I'd really like to see is everyone be an informed voter, but that will NEVER happen.

In fact, what scares me most about those people in the south and the midwest and the average uniformed voter is that they don't see Bush for the threat he is...rather than see a lying moronic religious zealot who wants nothing more than to turn back the clock on women's and civil rights, they see an "average guy" who they could kick back and have a beer with. I dont' see much of that in the Northeast. Of course, I live in one of those large cities you think is conspiring to take over the country.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

First let me state that in no way shape or form do I believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or honest politicians.


But you forget that Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not fucking an intern. That's a little thing we like to call perjury. Bush essentially commited perjury when he swore under oath that he had proof of WMD in Iraq and that that was his reason for taking our country to war.

And when it comes down to lying about who you're screwing or why you're throwing the country into a war...I have a much bigger problem with the latter.


We liberals also care about the poor people in the country...

However, here's the thing. There ARE 8 million people in nyc. Therefore they do have a bigger voice than say Podunk Iowa. But why should a town of 2000 have the same influence on policy as a city of 8 million?

But, to balance that out...you're working on the assumption that everyone votes. In reality, the older populances vote in significantly higher numbers than other demographics. And the elderly tend to be VERY conservative. The most liberal age demographic is mine, that of the 18-30 crowd. And we vote in record LOW percentages. The middle aged crowd is fairly evenly split.

And hence we end up with a 50/50 mix for the most part. The senate is almost perfectly balanced, and even if you look at the numbers of the popular vote as opposed to the electoral vote, it was almost still a 50/50 vote in the last election.

I would actually be very interested to see what would happen if every person who was eligible actually voted. Of course, what I'd really like to see is everyone be an informed voter, but that will NEVER happen.

In fact, what scares me most about those people in the south and the midwest and the average uniformed voter is that they don't see Bush for the threat he is...rather than see a lying moronic religious zealot who wants nothing more than to turn back the clock on women's and civil rights, they see an "average guy" who they could kick back and have a beer with. I dont' see much of that in the Northeast. Of course, I live in one of those large cities you think is conspiring to take over the country.

I do believe in Santa and the Easterbunny and stubborly refuse to let anyone sway me from that opinion But I agree with you on honest politicians.

Honestly I don't know exactly what they tried to impeach Clinton for. I was very anti-Clinton, but I didn't ecpect them to succeeed. I know Clinton comited perjury and I think that should have had some repercussion, but apparently it didn't. My annnotation about high crimes and misdermeanors is jut that, an annotation of what the phrase origianlly stood for, I don't even pretend it's defensible today as what it is construed to mean or in the way self serving people try to define it.

Noone is saying that podunk should have as big a say on who is president as NYC. I didn't advocate that. But by direct democracy Podunk has no say and I don't advocate that either. I am well aware that most of those 8 million aren't redgistered voters or of voting age or simply don't vote. The same could be said of the states I named, more's the pity.

My whole point about large cities isn't that they are trying to take over, it's just that in a direct vote they would be the only group that mattered. Why even campaign in Nebraska, Kansas, Mississippi, or any other under populalted state when I can spend my war chest on adverts in the only area's I need to carry to win. The current format makes a candidate pay attention to and attempt to gain the support of the broadest crossection of views. He needs to carry the majority in several different states and he can't do so by simply pandering to one group.

While direct democracy would better represent the will of the majority, it would do so at the cost of representing the widest range of views. In efffect it would render megligible the legitimate concerns of many citizens and remove them from the process. In efect you are saying, if you live in North Dakota you can vote, but if you aren't voting for the candidate who is campaigning strictly to the urban populace your vote means nothing.

Basically the 2000 people in Podunk shouldn't have the same impact as the 8 million in NY, but they should feel that they have the same opportunity to have their vote determine who ispresident. After florida every voter now has to believe that in a close race, his or her state could turn the tide one way or another. I don't see that as bad.

-Colly