Electoral College

[Gustaf]

Look at the 2000 Election for example. Gore won the populuar vote by just winning large cities but hardly any of the heart of the country. I mean not just city limits but the cities and usually the counties that surrounded the city. For example Gore won Maryland, but the only counties he won where Montgomery, Prince Georges, Baltimore County and Baltimore City. The rest of the state went for Bush. Oh and just as a mention, I keep getting tired of mentioning at my work place that Bush was not the only president to not win the popular vote and win the election. People that keep saying that think it proves some kind of "Bush stole the election" conspiracy theory.

That's b/c more people lives there, one of the side effects of democracy is that the people elect guys like presidents....

Bush wasn't the first to win with a minority of the popular vote, I think most people on this forum knows that. On the other hand i believe that the previous instances were effect of stealing elections. (the Republican party in the late 1800s...)

[zachman]

The Hayes and Tilden election was an extreme case a 3% margin for Tilden and yet a loss. Why wasn't the South solidly democratic for the end of the 19th century?

[Gustaf]

The Hayes and Tilden election was an extreme case a 3% margin for Tilden and yet a loss. Why wasn't the South solidly democratic for the end of the 19th century?

Blacks voted in the beginning and then they didn't. Look at turnout numbers from the late 1860s and early 1870s and compare them to the turnout of the 1890s.

[??????????]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly why the Electoral College is a sound system for elections.

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly why the Electoral College is a sound system for elections.

Too prevent too much democracy?

[dunn]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly why the Electoral College is a sound system for elections.

Too prevent too much democracy?

no, to keep it a federal system. Its the united states not one huge state

[??????????]

If I remember right the United States are under a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy. Democracy = Mob Rule.

[Gustaf]

If I remember right the United States are under a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy. Democracy = Mob Rule.

Democray does not equal mob rule. Either you have democracy or you have dictature. Democracy's has its drawbacks, but is WAAAAAAY superior to all other forms of government.

[opebo]

If I remember right the United States are under a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy. Democracy = Mob Rule.

Democray does not equal mob rule. Either you have democracy or you have dictature. Democracy's has its drawbacks, but is WAAAAAAY superior to all other forms of government.

NOt at all.. a Republic involves limiting access to power by the masses.  Thank god.  

[Gustaf]

If I remember right the United States are under a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy. Democracy = Mob Rule.

Democray does not equal mob rule. Either you have democracy or you have dictature. Democracy's has its drawbacks, but is WAAAAAAY superior to all other forms of government.

NOt at all.. a Republic involves limiting access to power by the masses.  Thank god.  

A Republic involves no one inheriting positions, that's the definition. I think we'll allow the US to call itself a republic despite this definition, as an exception...

A dictature never works in the long run. Platonian Utopias may look good on paper, but never ever work. Someone once pointed out that no democracy has ever starved and no two democracies have never fought in war against each other. That's pretty much the basic argument for democracy: you get peace and prosperity from it. And they also respect individual rights to a much larger extent than dictatures. The correlation cannot be ignored. Free markets and democracy are linked, whether you like it or not.

[opebo]

If I remember right the United States are under a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy. Democracy = Mob Rule.

Democray does not equal mob rule. Either you have democracy or you have dictature. Democracy's has its drawbacks, but is WAAAAAAY superior to all other forms of government.

NOt at all.. a Republic involves limiting access to power by the masses.  Thank god.  

A Republic involves no one inheriting positions, that's the definition. I think we'll allow the US to call itself a republic despite this definition, as an exception...

A dictature never works in the long run. Platonian Utopias may look good on paper, but never ever work. Someone once pointed out that no democracy has ever starved and no two democracies have never fought in war against each other. That's pretty much the basic argument for democracy: you get peace and prosperity from it. And they also respect individual rights to a much larger extent than dictatures. The correlation cannot be ignored. Free markets and democracy are linked, whether you like it or not.

Democracies go to war all the time - France and Germany 1870, Germany vs Britain, France, US 1914/17.  Even Hitler was elected democratically.   Majority rule gaurantees nothing except that your persecutors are numerous.  I'd feel a lot more secure about my property in an oligarchy that limited the franchise (another kind of Republic).

[Gustaf]

If I remember right the United States are under a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy. Democracy = Mob Rule.

Democray does not equal mob rule. Either you have democracy or you have dictature. Democracy's has its drawbacks, but is WAAAAAAY superior to all other forms of government.

NOt at all.. a Republic involves limiting access to power by the masses.  Thank god.  

A Republic involves no one inheriting positions, that's the definition. I think we'll allow the US to call itself a republic despite this definition, as an exception...

A dictature never works in the long run. Platonian Utopias may look good on paper, but never ever work. Someone once pointed out that no democracy has ever starved and no two democracies have never fought in war against each other. That's pretty much the basic argument for democracy: you get peace and prosperity from it. And they also respect individual rights to a much larger extent than dictatures. The correlation cannot be ignored. Free markets and democracy are linked, whether you like it or not.

Democracies go to war all the time - France and Germany 1870, Germany vs Britain, France, US 1914/17.  Even Hitler was elected democratically.   Majority rule gaurantees nothing except that your persecutors are numerous.  I'd feel a lot more secure about my property in an oligarchy that limited the franchise (another kind of Republic).

Where do you get the idea that France and Prussia in 1870 were democracies? That Napoleon III got elected in a referendum doesn't make an imperium into a democracy. I wouldn't trust an election result from those days. And Germany wasn't a democracy until the Weimar Republic. It's true that Hitler and his various allies got a majority in parliament, but he abolished democracy for a reason. And, he was backed by your precious capitalists, so he's really your champion rather than democracy's.

[??????????]

Didnt Sadam Hussien get "re-elected" by a 99% vote. Yeah, that was a real democracy.

[Gustaf]

Didnt Sadam Hussien get "re-elected" by a 99% vote. Yeah, that was a real democracy.

That's a bit like Napoleon III...

[??????????]

I still think though our form of Government is the most stable and the fairest for all the citizens. I mean yes we have rich and poor. But even the poor in this country have running water and have t.v. and usually even have a car. What's really sad is all these minority groups fought so hard to get the vote and then we only get 40% turnouts.

[Gustaf]

I still think though our form of Government is the most stable and the fairest for all the citizens. I mean yes we have rich and poor. But even the poor in this country have running water and have t.v. and usually even have a car. What's really sad is all these minority groups fought so hard to get the vote and then we only get 40% turnouts.

So does the poor in most Western countries...but I see your point.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Actually one of the lowest turnout groups are poor, white, rural southerners.
Turnout is always higher amoung rich, white, suburban southerners and blacks.

I blame gerrymandering...

[??????????]

Another group that just wasnt given the vote at the start. Yes, many I've talked to (and I fall into this group somewhat) use the same worn out generalization "all politicians are crooks". Yes, their are SOME crooks in government but they all aren't. And its across the board its not just Democrats. I think the crucifixtion of  Trafficant, Lott and others as of late has been hypocritical.

[Gustaf]

Another group that just wasnt given the vote at the start. Yes, many I've talked to (and I fall into this group somewhat) use the same worn out generalization "all politicians are crooks". Yes, their are SOME crooks in government but they all aren't. And its across the board its not just Democrats. I think the crucifixtion of  Trafficant, Lott and others as of late has been hypocritical.

Not all, just most...

[zachman]

Actually one of the lowest turnout groups are poor, white, rural southerners.
Turnout is always higher amoung rich, white, suburban southerners and blacks.

I blame gerrymandering...

They are a dangerous group to vote! They are politically like NASCAR dads, which in my book means stupid, rebellious, and intolerant. I was angered how Dean's statement on them was deamed too controversial.

[??????????]

Actually one of the lowest turnout groups are poor, white, rural southerners.
Turnout is always higher amoung rich, white, suburban southerners and blacks.

I blame gerrymandering...

They are a dangerous group to vote! They are politically like NASCAR dads, which in my book means stupid, rebellious, and intolerant. I was angered how Dean's statement on them was deamed too controversial.

Yes all southerners are stupid. What a broad generalization. I guess Clinton or Gore are stupid too, huh? Rebellious? Yes we take pride in our nation and will fight for it to the death. Thats why the majority of the armed forces are southerners. Intolerant? If thats the case why are more blacks moving south now then ever before? Why are Mexicans choosing to live in the south? We have many diverse groups here in the south. But I wouldn't expect someone from New Hampshire to understand that. I have a buddy at work who joined the Army and their was a guy from Vermont on the same bus with him, they had just started boot camp. He told my buddy he had never seen a black person before in his life. And this was in 1986. Yes, every area in the north has diversity.

[zachman]

The average lower class White Southerner does strike me as not valuing education at all. I'm sorry if my stereotype bothered you.

The North is not diverse at all. At my suburban middle school (my high school is far more diverse, but still very white) we had 3 or 4 asians, 1 half black kid, and maybe 1 hispanic out of a class of 300.

[12th Doctor]

If I remember right the United States are under a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy. Democracy = Mob Rule.

Democray does not equal mob rule. Either you have democracy or you have dictature. Democracy's has its drawbacks, but is WAAAAAAY superior to all other forms of government.

NOt at all.. a Republic involves limiting access to power by the masses.  Thank god.  

A Republic involves no one inheriting positions, that's the definition. I think we'll allow the US to call itself a republic despite this definition, as an exception...

A dictature never works in the long run. Platonian Utopias may look good on paper, but never ever work. Someone once pointed out that no democracy has ever starved and no two democracies have never fought in war against each other. That's pretty much the basic argument for democracy: you get peace and prosperity from it. And they also respect individual rights to a much larger extent than dictatures. The correlation cannot be ignored. Free markets and democracy are linked, whether you like it or not.

Democracies go to war all the time - France and Germany 1870, Germany vs Britain, France, US 1914/17.  Even Hitler was elected democratically.   Majority rule gaurantees nothing except that your persecutors are numerous.  I'd feel a lot more secure about my property in an oligarchy that limited the franchise (another kind of Republic).

I'm inclined to aggree with you.

[12th Doctor]

Democracy= Majority tyrany, but I've made this argueement before.

[dazzleman]

The average lower class White Southerner does strike me as not valuing education at all. I'm sorry if my stereotype bothered you.

The North is not diverse at all. At my suburban middle school (my high school is far more diverse, but still very white) we had 3 or 4 asians, 1 half black kid, and maybe 1 hispanic out of a class of 300.

And you don't think we have any of these types up north?  New York City alone has large numbers of people who don't value education, not to mention certain rural areas of New York state, as well as many other parts of the north.

I don't subscribe to the idea that there are regional differences in levels of intelligence.  The north, particulary the New York and Boston areas, has far more elites who believe they're superior to everybody else than any other region, but uneducated people exist in all regions of the country, in roughly equal proportions.

I would also add the the most highly educated people are not always the wisest, and do not always have the best instincts about what is good for the country.

You are right to say that the north is not diverse at all.  This is another thing that we northerners should stop patting ourselves on the back about, our presumed superiority over southerners in our "tolerance" and "diversity."  Northerners preach these things, but live mostly in lily-white environments.  

There is no significant difference in racial climate of areas based upon dominant political affiliation.  Largely Democratic areas are no more tolerant of blacks than Republican areas, and some of our worst racial violence has been in largely Democratic northern cities, such as Boston.  So much for the "tolerance" of northern Democrats.  The "tolerant" ones live in lily-white suburbs far from any significant black population.

People who preach tolerance today remind me of something Mao Zedong said to Pres. Gerald Ford during his visit to China in 1975.  Referring to the Soviet Union, he said that "today, it is the country that most zealously preaches peace that is the most dangerous source of war."  There are few more intolerant than those who preach tolerance and diversity, while showing intolerance and prejudice toward all who don't fully agree with them.

As far as the NASCAR dads go, I guess they are branded intolerant because they may believe in something other than "tolerance."  Also, because they are largely white males, and therefore responsible for all the world's problems, that makes it OK to attack them wholesale, while to say the same thing about another demographic group (such as blacks) would bring howls of protest.  But I guess it's OK to stereotype "perpetrator" groups of people, but not "victim" groups.