The following has been said many times by Thom and his listeners; however, I think it should be repeated over and over again.

Our mounting problems with Iraq, a possible war with Iran, the economy, the environment etc, etc. are the direct result of the Supreme Court sidestepping our democracy and giving the election to Bush. After that decision in 2000, and even though it was too late, the vote counting continued. And guess what! Gore actually won Florida and, therefore, he should have been our president. The Supreme Court justices, should who went along with this misjudgement, should be profoundly ashamed.

quote:

Originally posted by Bud111:
Our mounting problems with Iraq, a possible war with Iran, the economy, the environment etc, etc. are the direct result of the Supreme Court sidestepping our democracy and giving the election to Bush.

The way we “elect” a president represents “democracy”? Do you even have a definition for democracy? The EC was deliberately set up to accomplish two goals… one undemocratic the other anti-democratic. The first was to isolate the election from the people. Electors would have the final say. The EC formula is anti-democratic in that it weighs some votes heavier than others. So in 2000 the vote of citizen in Bush’s Florida lead weighed some 1000X that of a citizen in Gore’s national lead in determining the outcome.

Yes Kate Harris, the Bush thugs, and the USSC behaved despicably back in 2000. But in the end the real culprit is the ELECTORAL COLLEGE. All the USSC did was prevent a recount and let the anti-democratic EC formula kick in.

quote:

Originally posted by ulTRAX:
But in the end the real culprit is the ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

True, but people don't seem to realise that the Electoral college can pick however they want. The constitution explicitly states that each State will pick a certain number of electors and those electors will choose by Ballot who they want to vote for. Each state should then submit a list of who they voted for, and how many votes for each of those people.

The Electors could all pick someone different, so theoretically each state can submit multiple votes in differing quantities.

The problem isn't so much with the electoral college as with the way states have implemented it.

People shouldn't be voting for President because that vote is constitutionally meaningless.

Z.

quote:

Originally posted by Zwack:
The problem isn't so much with the electoral college as with the way states have implemented it.

I could not disagree more. The EC is inherently anti-democratic because it's designed to insulate the election of president from the citizens and it's a vote weighting/dilution scheme that gives some citizens bigger votes that others. That states can award votes however they see fit is just another example of deeply flawed it is.

ANY vote weighting scheme can lead to minority rule as it did in 2000. Toying with the structure of the EC will not change that... even if all state votes are proportional.

In the end if the purpose of the EC is to override the voice of the People... then it's an anti-democratic abomination. If all it can do is ratify the voice of the People... then it's not needed. Anyone who claims to value democracy must stop making excuses for the system that imposed Bush on a nation that REJECTED him.

The real reason Liberals can’t face up to this issue is because despite their claims, they don’t really value democracy. They are firmly mired in the secular religion that holds there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with the Constitution. They would rather game our anti-democratic system than push for real democratic reforms. In fact this is one of the key dividing lines I see between Liberals and Progressives.