The other day, there was a truck parked in my neighbor's drive across the street - not their truck, some visitor's - and it enraged me immediately. The truck had bumperstickers like "100% of terrorists agree...Anybody but Bush in '04" and such. At least 5 similar neo-con Republican, pro-war, anti-thought stickers were plastered to the back of this thing.
One pro-Bush bumpersticker makes me think about keying your car. Not actually do it, but think about it. This asshole had me wanting to throw a molotov cocktail at his vehicle.
I don't have a lot of love for Democrats, either. I hate both parties, and I hate politicians. Our government has been hijacked by an oligarchy beholden only to corporations and their own power. However, the new breed of so-called "neo-conservative" (an oxymoron of sorts, I might add) that has taken over the Republican party has proved themselves the worst of the worst.
Before the last election, I got very wound up and very mad. I was very worried about how the election would turn out, and all my worst fears came true. Now the same thing is happening again, over this year's "mid-term" Congressional elections. I fear another Republican-controlled Congress. I am hoping that the anti-war sentiment, Bush's low approval rating, and the various other bunglings of the Republican party will turn the tide. I don't think the Democrats will do a great job, but I don't think they can do a worse job.
So until the elections come and go, I am going to be just a little bit tense all the time, and seriously pissed off some of the time. I hate that.
8 years ago
12 comments:
Settle down Beavis.
Yeah I too know what the feeling is like, but it's gotta feel worse having children. I only have myself to look out for, but when you know the majority of your elected officials are constantly working in the best interests of everyone except the people it's gotta hurt worse feeling your child will have it worse than you.
Very true.
At the risk of stressing you out even further, here's an interesting article at Salon called Salon's Shameful Six (you have to watch the ad, but it's painless), about the dirty tricks republicans are playing trying to keep Democrat-leaning voter demographics off the voting rolls and out of the election booths during the upcoming November election.
I'm also reading a book right now which I recommend: Was the 2004 Election Stolen?, which details all sorts of election irregularities during the 2004 election including, but not limited to, the impossibility of recounts due to the use of electronic voting machines. The more I learn, I'm increasingly positive that Kerry would have won that election had the votes been fairly counted. It's mind-blowing how brazen the election rigging was, how little attention was paid to it by the media, and how almost no objection has been raised by the Democratic party.
I did a post a long time back on gerrymandering, a practice which really pisses me off, but I've come to the realization that this is the least of our worries, and until the rampant corruption in our electoral system is addressed there's almost zero chance that the will of the voters will be accurately determined in the upcoming election, particularly in those six states.
The Electoral Collage, Must Go!!
Okay, yah I like starting fights, I'm in the middle of some fight almost every day.
Sometimes with rank and file, some times with middle or upper management.
But Still, This should be popular votes. Not electoral votes (for presidential votes)
As long as electoral exists, it will never be the best person for the job, it will always be a Re-democrat, or Dem-publican as the assigned leaders. It will never be the person who has their head screwed on right and too intelligent to fall for either side of the same party system.
As it is you have one choice, the party members, if you vote for anyone outside of it, the vote doesn’t count because the Electoral will never vote for an independent, they will always vote for the single party with the two sides.
If the Electoral won't go, we need to add like three more Electoral recognized parties. One being the indepenent part...
Damn it! (Let the flame wars begin!)
-Psyber
Couldn't agree with you more on that count, man. I have railed against the Electoral College since the first time I heard of them in grade school.
Okay I had to chime in here. Not that I'm a fan of the Electoral College, but the point of the system keeping only Democrats and Republicans in power is flawed, well at least a little.
Most states constitutions, I think 42 of them, make it so that the Electoral College must coincide with the popular vote of that given state. Granted I think all states should have this.
If enough people voted for an independent then the electorate, for most of the country at least, must follow suit. 3rd party canidates have won electoral votes with Ross Perot being the last.
Now we come to the 2000 election. Yes Al Gore won the popular vote and yes the electorate said otherwise, but really if the tables were turned would we still be railing at the electorate?
There's other flaws in just deciding just by popular vote and the biggest one is recall. If the election is contested by national popular vote alone then recalls could take forever. When you're contesting an area electorate recalls are much easier, quicker, and ideally more accurate.
Yes the electorate is flawed, but really when you consider the alternative it can be easily solved by a few reforms. We can still vote in a 3rd party candidate regardless, that is if people would actually do it and simply changing the system will not make the mindless American public suddenly vote for the Natural Law Party. There are much bigger issues to tackle to give 3rd party canidates a chance such as not changing federal debate rules when it's likely a 3rd party canidate can make it into the debate. I don't believe for a second that if we just go by popular vote alone that anything would change.
In the history of the U.S. and the electoral collage. How many electoral collage votes have ever been for independents outside of the single, two sided party system?
Honestly even with Ross Perot in the standings he didn’t receive a single electoral vote. He had a crap load of votes, but not any electoral, they will always vote either Republican or Democrat. With Ross Perot earning 19% of the popular vote, but won no electoral votes.
The reason, because they are elected to the position by either Republican or Democrat.
To do otherwise means you would be taken out of the “Collage” by either party and replaced by a “loyal party member”
Now its okay to go against one party in favor of another party because they are the ones who place the electoral member. But unless it is 100% across the states for an Indi-candidate, it will never happen, Ever.
I never said that we “ONLY” need to eliminate the electoral collage. I also feel the voting structure needs to be re-vamped as well. Mainly because of the obvious corruption going on. Counting needs to be done in public with cameras and large screens so everyone can see what the count auditors are doing to help keep corruption to a minimum under the watchful eye of the public itself.
As it is, the public is distanced from the process so no one is able to really know what the hell is going on or if what the auditors are saying is accurate, or simply the influence of having the mortgage on their house being paid off by an “interested and concerned” party member.
Big changes need to happen, and one of them is the Electoral collage being restructured or eliminated outright.
You got to remember the electoral Collage was created when over 90% of the population was uneducated and did not have access to information and was basically uninformed and illiterate.
The opposite is now true. Most people can read, and are not duped by someone pretending to read a ballot and telling the voting public that they are voting for someone when in fact they where voting for someone else.
The Cold truth is, if there was no Electoral Collage, popular votes would shift dramatically. The reason is, it is hammered into the heads of the voters that if you vote for an Indi-candidate that it is a vote wasted because the electoral collage wont swing that way. So they vote for the lesser of two evils instead.
If Electoral was eliminated, then popular votes do indeed count for anyone, you would see a dramatic increase in independent votes as well as organizing of Independent parties to support those who are best for the job. You would see Dem’s and Rep’s scrambling for their lives because their abusive wielding of power has made everyone angry enough where they would abandon them. Especially the younger voters who aren’t brainwashed that there is only Republican or Democrat in the united states.
It’s the difference of having a monopoly and a free market. You would find that the more people friendly parties would get a lot more.
So I would have to say I disagree with you when you say nothing would really change with the elimination of the Electoral collage.
-Psyber
So, I largely agree with Psyber's comment above, and wanted to add a couple things.
In response to your question, Wiwille, even if the 2000 vote had gone the other way and Gore won by electoral vote while Bush got the popular vote, I would still feel the same way. I have argued against the Electoral College since I first learned of it, and nothing will change that.
The vote of every American should count equally. In theory it does because Electoral College representation is built on population, but in practice it isn't.
It's no secret that politicians pander to their "base", the people who will get them elected. Given the imbalance of electoral votes, a candidate is more likely to adopt a stance in line with the values perceived to be dominant in the states with large electoral votes. Even if the majority of the populous holds different values, the candidate will pander to the states where he needs to win. Sometimes it will balance out - like Texas (34 votes) and Florida (27 votes) that are mostly conservative being almost evened by the liberal California (55 votes). But it is not always the case. Electoral math is a tricky thing, and is used by candidates to sway an election even if they are not presenting the popular opinion. It can (and has) result in the election of a President who does not reflect the values of the American majority, which is the whole idea behind electing a representative or executive officer.
Individual states get their say in the government by electing Congressional representatives that reflect their values and interests. The President should represent the values and interests of the whole country, as best as is possible, which is by popular election.
As for recall, oh lord if only we could recall the President. I would be pounding the pavement from here to San Diego with a recall petition right now.
Even though I would argue against the College if Bush had won popular but lost electorate, I have to say: Take a look at the two Presidents who won the office by electoral vote over popular vote - Nixon and Bush.
Isn't that cause enough to get rid of the Electoral College?
You guys make some good points and I admire your thoughts, but of course I still have to respond, probably much to your annoyance. Hey that's the beauty of online debate, or not.
Psyber - You were right about Ross Perot not winning an electoral vote. I for some reason thought he did.
I never stated that your solution to all of our elections ills could be solved by eliminating the Electorate, nor do I think I implied it. If that's the case then I apologize.
I still don't see your or Matt's point of huge changes taking place if the Electorate is banned, because Republicans and Democrats would still hammer the point home to the voters that they're throwing their vote away regardless if there's a popular vote or not. Really it's something they are good at. Plus they have more money to throw that message and better control of the media.
We see this in state and local elections all the time. I mean no independent party is really taking over the market in senate, govenor, or even local positions and I don't expect that to change for the president.
While yes people make the point that the Electorate was designed because most of the public was uneducated back in the day is partially true, however the truth that is largely ignored is that our founding fathers never wanted a direct democracy concerning federal elections choosing to opt out of the 'tyranny of the majority' that is prevelant in direct democracies. Right or wrong we could always amend that, but will we? I think no.
Why? Cause I don't think voters will change their voting habits, at all. Young people will still not go to the ballot boxes regardless of the system in place. Heck most people even my age don't even know what the Electorate is. Old people will still vote with their pocketbook, and independents still haven't been able to create a grass roots movement that will stand the test of time. The reform party tried until Pat Buchanan came in and screwed it all up. Until 3rd parties seek out and start sweeping state and local elections, then maybe they stand a chance, even with the Electorate in place.
Point is I don't see the hypothetical theory that people will rise up and vote differently because of a voting system change, one that the public is largely unaware of. Yes a lot of people are angry, but anger doesn't overcome apathy sadly. We have an administration that's arguably more corrupt than Nixon's, yet almost no one is really speaking out. Sure we can blog from the comforts of our home and/or work, but I know I won't be starting a petition for change. I haven't been standing outside of Costco asking for signatures to start and amendment. Best I've done is called my senator, but sadly that's a lot more than most people my age will ever do.
I think a bigger and better change would start with the Federal Election Debate rules and how they're constantly being updated to keep 3rd parties out of participating.
I agree we should amend or abolish the Electorate, but largely the status quo would remain the same.
I think largely it would stay the same for a long time; but it would open the door for changes faster than if the current process is left in place.
My main concern with getting rid of the College is not to foster drastic 3rd party change. My main concern is that it is simply the right thing to do.
And I love having debates with you, it challenges me and keeps things interesting.
Okay one last argument against the Electoral collage which hopefully illustrate why I think it is very bad for representation.
And this is a point that happens with every electoral vote.
Say in Texas is 34 Electoral vote. Lets say in this particular race it was close, however the Rep’s got 51% and the Dems got 49% across the state (re-counted and verified.)
So the electoral has Texas down as 34 Votes Rep, 0 Dem. Which this is pretty decisive during an Electoral presidential vote.
Popular on the other hand would show this same event as a near 50/50 vote, so that the Rep’s would only have 51% of the votes of Texas Not 100% of the Electoral votes for Texas.
The electoral vote structure automatically eliminates the voice of the smaller voted party and treats it as everyone in the area as voting for one party instead of being represented as their own vote.
So for Seattle, they vote for Dem, and if I vote for Rep, because Seattle has a much denser population they carry the vote for Washington. So regardless My vote is always represented as the city of Seattle which only votes to represent the City of Seattle’s interest and for welfare, instead of the rest of Washington state which has a vastly different needs and may vote for free market and independent business
So over all The electoral Collage basically eliminates the voice of the minority votes, being 49% or less and makes it all as the vote of the majority vote.
In reality popular vote in the Texas, example may be 53% for the presidential candidate that would only receive 30% of the Electoral collage vote. Because of how the demographics physically lay.
So in conclusion a Caucus with 2 million people in it, has a vote 70% for one candidate, the other being 30% will be counted as 2 million votes for the Electoral candidate, instead of being in reality 1.40M votes for the popular and 600k for the other. Which when it comes to all the states voting can make the difference from winning the presidential election and benign soundly defeated because the Electoral collage votes. (again this was built in the days of illiterate and the fact votes had to be tallied and delivered by horseback across the U.S. Which it did work when the population of towns where in the Tens or in the hundreds, not millions.)
Now the other side of the coin:
The other extreme is that location with 20k people votes and 52% votes for the bad guy, that Caucus will get an electoral vote for the bad guy, where in a different state the Caucus may have 200k people for the good guy, which is balanced out because they count also as 1 Electoral vote,
so 52% of 20k people have the power to eliminate the vote of 90% of 200k people. That’s the other issue I have with it.
The Electoral collage must go to fix the issues, regardless of challenged votes and recounts, I would rather it take two months to determine who is president by the voice of the U.S. Citizens then a skewed vote which doesn’t reflect actual voters intention that happens over two days.
Please note: These examples are to make a point and don’t reflect how I vote politically.
-Psyber
I would also like to say, it really, really sucks that the 51% of the City of Seattle can trump 100% of the rest of the population of Washington state in an Electoral vote.
In reality “and popular vote” 10% of Seattle and the rest of Washington state would soundly defeat Seattle’s 90% vote.
Why should 51% of Seattle get to dictate the rest of the State of Washington? Its not fair.
-Psyber
Post a Comment