| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jez" |
| Date: |
03 Aug 2004 08:14:37 AM |
| Object: |
OT: The British system isn't working |
The British system isn't working
Only a written constitution can prevent further abuses of power
Anthony Lester
Tuesday August 3, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1274757,00.html
Almost alone in the democratic world, we British have no written
constitution protecting our basic civil and political rights. We have no
charter defining the scope of the powers of the legislative, executive
and judicial branches of government. Where parliament remains passive,
the government, clothed in ancient monarchical authority, exercises
unbridled prerogative powers - to wage war, to make binding treaties, to
control the civil service and to issue or withhold passports.
Post Hutton and Butler, provided that ministers act in "good faith",
ministerial responsibility for gross errors of judgment is written in
water - except at election time.
There was another example of the abuse of prerogative powers when the
government announced its decision not to allow British citizens to take
complaints of breaches of the UN covenant on civil and political rights
to the UN human rights committee. We are alone in the European Union in
this respect. What the government dislikes about giving us the right of
petition is that it would bring into play the covenant's guarantee of
equality without discrimination - a guarantee that is enshrined in the
written constitutions of the other European states. The government is
judge in its own cause, and we citizens can do nothing about this denial
of a basic constitutional right except to campaign for better government.
Ever since the American and French revolutions, British political
leaders have rejected the idea of entrenching fundamental rights in a
supreme constitution. For 40 years British governments have exported
written constitutions to new democracies across the former empire while
opposing any proposal to place themselves under similar constraints at
home.
The two principles of the unwritten Victorian constitution under which
we are governed are parliamentary supremacy and the rule of law. But
parliamentary supremacy usually means executive domination. As for the
role of the independent judiciary, it is essential in ensuring that
governments do not act lawlessly or use their powers to excess, but the
courts are subordinate to an executive-dominated parliament: lions under
the throne, and even their independence can be undermined by political
interference.
For British governments, power is delightful, and absolute power is
absolutely delightful. Parliament may pass a human rights act, but a
future parliament could repeal or emasculate it. In 1968, parliament
enacted emergency legislation to deprive 200,000 British Asian passport
holders fleeing from racial persecution in East Africa of their right to
enter and live in their country of citizenship. The statute was racially
motivated, but there was no remedy in our courts because parliament can
use its law-making powers as it (or the government) pleases. Recently,
the government came close to persuading a supine parliament to pass a
law depriving vulnerable asylum-seekers of access to judicial review to
challenge abuses of Home Office powers. It was only the threat of defeat
in the Lords that induced them to abandon this measure.
The systemic failings of the British system will not be cured by
exhorting parliamentarians to meet the challenge of the democratic
deficit, or even by creating a better voting system for parliament. We
need more fundamental reform: a written constitution that defines the
nature and limits of the powers of each arm of the state, and provides
legal protection against the misuse of legislative as well as executive
power. Instead of relying upon the European convention on human rights,
we would enjoy the protection of a British bill of rights, designed to
meet British needs.
A British constitution would identify the core values of our liberal
democracy within the wider European context. Armed with a British
constitution, our negotiators in Brussels would have stronger bargaining
powers in their dealings with EU institutions.
Those core constitutional values would provide a better basis for the
civic education of each new generation of British citizens than David
Blunkett's clumsy attempts to induce a sense of "Britishness" and
loyalty to the state among Britain's alienated ethnic and religious
minorities.
A written constitution would replace the present mass of verbose and
indigestible devolution legislation. The single statute regulating the
mayor of London and the GLA is far longer than any written constitution
for an entire nation. The new legislation for regional assemblies in
England and Wales will add further incoherence to the existing mess.
A written constitution would confer discretionary powers on the
executive and leave leeway for a dynamic interpretation by a modern,
fairly chosen judiciary.
The time is over-ripe for Britain to join the rest of the democratic
world by placing government under the supreme law of a constitution
approved by the British people as a whole.
· Lord Lester QC is a Liberal Democrat peer and practises at
Blackstone's Chambers.
_________________________________________________________________
This is the bit that rubs me up.....
'There was another example of the abuse of prerogative powers when the
government announced its decision not to allow British citizens to take
complaints of breaches of the UN covenant on civil and political rights
to the UN human rights committee. We are alone in the European Union in
this respect. What the government dislikes about giving us the right of
petition is that it would bring into play the covenant's guarantee of
equality without discrimination - a guarantee that is enshrined in the
written constitutions of the other European states. The government is
judge in its own cause, and we citizens can do nothing about this denial
of a basic constitutional right except to campaign for better government.'
We sign up to the European Human rights act....but it turns out we
don't actually have any recorse to it !!!
Bloody typical !
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: The British system isn't working |
03 Aug 2004 09:46:00 AM |
|
|
"Jez" <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:410f8fb9$0$6444$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
The British system isn't working
Only a written constitution can prevent further abuses of power
Anthony Lester
Tuesday August 3, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1274757,00.html
Almost alone in the democratic world, we British have no written
constitution protecting our basic civil and political rights. We have no
charter defining the scope of the powers of the legislative, executive
and judicial branches of government. Where parliament remains passive,
the government, clothed in ancient monarchical authority, exercises
unbridled prerogative powers - to wage war, to make binding treaties, to
control the civil service and to issue or withhold passports.
Post Hutton and Butler, provided that ministers act in "good faith",
ministerial responsibility for gross errors of judgment is written in
water - except at election time.
There was another example of the abuse of prerogative powers when the
government announced its decision not to allow British citizens to take
complaints of breaches of the UN covenant on civil and political rights
to the UN human rights committee. We are alone in the European Union in
this respect. What the government dislikes about giving us the right of
petition is that it would bring into play the covenant's guarantee of
equality without discrimination - a guarantee that is enshrined in the
written constitutions of the other European states. The government is
judge in its own cause, and we citizens can do nothing about this denial
of a basic constitutional right except to campaign for better government.
Ever since the American and French revolutions, British political
leaders have rejected the idea of entrenching fundamental rights in a
supreme constitution. For 40 years British governments have exported
written constitutions to new democracies across the former empire while
opposing any proposal to place themselves under similar constraints at
home.
The two principles of the unwritten Victorian constitution under which
we are governed are parliamentary supremacy and the rule of law. But
parliamentary supremacy usually means executive domination. As for the
role of the independent judiciary, it is essential in ensuring that
governments do not act lawlessly or use their powers to excess, but the
courts are subordinate to an executive-dominated parliament: lions under
the throne, and even their independence can be undermined by political
interference.
For British governments, power is delightful, and absolute power is
absolutely delightful. Parliament may pass a human rights act, but a
future parliament could repeal or emasculate it. In 1968, parliament
enacted emergency legislation to deprive 200,000 British Asian passport
holders fleeing from racial persecution in East Africa of their right to
enter and live in their country of citizenship. The statute was racially
motivated, but there was no remedy in our courts because parliament can
use its law-making powers as it (or the government) pleases. Recently,
the government came close to persuading a supine parliament to pass a
law depriving vulnerable asylum-seekers of access to judicial review to
challenge abuses of Home Office powers. It was only the threat of defeat
in the Lords that induced them to abandon this measure.
The systemic failings of the British system will not be cured by
exhorting parliamentarians to meet the challenge of the democratic
deficit, or even by creating a better voting system for parliament. We
need more fundamental reform: a written constitution that defines the
nature and limits of the powers of each arm of the state, and provides
legal protection against the misuse of legislative as well as executive
power. Instead of relying upon the European convention on human rights,
we would enjoy the protection of a British bill of rights, designed to
meet British needs.
A British constitution would identify the core values of our liberal
democracy within the wider European context. Armed with a British
constitution, our negotiators in Brussels would have stronger bargaining
powers in their dealings with EU institutions.
Those core constitutional values would provide a better basis for the
civic education of each new generation of British citizens than David
Blunkett's clumsy attempts to induce a sense of "Britishness" and
loyalty to the state among Britain's alienated ethnic and religious
minorities.
A written constitution would replace the present mass of verbose and
indigestible devolution legislation. The single statute regulating the
mayor of London and the GLA is far longer than any written constitution
for an entire nation. The new legislation for regional assemblies in
England and Wales will add further incoherence to the existing mess.
A written constitution would confer discretionary powers on the
executive and leave leeway for a dynamic interpretation by a modern,
fairly chosen judiciary.
The time is over-ripe for Britain to join the rest of the democratic
world by placing government under the supreme law of a constitution
approved by the British people as a whole.
· Lord Lester QC is a Liberal Democrat peer and practises at
Blackstone's Chambers.
_________________________________________________________________
This is the bit that rubs me up.....
'There was another example of the abuse of prerogative powers when the
government announced its decision not to allow British citizens to take
complaints of breaches of the UN covenant on civil and political rights
to the UN human rights committee. We are alone in the European Union in
this respect. What the government dislikes about giving us the right of
petition is that it would bring into play the covenant's guarantee of
equality without discrimination - a guarantee that is enshrined in the
written constitutions of the other European states. The government is
judge in its own cause, and we citizens can do nothing about this denial
of a basic constitutional right except to campaign for better government.'
We sign up to the European Human rights act....but it turns out we
don't actually have any recorse to it !!!
Bloody typical !
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
If you look at the US, a written constitution hasn't "protected" their
rights. The government finds a way around it.
Kathryn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The British system isn't working |
03 Aug 2004 10:09:50 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 14:46:00 +0000 in episode
<ceo8f8$p6l$1@titan.btinternet.com> we saw our hero "kathryn"
<bob@bob.com>:
If you look at the US, a written constitution hasn't "protected" their
rights. The government finds a way around it.
Point.
I've always wondered if the codification makes *that much difference. If
the traditions and institutions are not solidly part of the culture, can
mere words on paper make much difference?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fear gan dia" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
03 Aug 2004 06:28:49 PM |
|
|
Verily verily I say unto you, it is written by "Mark K. Bilbo"
in <pan.2004.08.03.15.09.49.932979@org.webmaster>:
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 14:46:00 +0000 in episode
<ceo8f8$p6l$1@titan.btinternet.com> we saw our hero "kathryn"
<bob@bob.com>:
If you look at the US, a written constitution hasn't "protected" their
rights. The government finds a way around it.
Point.
I've always wondered if the codification makes *that much difference. If
the traditions and institutions are not solidly part of the culture, can
mere words on paper make much difference?
In the US, words on paper have frequently made a difference.
Think of Brown vs. Board of Education, Roe vs. Wade etc.
Segragation was very much part of southern culture, but the
US Constitution proved to be more powerful because it is not
a dusty parchment, but a living document that is (or should be)
at the heart of everyday government activities. Even when the
Constitution is violated on a massive scale, e.g. the internment
of Japanese-Americans, eventually the govt. recognized
that they had commited an injustice, and compensated the victims.
That said, somehow I think an England with a written constitution
just wouldn't be England. Secrecy, CYA and plausible deniability
are as instinctive as breathing in the workings of the British
govt. Policy is set by someone making a casual remark over lunch
at the club, and relying on the hearer to carry it out, but if the
hearer screws up, the speaker can claim to have been misunderstood
or simply deny having said anything. This is how the govt. exercises
tight control over the British media, e.g, without having any formal
censorship appartus. The old boy network is all powerful, and makes
decisions by a sort of hive mind process that is opaque to the
governed. In many ways the British make the Japanese look like
models of openness.
What kills me is how they lump together their grab-bag of acts
of parliament, case law, traditions, unwritten rules, "confidential
Home Office guidelines" etc. etc, and call it a constitution.
It's a lot like theists who claim to know the mind of gawd and
to have divine assent for anything they want to do. Personally,
I think Britain's "constitution" is worth exactly as much as the
paper it isn't written on.
--
The Very Irrev. Fear gan dia # http://goddamliberal.port5.com
"Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's *****."
- Barry Goldwater
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
03 Aug 2004 09:25:32 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 23:28:49 +0000 in episode
<41101fb1.001@dlxbnxlllnql.com> we saw our hero "Fear gan dia"
<qdbrbhthrrhr@dlxbnxlllnql.com>:
Verily verily I say unto you, it is written by "Mark K. Bilbo" in
<pan.2004.08.03.15.09.49.932979@org.webmaster>:
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 14:46:00 +0000 in episode
<ceo8f8$p6l$1@titan.btinternet.com> we saw our hero "kathryn"
<bob@bob.com>:
If you look at the US, a written constitution hasn't "protected" their
rights. The government finds a way around it.
Point.
I've always wondered if the codification makes *that much difference. If
the traditions and institutions are not solidly part of the culture, can
mere words on paper make much difference?
In the US, words on paper have frequently made a difference. Think of
Brown vs. Board of Education, Roe vs. Wade etc. Segragation was very much
part of southern culture, but the US Constitution proved to be more
powerful because it is not a dusty parchment, but a living document that
is (or should be) at the heart of everyday government activities. Even
when the Constitution is violated on a massive scale, e.g. the internment
of Japanese-Americans, eventually the govt. recognized that they had
commited an injustice, and compensated the victims.
I don't know.
I think I would have been more impressed if, say, Reconstruction were
carried through. Rather, the Federal government more or less walked away
and let things regress to the point that much of the fight had to be done
all over again. Brown vs. Board of Education was almost a century late. By
then, the culture *was changing enough that it was possible. Yeah, it had
to be enforced on parts of the country but that battle could have been
over and done with decades earlier.
The interment happened at such a late stage it's really still--at least to
me--breathtaking that such a thing was even *possible. And I don't buy
that it's not possible now. What's going on with Muslims *now shouldn't be
possible.
Interestingly enough, I understand that not only are the old interment
camps being "spruced up" (weird timing) but the Census Bureau is turning
over to "Homeland Security" information about the areas where Muslim
populations exist in the US. Something which happened not long before the
interment last time.
Not that it will happen but there are odd movements in that direction. And
I don't know it can't happen again. Some of the things going on in US
dealings with natives is still just jaw dropping (if the Iraqis want to
know what it means when the US gives you "sovereignty," they should check
out what's going on with the 200 and change nations within US borders).
And, really, does a $20,000 check really deal with the issue?
I just don't know that it matters if you write it down. Not nearly so much
as whether it has become incorporated into your culture. And for all that
the Constitution is, I'm not convinced it's ever really been full absorbed
into the culture of the US...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
04 Aug 2004 10:20:56 PM |
|
|
Interestingly enough, I understand that not only are the old interment
camps being "spruced up" (weird timing) but the Census Bureau is turning
over to "Homeland Security" information about the areas where Muslim
populations exist in the US. Something which happened not long before the
interment last time.
Mark, can you give a cite for this? Although I have seen reports of former
concentration camps being refurbished I have not seen reports of the USCB
turning over data to Homeland Security regarding Muslim population
concentrations within the US.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
04 Aug 2004 11:14:52 PM |
|
|
"Lord Calvert" <forlornh@aol.complicated> wrote
Although I have seen reports of former concentration
camps being refurbished
Where? When?
Anything you can share?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
04 Aug 2004 11:10:13 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 03:20:56 +0000 in episode
<20040804232056.15036.00000994@mb-m02.aol.com> we saw our hero
forlornh@aol.complicated (Lord Calvert):
Interestingly enough, I understand that not only are the old interment
camps being "spruced up" (weird timing) but the Census Bureau is turning
over to "Homeland Security" information about the areas where Muslim
populations exist in the US. Something which happened not long before the
interment last time.
Mark, can you give a cite for this? Although I have seen reports of former
concentration camps being refurbished I have not seen reports of the USCB
turning over data to Homeland Security regarding Muslim population
concentrations within the US.
All I know is it was rather off handedly discussed on either MSNBC or CNN
(one of those two is *always on around here... I have a news junkie for a
roommate). I haven't bothered to chase it down. These days, I tend
to try to avoid giving myself an ulcer over the inevitable.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fear gan dia" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
05 Aug 2004 02:46:44 PM |
|
|
Verily verily I say unto you, it is written by Lord Calvert
in <20040804232056.15036.00000994@mb-m02.aol.com>:
Interestingly enough, I understand that not only are the old interment
camps being "spruced up" (weird timing) but the Census Bureau is turning
over to "Homeland Security" information about the areas where Muslim
populations exist in the US. Something which happened not long before the
interment last time.
Mark, can you give a cite for this? Although I have seen reports of former
concentration camps being refurbished I have not seen reports of the USCB
turning over data to Homeland Security regarding Muslim population
concentrations within the US.
Funnily enough, I'm in the opposite situation - I've heard of
the Census Bureau handing over data on Arab-Americans, but I
hadn't heard anything about the camps being refurbished. A
cite for this would be greatly appreciated.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/30/politics/30census.html
WASHINGTON, July 29 - The Census Bureau has provided specially
tabulated population statistics on Arab-Americans to the
Department of Homeland Security, including detailed information
on how many people of Arab backgrounds live in certain ZIP codes.
(You can log in as shrub_junior, password: dumbya)
--
The Very Irrev. Fear gan dia # http://goddamliberal.port5.com
"Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's *****."
- Barry Goldwater
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Levy Oates" |
|
| Title: Re: The British system isn't working |
03 Aug 2004 12:35:54 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 14:46:00 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn" <bob@bob.com> wrote:
"Jez" <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:410f8fb9$0$6444$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
The British system isn't working
Only a written constitution can prevent further abuses of power
I'd love to see our wonderful constitution written down explicitly:
"Britain is a constitutional monarchy ruled by the Saxe-Coburg Windsor family,
it's heirs and successors in perpetuity (provided they aren't Catholic).
"The monarch is the head of the official state religion the Church of England .
This remains the state religion (except in Scotland, Wales and the six counties
of Ulster) despite the fact that hardly anyone ever goes to church or pays the
least bit of attention to anything that it says. And even though it was created
with the explicit intention of granting royal divorces, continues to take a very
dim view of the matter.
"The Prime Minister is chosen by the monarch on the advice of Parliament (Lords
and Common assembled) and exercises the Royal Prerogative on the monarch's
behalf. This includes the right to declare of war, the appointment of
bishops..."
It'd be hilarious!
---------
Archdeacon Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: The British system isn't working |
03 Aug 2004 09:17:23 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 18:35:54 +0100 the ET form known as Levy
Oates<levy_oates@hotmail.com> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 14:46:00 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn" <bob@bob.com> wrote:
"Jez" <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:410f8fb9$0$6444$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
The British system isn't working
Only a written constitution can prevent further abuses of power
I'd love to see our wonderful constitution written down explicitly:
"Britain is a constitutional monarchy ruled by the Saxe-Coburg Windsor family,
it's heirs and successors in perpetuity (provided they aren't Catholic).
"The monarch is the head of the official state religion the Church of England .
This remains the state religion (except in Scotland, Wales and the six counties
of Ulster) despite the fact that hardly anyone ever goes to church or pays the
least bit of attention to anything that it says. And even though it was created
with the explicit intention of granting royal divorces, continues to take a very
dim view of the matter.
"The Prime Minister is chosen by the monarch on the advice of Parliament (Lords
and Common assembled) and exercises the Royal Prerogative on the monarch's
behalf. This includes the right to declare of war, the appointment of
bishops..."
It'd be hilarious!
Which is why I think a written constitution is unlikely. I suspect
that most British people like the present system but would be too
embarrassed to put the above on paper. The silliness of it would just
jump out from the paper. A state religion? Most people don't mind so
long they can get by without thinking too hard on it. But ask them to
put their name to it and agree to it - well we don't need any written
constitution.
--
epicurus1*at*optusnet*dot*com*dot*au
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sean C" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
03 Aug 2004 03:47:08 PM |
|
|
In article <410f8fb9$0$6444$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, Jez
<iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
The British system isn't working
Only a written constitution can prevent further abuses of power
Anthony Lester
Tuesday August 3, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1274757,00.html
Almost alone in the democratic world, we British have no written
constitution protecting our basic civil and political rights. We have no
charter defining the scope of the powers of the legislative, executive
and judicial branches of government. Where parliament remains passive,
the government, clothed in ancient monarchical authority, exercises
unbridled prerogative powers - to wage war, to make binding treaties, to
control the civil service and to issue or withhold passports.
While there is a lot to be said for formally codifying a system of
basic civil and political rights, for most things, a constitution tends
to be too rigid and inflexible, particularly as times and mores change,
and unforeseen challenges to civil liberties and the constitution
itself arise.
Take for example the US Electoral College system, which is clearly
outdated and counterintutive and inconsistent with the idea of "one
man, one vote" that is the basis of most democracies. It effectively
disenfranchises millions of voters, and allows small states too much
influence in national affairs, while simultaneously allowing political
candidates to largely ignore voters in states in which they are
guaranteed to win the electoral vote. Because of the Constitution,
we're pretty much stuck with it, as it is too advantageous for many
states to ever vote against it.
I would like to see the US adopt true parliamentary democracy like the
rest of the world. Our two party system, which is quickly becoming a
one party system, is a disaster.
Sean C
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
03 Aug 2004 09:30:14 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 16:47:08 -0400 in episode
<030820041647081616%redhawk@burnspammersalive.hvc.rr.com> we saw our hero
Sean C <redhawk@burnspammersalive.hvc.rr.com>:
Take for example the US Electoral College system, which is clearly
outdated and counterintutive and inconsistent with the idea of "one man,
one vote" that is the basis of most democracies. It effectively
disenfranchises millions of voters, and allows small states too much
influence in national affairs, while simultaneously allowing political
candidates to largely ignore voters in states in which they are guaranteed
to win the electoral vote. Because of the Constitution, we're pretty much
stuck with it, as it is too advantageous for many states to ever vote
against it.
You know, I see people say things like this all the time but I don't know.
The original point was a union of states. Small states would simply fall
off the end of the world without the College. I live in one now that's
getting serious attention from the candidates. Something that wouldn't
happen at all, ever if the College didn't exist.
You could just as easily argue we should abolish the Senate as it gives
equal power to small states as the more populous ones...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
04 Aug 2004 12:37:06 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote
The original point was a union of states. Small states
would simply fall off the end of the world without
the College. I live in one now that's getting serious
attention from the candidates. Something that wouldn't
happen at all, ever if the College didn't exist.
What you like is the Electoral Votes, not the college.
As long as we kept the Electoral Votes, even getting rid
of the college, the smaller states would keep their
clout.
All we have to do is make the Electoral Votes automatic.
Whomever wins the popular vote in a given state, they
automatically get the Electoral Votes. No College. No
independent "Electoral Voters" who can ignore the will
of the people.
Why even bother?
The one benefit of the Electoral system, in my opinion,
is in cases like Florida. With a strict popular vote, if
one state rigs the election (as Florida did) then each
dishonest vote, in effect, cancels a legitimate vote in
another state.
Example:
Jeb invents 2,000,000 Bush votes out of thin air. In a
strict "popular vote," each one of these fake ballots
cancels out a real vote, for the opposition, in another
state.
With an Electoral system though, it doesn't matter how
many ballots Jeb stuffs for his brother. No matter what,
he's only going to rig the results for one state.
In 2000 all they needed was that one state. But, what
happened in 2000 was a rare event in U.S. history.
The reason being, of course, because the impact is so
limited. You can stuff all the ballots you want, millions
in fact, but unless the election is close enough that your
one state matters, there's really no point.
The Electoral system has kept our elections fairly honest.
It has broken down on occasion, but one way we can
improve it -- and address a few of those breakdowns --
is by keeping the Electoral Votes and getting rid of the
Electoral College.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean C" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
05 Aug 2004 10:29:28 AM |
|
|
In article <JtydnQmUl6Ao6Y3cRVn-uw@comcast.com>, JTEM
<gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote
The original point was a union of states. Small states
would simply fall off the end of the world without
the College. I live in one now that's getting serious
attention from the candidates. Something that wouldn't
happen at all, ever if the College didn't exist.
What you like is the Electoral Votes, not the college.
As long as we kept the Electoral Votes, even getting rid
of the college, the smaller states would keep their
clout.
All we have to do is make the Electoral Votes automatic.
Whomever wins the popular vote in a given state, they
automatically get the Electoral Votes. No College. No
independent "Electoral Voters" who can ignore the will
of the people.
Why even bother?
The one benefit of the Electoral system, in my opinion,
is in cases like Florida. With a strict popular vote, if
one state rigs the election (as Florida did) then each
dishonest vote, in effect, cancels a legitimate vote in
another state.
Example:
Jeb invents 2,000,000 Bush votes out of thin air. In a
strict "popular vote," each one of these fake ballots
cancels out a real vote, for the opposition, in another
state.
With an Electoral system though, it doesn't matter how
many ballots Jeb stuffs for his brother. No matter what,
he's only going to rig the results for one state.
In 2000 all they needed was that one state. But, what
happened in 2000 was a rare event in U.S. history.
The reason being, of course, because the impact is so
limited. You can stuff all the ballots you want, millions
in fact, but unless the election is close enough that your
one state matters, there's really no point.
The Electoral system has kept our elections fairly honest.
It has broken down on occasion, but one way we can
improve it -- and address a few of those breakdowns --
is by keeping the Electoral Votes and getting rid of the
Electoral College.
You're ignoring the primary reason Jeb rigged the election: because he
could. It's a hell of a lot easier to rig a few elections in corrupt
states like Florida or Texas than it is to rig a national election.
While the Electoral system may limit the impact of corruption, it
increases the opportunities for it. When you have 50 states each with
their own voting machines, each with their own unique voting practices
and rules, and each counting its own votes, the opportunities for
shenanigans abound. A national, uniform voting system with the same
machines, same ballots, and with multiple, competing political bodies
to monitor and check the vote seems much easier to police, and less
open to corruption.
Sean C
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
05 Aug 2004 04:37:47 PM |
|
|
"Sean C" <redhawk@burnspammersalive.hvc.rr.com> wrote
You're ignoring the primary reason Jeb rigged the
election: because he could. It's a hell of a lot
easier to rig a few elections in corrupt states like
Florida or Texas than it is to rig a national election.
While the Electoral system may limit the impact of
corruption, it increases the opportunities for it.
I have to disagree. The facts appear to support the exact
opposite conclusion.
However easy it is for Jeb to steal an election, it doesn't
get any less easy if the election is based on a pure popular
vote. In fact, it gets easier.
As I pointed out, in an Electoral system, Jeb's crimes only
travel as far as the border of Florida. They don't change
results anywhere but Florida. So unless an election is
close enough for his one state to make the difference, he
has absolutely no incentive to even try.
With a strictly popular vote though, the impact stretches
beyond the borders of Florida. If he stuffs 2 million Bush
votes in Florida he not only changes the results in
Florida, but the excess carries over to other states,
cancelling out "opposition" votes cast elsewhere.
When you have 50 states each with their own voting
machines, each with their own unique voting practices
and rules, and each counting its own votes, the
opportunities for shenanigans abound.
None of this would be changed by getting rid of an Electoral
system. All that would change is the incentive to cheat, which
would be significantly increased.
A national, uniform voting system with the same
machines, same ballots, and with multiple, competing
political bodies to monitor and check the vote seems
much easier to police, and less open to corruption.
This doesn't contradict anything I've said.
However, I do have to agree with "Mark Bilbo" in that
it simply isn't a realistic possibility. It would require
a constitutional amendment that just couldn't ever get
passed. The smaller states like the Electoral system, and
they aren't going to give it up.
We can keep the Electoral system and still have election
reform. We can get rid of the Electoral College, making
the Electoral Votes automatic, for example. We could have
national standards, "open standards" granting transparency.
But what we can't do is get rid of the Electoral system
entirely.
There are more small states than big states, and they just
aren't going to give that up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean C" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
05 Aug 2004 11:22:19 PM |
|
|
In article <hp6dnaEv34vAOo_cRVn-tQ@comcast.com>, JTEM
<gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Sean C" <redhawk@burnspammersalive.hvc.rr.com> wrote
You're ignoring the primary reason Jeb rigged the
election: because he could. It's a hell of a lot
easier to rig a few elections in corrupt states like
Florida or Texas than it is to rig a national election.
While the Electoral system may limit the impact of
corruption, it increases the opportunities for it.
I have to disagree. The facts appear to support the exact
opposite conclusion.
What facts are those?
However easy it is for Jeb to steal an election, it doesn't
get any less easy if the election is based on a pure popular
vote. In fact, it gets easier.
I can accept the idea that the *impact* of corruption in a particular
state is minimized by an electoral system, I cannot accept the idea
that the *opportunity* for corruption is minimized when we have 50
different convoluted, byzantine, contradictory and copnfusing voting
systems in a single country. Particularly not when the Good Ole Boy
network gets to select the vote counters and overseers in many states,
like Florida. The more complex the system becomes, the more difficult
it becomes to understand and police the whole, the easier it becomes
for the local power elite to tamper with that system. I'd like to meet
the man who can sit down with me and accurately explain the election
workings of all 50 states.
A national direct system that is built on a basis of simple, easy to
learn and master rules and procedures, to where any anomoly will become
immediately obvious to everyone, seems vastly superior to me from a
conceptual stand point. The simpler the system, the easier to detect
and prevent corruption. The Devil is in the details, and when you swamp
people with details (ie, "baffle them with *****") it is far easier
to pull the wool over their eyes. Lawyers understand this simple
principle, which is why legal language is so often convoluted.
As I pointed out, in an Electoral system, Jeb's crimes only
travel as far as the border of Florida. They don't change
results anywhere but Florida. So unless an election is
close enough for his one state to make the difference, he
has absolutely no incentive to even try.
With a strictly popular vote though, the impact stretches
beyond the borders of Florida. If he stuffs 2 million Bush
votes in Florida he not only changes the results in
Florida, but the excess carries over to other states,
cancelling out "opposition" votes cast elsewhere.
That's certainly true, but it will also be harder for Jeb to do this in
a national system because he will not be in a position to do so. In a
national system, Jeb and his cronies won't have any say in who counts
the votes, whether there will be a recount of disputed votes, or
anything else. That will be decided on a national, and not a local,
level.
When you have 50 states each with their own voting
machines, each with their own unique voting practices
and rules, and each counting its own votes, the
opportunities for shenanigans abound.
None of this would be changed by getting rid of an Electoral
system. All that would change is the incentive to cheat, which
would be significantly increased.
I'm saying we should eliminate the electoral system as well as the 50
different voting systems that goes along with it, and replace the whole
with a simplified, direct voting system.
A national, uniform voting system with the same
machines, same ballots, and with multiple, competing
political bodies to monitor and check the vote seems
much easier to police, and less open to corruption.
This doesn't contradict anything I've said.
Yes it does, because Jeb Bush wouldn't play a role in a direct voting
system. We won't have another Florida because Florida will have no say
in how elections are conducted on a national level.
However, I do have to agree with "Mark Bilbo" in that
it simply isn't a realistic possibility. It would require
a constitutional amendment that just couldn't ever get
passed. The smaller states like the Electoral system, and
they aren't going to give it up.
I agree with you there, but we are discussing what ought to be, not
what is.
We can keep the Electoral system and still have election
reform. We can get rid of the Electoral College, making
the Electoral Votes automatic, for example. We could have
national standards, "open standards" granting transparency.
But what we can't do is get rid of the Electoral system
entirely.
There are more small states than big states, and they just
aren't going to give that up.
True, but that can change.
Sean C
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
06 Aug 2004 12:27:50 AM |
|
|
"Sean C" <redhawk@burnspammersalive.hvc.rr.com> wrote
I can accept the idea that the *impact* of corruption
in a particular state is minimized by an electoral
system, I cannot accept the idea that the *opportunity*
for corruption is minimized when we have 50
different convoluted, byzantine, contradictory and
copnfusing voting systems in a single country.
As Mark Bilbo (Look! No quotes!) pointed out, we are
never going to get rid of the 50 separate races. The smaller
states just plain like the Electoral system, and they are
never going to willingly give that up.
So we will always be talking about 50 different races.
Does that mean we can't have a single, national voting
system? No. Of course not. But if we had a single, national
voting system right now, I wouldn't trust the elections. In
fact, I'm pretty certain that democracy would be completely
gone.
Regardless, you have to be willing to accept change a
little at a time. Don't demand too much at a go, but keep
on demanding.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
05 Aug 2004 10:18:00 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 17:37:47 -0400 in episode
<hp6dnaEv34vAOo_cRVn-tQ@comcast.com> we saw our hero "JTEM"
<gymraven@hotmail.com>:
However, I do have to agree with "Mark Bilbo" in that it simply isn't a
I'm in quotes? <G>
(That's actually my real, legal name. I know, I know, I have to show my
driver's license as proof to anybody who's read Tolkien <g>)
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
05 Aug 2004 12:15:06 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 11:29:28 -0400 in episode
<050820041129289489%redhawk@burnspammersalive.hvc.rr.com> we saw our hero
Sean C <redhawk@burnspammersalive.hvc.rr.com>:
In article <JtydnQmUl6Ao6Y3cRVn-uw@comcast.com>, JTEM
<gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote
The original point was a union of states. Small states would simply
fall off the end of the world without the College. I live in one now
that's getting serious attention from the candidates. Something that
wouldn't happen at all, ever if the College didn't exist.
What you like is the Electoral Votes, not the college.
As long as we kept the Electoral Votes, even getting rid of the college,
the smaller states would keep their clout.
All we have to do is make the Electoral Votes automatic. Whomever wins
the popular vote in a given state, they automatically get the Electoral
Votes. No College. No independent "Electoral Voters" who can ignore the
will of the people.
Why even bother?
The one benefit of the Electoral system, in my opinion, is in cases like
Florida. With a strict popular vote, if one state rigs the election (as
Florida did) then each dishonest vote, in effect, cancels a legitimate
vote in another state.
Example:
Jeb invents 2,000,000 Bush votes out of thin air. In a strict "popular
vote," each one of these fake ballots cancels out a real vote, for the
opposition, in another state.
With an Electoral system though, it doesn't matter how many ballots Jeb
stuffs for his brother. No matter what, he's only going to rig the
results for one state.
In 2000 all they needed was that one state. But, what happened in 2000
was a rare event in U.S. history. The reason being, of course, because
the impact is so limited. You can stuff all the ballots you want,
millions in fact, but unless the election is close enough that your one
state matters, there's really no point.
The Electoral system has kept our elections fairly honest. It has broken
down on occasion, but one way we can improve it -- and address a few of
those breakdowns -- is by keeping the Electoral Votes and getting rid of
the Electoral College.
You're ignoring the primary reason Jeb rigged the election: because he
could. It's a hell of a lot easier to rig a few elections in corrupt
states like Florida or Texas than it is to rig a national election. While
the Electoral system may limit the impact of corruption, it increases the
opportunities for it. When you have 50 states each with their own voting
machines, each with their own unique voting practices and rules, and each
counting its own votes, the opportunities for shenanigans abound. A
national, uniform voting system with the same machines, same ballots, and
with multiple, competing political bodies to monitor and check the vote
seems much easier to police, and less open to corruption.
Far as reforming our election system, I have two words:
Paper ballots.
Big, cumbersome, and expensive yes. But a *hell of a lot harder to rig.
We've been moving toward a system that'll make rigging a national election
trivial, EC or no EC notwithstanding...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
05 Aug 2004 04:47:13 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote
Far as reforming our election system, I have two words:
Paper ballots.
Big, cumbersome, and expensive yes. But a *hell of a lot
harder to rig.
You can have electronic machines, so long as they print a
paper ballot as a "receipt".
You inspect it for accuracy, then you deposit it in a ballot
box. A candidate has 30 days (or whatever) to request a
recount, after which the ballots are destroyed.
Here, locally, a candidate can request a recount, but if the
difference is over a certain percentage the recount results
in a bill to cover the costs.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
05 Aug 2004 10:51:47 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 11:29:28 -0400, Sean C <redhawk@burnspammersalive.hvc.rr.com> wrote in
alt.atheism:
In article <JtydnQmUl6Ao6Y3cRVn-uw@comcast.com>, JTEM
<gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote
The original point was a union of states. Small states
would simply fall off the end of the world without
the College. I live in one now that's getting serious
attention from the candidates. Something that wouldn't
happen at all, ever if the College didn't exist.
What you like is the Electoral Votes, not the college.
As long as we kept the Electoral Votes, even getting rid
of the college, the smaller states would keep their
clout.
All we have to do is make the Electoral Votes automatic.
Whomever wins the popular vote in a given state, they
automatically get the Electoral Votes. No College. No
independent "Electoral Voters" who can ignore the will
of the people.
Why even bother?
The one benefit of the Electoral system, in my opinion,
is in cases like Florida. With a strict popular vote, if
one state rigs the election (as Florida did) then each
dishonest vote, in effect, cancels a legitimate vote in
another state.
Example:
Jeb invents 2,000,000 Bush votes out of thin air. In a
strict "popular vote," each one of these fake ballots
cancels out a real vote, for the opposition, in another
state.
With an Electoral system though, it doesn't matter how
many ballots Jeb stuffs for his brother. No matter what,
he's only going to rig the results for one state.
In 2000 all they needed was that one state. But, what
happened in 2000 was a rare event in U.S. history.
The reason being, of course, because the impact is so
limited. You can stuff all the ballots you want, millions
in fact, but unless the election is close enough that your
one state matters, there's really no point.
The Electoral system has kept our elections fairly honest.
It has broken down on occasion, but one way we can
improve it -- and address a few of those breakdowns --
is by keeping the Electoral Votes and getting rid of the
Electoral College.
You're ignoring the primary reason Jeb rigged the election: because he
could. It's a hell of a lot easier to rig a few elections in corrupt
states like Florida or Texas than it is to rig a national election.
While the Electoral system may limit the impact of corruption, it
increases the opportunities for it. When you have 50 states each with
their own voting machines, each with their own unique voting practices
and rules, and each counting its own votes, the opportunities for
shenanigans abound. A national, uniform voting system with the same
machines, same ballots, and with multiple, competing political bodies
to monitor and check the vote seems much easier to police, and less
open to corruption.
You've put a coin in another of my hobby horses.
In elections for hog-kisser of Sqeedunk County, by all means, let 'em
have elections any way they choose to. In elections for the Prezidink
of the Untied Snakes, there oughtta be uniformity of means for
voting, for collecting and counting the votes, and for certifying the
results. And in states where the governor is related within three
degrees of consanguinity to one of the candidates, Jimmie Carter
should lead a U.N. One World Gummint delegation to oversee the
integrity of the whole process.
Sean C
--
/Apostate
atheist #(e^7.5657933) I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; billions served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
04 Aug 2004 08:12:54 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 01:37:06 -0400 in episode
<JtydnQmUl6Ao6Y3cRVn-uw@comcast.com> we saw our hero "JTEM"
<gymraven@hotmail.com>:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote
The original point was a union of states. Small states would simply fall
off the end of the world without the College. I live in one now that's
getting serious attention from the candidates. Something that wouldn't
happen at all, ever if the College didn't exist.
What you like is the Electoral Votes, not the college.
Actually, I don't necessarily like it or dislike it. I just recognize the
reason for it.
As long as we kept the Electoral Votes, even getting rid of the college,
the smaller states would keep their clout.
That could fly I think. The small states just are not going to want to
give up their standing and be ignored for the rest of the existence of the
country. But the idea of the electors has passed. The popular vote in the
state should determine the electoral votes automatically.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
04 Aug 2004 09:12:20 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 08:12:54 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in
alt.atheism:
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 01:37:06 -0400 in episode
<JtydnQmUl6Ao6Y3cRVn-uw@comcast.com> we saw our hero "JTEM"
<gymraven@hotmail.com>:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote
The original point was a union of states. Small states would simply fall
off the end of the world without the College. I live in one now that's
getting serious attention from the candidates. Something that wouldn't
happen at all, ever if the College didn't exist.
What you like is the Electoral Votes, not the college.
Actually, I don't necessarily like it or dislike it. I just recognize the
reason for it.
As long as we kept the Electoral Votes, even getting rid of the college,
the smaller states would keep their clout.
That could fly I think. The small states just are not going to want to
give up their standing and be ignored for the rest of the existence of the
country. But the idea of the electors has passed. The popular vote in the
state should determine the electoral votes automatically.
If I understand the proposal correctly, all it does is remove the possibility of 'renegade'
Electoral Collegians voting not in compliance with their state's poll results. That sure solves
the hell out of the one or two cases every fifty years or so, but leaves the 99.99999999999999%
of the EC's inappropriateness unaddressed. We've heard about the necessity of not leaving
the small-population states out of national decision-making, and the Senate does that nicely.
No excuse, imnsho, for continuing to let them also hold the nation hostage in the choice of a
president. I say we ought to do one of the following: subtract the two ECs corresponding to
the Senators from each state's EC contingent (whether or not actual people fill those 'chairs')
OR make those 100 EVs automatically follow the *nationwide* plurality in the election. The
flip side of that "passions of the unwashed masses of democratic fools" problem is the eternal
grasp of the Rotten Boroughs protecting perpetual oligarchy.
--
/Apostate
atheist #(e^7.5657933) I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; billions served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
04 Aug 2004 01:53:47 PM |
|
|
"Apostate" <Apostate.invalid@yeehaw.org> wrote
If I understand the proposal correctly, all it does is remove
the possibility of 'renegade' Electoral Collegians voting
not in compliance with their state's poll results. That sure
solves the hell out of the one or two cases every fifty years
or so, but leaves the 99.99999999999999% of the EC's
inappropriateness unaddressed.
...while maintaing all of its appropriateness.
The reason why rigged Presidential elections have been so
rare is due to the Electoral system. There simply is never
any point in rigging the vote in your state, unless the election
is so close that it will make a difference nationally.
With a national popular vote, it always matters. Even if a
candidate will easily win your state, you still have an incentive
to cheat, as the extra ballots you stuff into the box will each
cancel out a real vote for the opponent in another state.
I say we ought to do one of the following: subtract the two
ECs corresponding to the Senators from each state's EC
contingent (whether or not actual people fill those 'chairs')
OR make those 100 EVs automatically follow the *nationwide*
plurality in the election.
We don't have to tie Electoral Votes to the number of Senators
and Representatives. It could (and should) be population based.
At present, the total number of Electoral Votes is artificially
frozen anyway. The founders never placed an upward limit on
the number of Representatives in congress.
As originally written, the constitution provided for each state to
have one Electoral Vote for every 30,000 citizens, plus two
more (to account for Senators).
However, just getting rid of the Electoral College itself would
have changed Florida. Constitutionally, the Supreme Court
couldn't have made any other decision than the one they made,
under the present system. Even if it broke Florida law (which it
did), once the Republican-controlled legislature appointed an
all-Bush slate of Electors, Bush was the winner. Constitutionally,
the popular vote was irrelevant, and recounts were meaningless.
If Electoral Votes were automatic -- no "College" -- the Supreme
court would have had no choice but to order a complete
recount of the entire state.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
04 Aug 2004 11:58:15 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 10:12:20 -0400 in episode
<pnq1h05sbikrri2pos5jpgcgslmou197pd@4ax.com> we saw our hero Apostate
<Apostate.invalid@yeehaw.org>:
We've heard about the necessity of not
leaving the small-population states out of national decision-making, and
the Senate does that nicely. No excuse, imnsho, for continuing to let them
also hold the nation hostage in the choice of a president.
So you live in a populous state right? What people of the populous states
may think of as "holding hostage" would be viewed by the other side as
"having a voice in selecting the executive."
You might see reform but you're not going to see it abolished. That would
take an amendment and you're just not going to get enough of the less
populous states to agree to, essentially, cut themselves out of the
process.
This tension goes all the way back to the writing of the Constitution. It
wasn't going to achieve ratification without addressing the issue. This
may not be the best solution but here we are. And fact is, we *are a union
of states. Not a simple federal democracy.
Shrug.
Dunno. Take a look at the collapse of the EU constitution. They ran smack
into the same issue but tried a straight, simple democracy. It failed. I
don't know we need to put any more stress on the union than we already
have...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
04 Aug 2004 01:58:28 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote
You might see reform but you're not going to see it
abolished. That would take an amendment and you're
just not going to get enough of the less populous
states to agree to, essentially, cut themselves out of the
process.
That is a political reality.
Reform is necessary though. We shouldn't walk away
from reform simply because it doesn't accomplish all
of our goals instantly.
Even a change as small & simple as doing away with the
Electoral College, and making the Electoral Votes
automatic, would have very likely avoided Florida.
At present, I can't think of anything less "fair" than the
loser of the popular vote being declared the "President."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
04 Aug 2004 04:09:01 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 14:58:28 -0400 in episode
<NOqdnW2AwpcbrYzcRVn-uQ@comcast.com> we saw our hero "JTEM"
<gymraven@hotmail.com>:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote
You might see reform but you're not going to see it abolished. That
would take an amendment and you're just not going to get enough of the
less populous states to agree to, essentially, cut themselves out of the
process.
That is a political reality.
Reform is necessary though. We shouldn't walk away from reform simply
because it doesn't accomplish all of our goals instantly.
Well, I wouldn't put "abolishing" the it as a "goal" myself. Some people
seem to think that's a good idea, I'm not so sure.
The founders were doing a tight rope act trying to figure out a way to
build a union of states. That aspect of our system was pretty damn unique.
About the only historical precedent I'm aware of was the Iroquois
Confederacy (which was the major inspiration for federalism and some other
important components of our system).
I *suppose if it was that important to the country to abandon federalism
and convert the US into some federal democracy... well, I don't know. I
tend to think adopting federalism was one of the better ideas of the
founders.
Even a change as small & simple as doing away with the Electoral College,
and making the Electoral Votes automatic, would have very likely avoided
Florida.
At present, I can't think of anything less "fair" than the loser of the
popular vote being declared the "President."
Well, that's a rare case. It can happen under our system but it doesn't
come around all that often.
What I find more interesting is that under the approach we use, presidents
regularly take office with only the express support of about a quarter of
the electorate. Less than half the population bothers to vote and if you
"win" the popular vote, you still only obtained the support of about a
quarter. Some years less...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
04 Aug 2004 05:16:31 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote
What I find more interesting is that under the
approach we use, presidents regularly take
office with only the express support of about
a quarter of the electorate.
"Winner take all" has its down side.
I still can't stand the Electoral College. Supposedly we
have the system to protect the influence of the smaller
states. Yet, the actual power rests in the hands of the
Elite few, and we are left to trust in their sense of duty
& obligation to see the interests of those smaller states
fulfilled.
As that wasn't the case for even a large state (Florida),
it's about time we booted the Electors.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
05 Aug 2004 04:59:23 AM |
|
|
JTEM <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Mark K. Bilbo <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote
What I find more interesting is that under the
approach we use, presidents regularly take
office with only the express support of about
a quarter of the electorate.
"Winner take all" has its down side.
I still can't stand the Electoral College. Supposedly we
have the system to protect the influence of the smaller
states. Yet, the actual power rests in the hands of the
Elite few, and we are left to trust in their sense of duty
& obligation to see the interests of those smaller states
fulfilled.
As that wasn't the case for even a large state (Florida),
it's about time we booted the Electors.
Why was voting by mail abandoned? Or was it ever tried?
Can't people today actually vote via mail with absentee ballots?
Anyone who can vote these days must have a valid postal address,
otherwise they couldn't even register to vote, could they?
I can see the need for some electoral college back in the times
when lots of people didn't have postal addresses of their own,
or couldn't make it to the polls because they lived too far out
in the country, but today, I don't see any reason why voting
can't be done completely by mail.
What are the major problems with the idea? We don't trust
our own postal service enough to deliver the votes reliably and
on time? Forged ballots? What else?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://www.eapnews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
06 Aug 2004 12:19:43 AM |
|
|
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote
Why was voting by mail abandoned? Or was it ever
tried? Can't people today actually vote via mail
with absentee ballots?
People can vote by mail via absentee ballot (at least
here), but that's a seperate issue really.
If we switched to voting by mail than we'd supposedly
be selecting "Electors" by mail.
No matter how we voted, the decision would still be
left in the hands of an elite few who may (or may not)
choose to reflect the will of the voters.
That's why I say any & all election reform has to start
with getting rid of the "Electoral College."
We can keep the Electoral Votes (we'd have to, just to
get any change to pass the smaller states), but we can
make them automatic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
