From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Proposal to amend the Constitution
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 07:08:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.024346.24993@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>This bulletin just in...Politicians LIE to mislead voters! Got news for
>you. Politicians have lied in the past, present, and will continue to
>lie in the future. It doesn't matter if we have an electrol college 
>or not.

Of course it does: The electoral college was put into the Constitution
to minimize the effects of such lying.

> The votes for President should
>>be cast by people who have the time to consider the candidates positions
>>and records on improtant issues (as opposed to 30 second "sound bites"),
>>but who at the same time represent the desires of the people at large.

>This is an increadibly elitist view. 

Sorry, it isn't mine (exclusively). Complain to the authors (such elitists
as George Washington and James Madison...)

>What makes you think that these
>professional "people" are any smarter than a large percentage of Americans? 

They are _not_ professional anythings.
They are elected by the voters, to do absolutely nothing, except select
a President and Vice-President responsibly. I think the people would
(given a functional electoral college) pick trust-worthy and intelligent
electors (or at sensible ones.)

>What makes you think that they should have the right to thwart the will
>of the average American? 
>Why don't you think people should have a right
>to make their own mistakes?

Aren't these problems of _anything_ except direct democracy? The whole
point of a republic is for the people to elect representatives who
have more time to consider and understand the issues.

As for people making their own mistakes, direct democracy does more 
than that: Historically, it always has lead to mob-rule or the
rise of dictators. Always, the rights of individuals and minorities
are trampled by the "will of the average" citizen. I do _not_ support
a majority making mistakes which hurt both themselves and the minorities.

>>(Or, if you want to get into personal attacks) I can't believe there
>>is ANYONE with a modicum of sense in the cranial region who would
>>ADVOCATE mob-rule direct democracy under ANY circumstance.

>Whoa! I haven't heard this arguement since someone tried to convince
>me that we should return to a monarchy. Or do you suggest we become
>an aristocracy?

That's odd: Many of the framers of the Constitution used that line of
reasoning, but this group didn't include Alexander Hamilton (the only
advocate of monarchy there...)

Perhaps you can use your imagination, and consider possibilities 
other than direct democracy and aristocracy: For example the
government discussed in the United States Constitution. The idea of
a republic is to form policies that _both_ reflect the wishes and
goals of the people _and_ which are better thought out than the views
of the average voter. (Usually by electing representatives to follow events,
study the issues and make informed decisions.) The point of a written
constitution is to protect the rights of individuals _regardless_ of the
wishes of the majority.

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc