From: garrett@Ingres.COM (FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Proposal to amend the Constitution
Summary: Insurmountable
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:42:13 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Oct13.045307.10211@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)                    writes...
>In article <1992Oct13.015416.331@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN) writes:
> 
>(Actually, friends should let friends vote their conscious, even if
>that's something friends disagree on. And voting democratic could be
>considered just as objectionable.)
> 
Have you had your humor gland removed recently? It's a joke! You know...
joke? (granted not a real knee-slapper, but still...)

>>This is a good point, BUT we are still talking about electing people
>>to elect our representatives. Don't you see what is wrong with that?
>>The president would no longer have to answer to the people, he would have
>>to answer to the electoral college. At least our representatives have
>>to answer to us, for now. I don't think that I have to go into the 
>>ramifications of this difference.
> 
>But the electoral college is elected to do one and only one thing: 
>Choose a President. Once they do this, the college ceases to exist.
>So the President can't be answerable to the electoral college. He
>is, however, answerable to the people (who will pick the next electoral
>college.)
> 
I guess I DO have to explain the ramifications. The only power the people
have over an elected official on a federal level (ie. no recall vote)
other than revolt IS the election. By putting the election of the 
president in the hands of a few, and out of the hands of the people,
you ARE making the president answerable to only the electoral college.
(ie. just becuase the people exist, does not make the president 
answerable to them. Take the example of any elected dictator)

>>>he csettles on a different candidate.) That is, for example, I
>>>see the election of 1992 not as between Bush, Clinton; it is 
>>>between more-of-the-same and tax-the-rich-and-have-the-government-solve-
>>>our-problems.
> 
>>I disagree to a point. Many people vote for a party, which is what 
>>you discribe.
> 
>No, I was talking about voting for the _candidate's_ platform, not
>the party's platform (the two are often quite different.)
>
Then I believe you have vastly oversimplified the candidates and 
the voting public. Also, you must explain where you draw the line
between the candidate's platform and just voting for the candidate.
(ie. the candidate's personal platform reflects their beliefs. Where 
do draw the line between their values and their personal being?)

>>But have you ever heard of Reagan Democrats? 
> 
>>Personally, I prefer the Parlimentary system, which is much closer to
>>what describe. But until then, we still vote for the individual.
> 
>We vote for the individual's promises and the individual's stand on the
>issues. The question is, would an elector who shifted his vote to 
>remain constant to those same views but a different individual, really
>be going against the will of the people?
> 
A very good point, but not reflective of a two party system. In a two
party system you choose either A or B (this is particularily true for
the presidency). You don't have 10 or 20 options that may have slight
differences. When it's either A or B, it's clear what the people have 
chosen (I know you are going to say, "But we have several smaller 
parties out there." The problem is they don't have enough support to
win in the present system, so an elector that votes for a smaller party
will face the rath of the voters for "Throwing Away" their votes
against their will. ie. we are back where we started.)

>(By the way, I don't think a Parlimentary system is such a good idea:
>It would mean the same party would control both the Congress and the
>Presidency automatically. There would be no seperation of powers and
>no real limits on the ruling party's power. Thatcher's England is
>a good (?) example of this.)
> 
Very true (at least for Thatcher's example). But if one party doesn't win
an outright victory, then you have a coalition government. In a coalition 
government, smaller parties get a voice (something that doesn't happen
here). Coalition governments are quite common.

>                                                 Frank Crary
>                                                 CU Boulder
-Garrett
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution