From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Date: 21 Nov 1992 13:12:55 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) says:

>In article <1eabb1INN3o0@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>>In a previous article, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) says:
>>>
>>>And I say that you address the relevant side effects of such a change.
>>>
>>>2.  Address the effect on the nature of the campaign.
>>>    (what will prevent the majority of Whites or Christians from 
>>>     taking irrevocable control of the Presidency?)
>>>
>>Pardon me, but what country are *you* living in?  When was the last time a
>>non-white or non-Christian person was elected president by the electoral
>>college?
>
>I see your confusion.  I was trying to make a distinction between direct
>election and the EC and that is that the EC forces the candidates to form
>a majority coalition from concurrent minorities in order to win.  If direct
>election were imposed then the nature of the battle would change and 
>candidates could cater directly to some majority faction.  As it is today,
>the minority factions are often the swing votes.
>
>Majority rule with the consent of the minority.
>
Well, that's not what your question *says*:  "...what will prevent the majority
of Whites or Christians from taking irrevocable control of the Presidency?"

My point was, and is, that Whites and Christians appear to have an irrevocable
hold on the presidency...one which has lasted 204 years now.  We have just  
elected yet another white Christian to the presidency, and his running mate
was also a white Christian, and so are the next two in line of seccession...
thus, it is virtually certain that we will have had 208 years of unbroken
rule of white Christians by 1996.  Thus, the argument you presented is
specious, because the EC has not prevented control of the presidency by
white Christians.
> 
>>>3.  Address the subsequent formation of a multi-party system, specifically
>>>    the prospect that extremist groups will form minority factions and
>>>    the effect on the Congress.  Yes I said Congress, as soon as the two
>>>    party system is destroyed at the presidential level I project that
>>>    the Congress will not be far behind.
>>>
>>This would be a good thing, in my view.  Under our current system, anyone
>>who happens to vote in the minority is effectively disenfranchised...i.e.,
>>I didn't vote for Charles Grassley, he certainly does not hold views that I
>>hold, but he "represents" me in Congress.  In a multi-party system, with
>>proportional representation and voting by party lists, we would see a much
>>greater diversity of opinion in the legislatures...and this is a good thing.
>>As a foot note, the winner-take-all two party system is a relic of the
>>18th century.  I believe the U.S. and the U.K. are the *only* industrialized
>>democracies which continue to cling to this dinosaur.
>
>I whole-heartedly disagree.  For sake of understandability I will outline why:
>
>1.  Two party systems produce moderate candidates.
>
I think it is more accurate to say that two party systems produce *bland*
candidates, with no real differences between them.
>
>2.  They also produce stable governments.
>
They produce gov'ts which are so stable that it is virtually impossible to
break the electoral stranglehold of the establishment, even in the face of
the sort of fiscal crisis we currently face.  Perhaps "monolithic" would be
a better word?
>
>3.  Minority rights are protected because of the concept of concurrent 
>    minority factions forming to make a majority.
>
Minority rights are not protected; they are suppressed.  If you vote for the
losing candidate, you have *no* representation.  See above.
>
>4.  We have been quite successful at this for more than 200 years. 
>    As JFK said, "when it is not necessary to change, it is necessary
>    not to change".
>
Yes, things have been very comfortable for those of us in the white, middle
class establishment...if you call tha successful.  As Thomas Jefferson said,
"A little rebellion now and then is a good thing."
>
>>>>If the E.C. is eliminated, then our votes will truly count 1 for 1.
>>>
>>> If the E.C. is eliminated you will be subject to the tyranny of the majority.
>>>
>>I do not see how we are not subject to the tyranny of the majority now.  And I
>>note that in your previous paragraph you decried the growth of multiple
>>parties...and here you decry the tyranny of the majority.  Make up your mind,
>>please.
>
>There is no conflict here, there could be both.  Multiple parties could
>exist but the *potential* also exists for one party to form that would
>consist of either Whites or Christians.  This party would be a majority 
>in either case and would not necessary preclude the existence of viable
>2nd, 3rd etc parties.  Is my mind clearer to you?
>
It appears to me that one party *has* formed...and it is controlled by whites 
and Christians.  Is that clearer to *you* now?
>
>>> You are a constitutional heretic.
>>>
>>Oooh....that was a snappy line.
>
>I wasn't talking to you, if I were I would have attacked you for not
>understanding the EC and yet to be willing to change it anyhow.
>
I have not been reading this group very long, but I have already detected a
tendancy in you to accuse people of not understanding the topic when they 
disagree with you.  Is it possible that some people *do* understand the
electoral college, and simply don't share your opinons on the subject?
Specifically, the line "You are a constitutional heretic" seems to suggest that
you view yourself as the Keeper of the Faith regarding the Constitution, and
that anyone who disagrees with you ought to be (figuratively) burned at the
stake.
>
>Mike Best
>

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution