From: garrett@Ingres.COM (ENTROPY. IT'S THE LAW)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Proposal to amend the Constitution
Summary: Same old story
Date: 2 Oct 92 23:53:47 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Oct2.070838.27502@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crar writes...
>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.
> 
If that's the case then I think we can safely say that it is an 
overwhelming failure.

>> 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...)
> 
Understood, but back then only a very small percentage of the population
could do things like read. Also, a free press was still a new idea.
However well intentioned the college was , I believe it has outlived
its usefullness.

>>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.)
> 
I realize that you believe this, but WHY? What basis do you have 
for saying that "they" would do any better?

>>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.
> 
So you are putting one more level between the people and their 
elected officials (or at least backing it). Also, by giving them 
more power, have you considered the topic of curruption?

>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.

So have aristocracies, as well as every other type of government.
The problem isn't the type of government, it in people.

>are trampled by the "will of the average" citizen. I do _not_ support
>a majority making mistakes which hurt both themselves and the minorities.
> 
If you want to run, or have someone's life run, I'm sure there are
people who want that. I'm not one of them.

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