From: pzs3761@tamaix.tamu.edu (Pete Sierant)
Subject: Re: Proposal to amend the Constitution
Organization: chaotic to the abstract
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 06:52:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.024346.24993@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.010012.534@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank  writes...
>>In article <1992Sep29.052607.2097@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> molin@crs.cl.msu.edu (Michael Olin) writes:
>>I think the direct election of the President would be a _very_ bad thing
>>(or _is_ a very bad thing, since the current implimentation of the
>>electoral college might as well be a direct election.) It propmtes lying
>>politicians, trying to mislead the voters.
>
>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.

And human nature being what it is, they will continue to do so. The idea
here is to create a situation that minimizes it.

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

Well, hopefully their increased knowledge would be the basis of their
being elected, appointed, or whatever. Call me old fashioned, but I 
sleep easier at night when I believe that Objective truth and good exist.
If one believes this, then there needs to be a way to avoid the tyranny
of the majority. The problem remains that the average American is
kinda stupid (asbestos suit on :-)) and there always remains the 
possibility that something stupid will become popular. i.e. computers,
tacos, titty on HBO, and left handed Volvo salesmen are deemed by popular
vote to be tools of the anti-Christ, and are banned.

>>(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? This is the same arguement that King George the First
>gave right before his beheading (no kidding. He said there was a 
>seperation between the ruling and the ruled).

An informed body making decisions that they are qualified to make is
not necessarily evil _PROVIDED_ that a foolproof mechanism exists
for kicking them out when they get too cocky. Ideally, every person
on the globe should be intelligent, rational, well informed, good 
looking, rich, etc. Until that day arrives, though, we have to make
the best of what we got. So speaking as someone who's mentally passable,
irrational on allergy medication, ill informed, sorta funny looking 
(big nose), and poor, I say give 'em a shot.

-- Pete              -=[ pzs3761@tamaix.tamu.edu ]=-
                 "Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar"
                                                   -Sigmund Freud

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.individualism,alt.politics.civil-liberty