I apologize for spelling it electorial college rather than electoral college (I misspelled it in a couple of areas as was pointed out by Mhendo). Sorry Mhendo.
To december:
Where did Gore say “they all do it”? He could well have said that, but it’s going to take more than your unsubstantiated assertion for me to believe it. I notice that you have absolutely nothing to say about the electoral college system itself, the inequities of which i quite clearly described in an earlier post. Nor do you have anything to say about the quotes in my last post, all of which came from before the election. The quote by the anonymous Republican party adviser was never, to my knowledge (either before the election or since), denied by anyone within the Republican party. It must be nice to live in a world where things are true just because you believe they are. Some rational argument, in future, please.
To L Faster:
I hope i didn’t seem obnoxious by correcting your spelling - i make plenty of typographical errors, and i didn’t mean to imply that you didn’t know how to spell.
Also, i did not expect an apology from you for your spelling. What i would prefer is that you take some time to engage with the substance of my argument, which neither you nor december have yet bothered to do.
Mhendo:
I have reread your arguments. I, unlike you, still want the electoral college, even if my candidate would lose because he didn’t win the electoral vote but won the popular.
In one of your posts, you were mention the Florida recount. I would just like say that if you keep recounting an election, you will come to the point where it is in your favor - through illegal ways - but you should just give it up after the first recount and let what should happen, happen.
I think the electoral college - even though there might be flaws - works great. I think it should stay. I haven’t seen from you a good argument on why it should be removed. Please, try to convince me. I am open to listen (or read) to your opinions.
Mhendo:
I have reread your arguments. I, unlike you, still want the electoral college, even if my candidate would lose because he didn’t win the electoral vote but won the popular.
In one of your posts, you were mention the Florida recount. I would just like say that if you keep recounting an election, you will come to the point where it is in your favor - through illegal ways - but you should just give it up after the first recount and let what should happen, happen.
I think the electoral college - even though there might be flaws - works great. I think it should stay. I haven’t seen from you a good argument on why it should be removed.
I apologize for the duplicate messages. I don’t know what happened.
[quote]
I have reread your arguments. I, unlike you, still want the electoral college, even if my candidate would lose because he didn’t win the electoral vote but won the popular.
In one of your posts, you were mention the Florida recount. I would just like say that if you keep recounting an election, you will come to the point where it is in your favor - through illegal ways - but you should just give it up after the first recount and let what should happen, happen.
I think the electoral college - even though there might be flaws - works great. I think it should stay. I haven’t seen from you a good argument on why it should be removed.
[quote]
First, if you noted my mention of Florida you will also have noted that i said that the issue was not “whether Gore or Bush would have won a full hand recount in Florida.” My argument centred on the Supreme Court decision, the mob tactics by Florida Republicans to stop a court-approved recount in one part of Florida, and on the disenfranchisement of black voters before and during the election itself.
You talk about the “first recount,” but the circumstances that i am talking about here ensured that no recount at all could take place in some areas.
Secondly, you say that haven’t seen from me a “good argument on why it [the electoral college] should be removed,” and that you think it “works great.” Well, if your definition of debate is to simply state your beliefs without actually engaging with the argument, and to ignore the arguments of the other person, then this is probably a pointless exercise. You say that i haven’t convinced you, but you have yet to say why you are not convinced. For example, you make no attempt to say why the elecoral college “works great” even though voters in large states, as individuals, have less power in electing the President than do voters in small states.
You make the argument against eliminating the electoral college on the grounds that it would be unfair to smaller states, yet you will not even take the time to say why a system that is unfair to the bigger states should stay in place. Why is it fair that the 4.6 million voters of Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming have as much say in electing the President as the 11.2 million voters of Ohio? Aren’t they all US citizens with the rights and privileges that this entails? Th very fact that we currently have a President who got fewer votes from American citizens than his major opponent seems to me to be clear evidence that the system does not “work great.”
And as i demonstrated in my earlier post with the newspaper quotes, there were plenty of Republicans who felt this way when they thought that the result would be the other way around. If you’re going to insist that you prefer the electoral college system, that’s fine - you are fully entitled to your own opinion. But just remember that a position that is not based on any logical argument is just that - an opinion, not an argument. By failing to engage in any rational debate over the actual effects of the electoral college system, you are in effect stating that you are happy with a system that treats some Americans differently from others. Again, that is your right - but again, don’t mistake your prejudice for informed opinion.
Opinions are like assholes - everybody has one. It’s just that some are informed opinions and some aren’t.
First, if you noted my mention of Florida you will also have noted that i said that the issue was not “whether Gore or Bush would have won a full hand recount in Florida.” My argument centred on the Supreme Court decision, the mob tactics by Florida Republicans to stop a court-approved recount in one part of Florida, and on the disenfranchisement of black voters before and during the election itself.
You talk about the “first recount,” but the circumstances that i am talking about here ensured that no recount at all could take place in some areas.
Secondly, you say that haven’t seen from me a “good argument on why it [the electoral college] should be removed,” and that you think it “works great.” Well, if your definition of debate is to simply state your beliefs without actually engaging with the argument, and to ignore the arguments of the other person, then this is probably a pointless exercise. You say that i haven’t convinced you, but you have yet to say why you are not convinced. For example, you make no attempt to say why the elecoral college “works great” even though voters in large states, as individuals, have less power in electing the President than do voters in small states.
You make the argument against eliminating the electoral college on the grounds that it would be unfair to smaller states, yet you will not even take the time to say why a system that is unfair to the bigger states should stay in place. Why is it fair that the 4.6 million voters of Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming have as much say in electing the President as the 11.2 million voters of Ohio? Aren’t they all US citizens with the rights and privileges that this entails? Th very fact that we currently have a President who got fewer votes from American citizens than his major opponent seems to me to be clear evidence that the system does not “work great.”
And as i demonstrated in my earlier post with the newspaper quotes, there were plenty of Republicans who felt this way when they thought that the result would be the other way around. If you’re going to insist that you prefer the electoral college system, that’s fine - you are fully entitled to your own opinion. But just remember that a position that is not based on any logical argument is just that - an opinion, not an argument. By failing to engage in any rational debate over the actual effects of the electoral college system, you are in effect stating that you are happy with a system that treats some Americans differently from others. Again, that is your right - but again, don’t mistake your prejudice for informed opinion.
Opinions are like assholes - everybody has one. It’s just that some are informed opinions and some aren’t.
I messed up the quote bars in the first one.
About the recount, I was just stating my opinion on the matter. I didn’t really want to start a debate on that - it’s in the past; it doesn’t have to be discussed any further.
I have stated in previous posts how the electoral college works great. I am just going to say that it works. And if something works, why change it?
Oh i get it now. There’s no need to discuss anything that’s “in the past”, no matter what its possible implications for the future. Well, let’s shut down these message boards right now, because there’s obviously no need for them under such criteria.
No, you haven’t said how it works great; you’ve just said that it does. And that, my friend, is an approach that really doesn’t do much good in a forum entitled “Great Debates”. Maybe you would prefer if we moved this thread to the “In My Humble Opinion” area?
Moderator, where are you?
We’ve had even in the last month or so all sorts of debates over the electoral college issue. I think one big thing you have to keep in mind is that we have, in almost all states, this unfortunate winner take all policy, which in my opinion is the really stupid thing about the EC. To the extent that you can get a whole lot of electoral votes for wafer thin popular majorities in a few large states, this offsets the “advantage” that candidates get for courting small states where each person’s vote counts for more, somehow. I mean, really, how hard do people campaign for Alaska?
That said, I have to wonder how having a debatably quirky electoral system makes the US an evil empire. Perhaps someone could enlighten me on that?
But getting back to the OP, 
…
I think all that has been proven here is that the US is a nation with some flaws. This is no huge revelation. It falls far short of an evil empire. I think the best we can do is be slightly misguided. We’re not conquering large amounts of territory for ourselves (We gave Kuwait and Kosovo back after all), we’re not enslaving foreign populations to do our bidding, we’re not forcing other nations to pay us tribute. Where’s the fear and trembling that we should be inspiring? Where’s our scheme for world conguest? Where’s our warlord leader, releasing an evil cackle from atop a pile of human skulls? I just don’t think George Jr. has it in him.
Basically our evil plan comes down to burning energy at a faster rate than anyone else, putting axe murderers to sleep, and ignoring the advice of Europeans. Somehow, I don’t think the US is going to be moving the Mongrel Horde out of a top spot anytime soon.
I agree with the first paragraph, to an extent. The argument doesn’t really mitigate the essential unfairness of the system, but it shows that it may not always be as inequitable in practice as it is on paper. On the issue of “winner take all” in each state, i would be in favour of electoral college votes for each state being split proportionately based on the popular vote in the state. I am also, for the election as a whole, in favour of instant runoff voting, sometimes known as the Australian ballot, whereby people nominate first, second third preferences etc., and the candidates who are knocked out earlier (e.g. Buchanan, Nader) have their votes redistributed based on preferences until someone has an absolute majority.
With respect to the second paragraph, i don’t think that the two are really related. I think it’s more an example of how the emphasis of a thread can slowly shift over time until it is quite a long way from the OP in terms of content.
well, this thread has become a duplicate of the one about the electoral college and I pretty much said what I had to say there and I am not going to repeat it here.
It is interesting to note though that some Germans would support the assertion that “the USA is an evil empire” on the basis that they do not like the electoral college. Why would they care how Americans decide to govern themselves? Or do Americans throw a fit because some Germans wear those silly-looking lederhosen.
The OP here is about the US being an evil empire and several reasons have been put forward. Some about how the American political system is bad internally and the American people are mostly unhappy about it. While we may each be entitled to our opinions, the fact is that most of the American people are not unhappy with the system as a whole. It is just not true. Besides, why would foreigners care about this?
Was American occupation of Germany after WWII that bad? Like compared to Soviet occupation?
The American political system has served its purpose pretty well for over 200 years. The American Constitution is the oldest one in existance and has given this country political stability which, in turn, has allowed for great freedom and economic prosperity.
I am not claiming it is perfect but, as has been said many times, the perfect is the enemy of the good. If you are going to tell me this is an evil empire who has it all wrong, please provide better alternatives.
The countries which have their basis on the British culture and political system (Britain itself, the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc) have proven that the system works pretty well in providing for its people freedom, social stability and economic prosperity. In Asia, Thailand and India are models of stability compared to their neighbors.
As a foreigner you may not like some things in particular but nobody likes everything about anything. It is impossible to please everybody.
Is the USA perfect? Of course not. But to call it an “evil empire” is plain ridiculous. The main sin of the USA is that it is top cat now. If instead of the USA it was Canada or Australia or any other country, you can be sure we would be hearing how they were the evil empire.
So, if we could choose another country to be superpower who could we choose to do a better job? Let’s have a vote. Who votes for France? Germany? Italy? China? Russia? Colombia? Arafat anyone?
Come to think about it, I think any other country which became superpower overnight would make the USA look extremely good.
Exactly. It certainly seems unfair on first glance, but when you think about it, the candidates still cater to places like LA and NYC a lot more than they do to smaller cities, like Portland or Jacksonville. Because we have a winner take all system in so many states, the electoral college in some ways gives large states MORE power, not less.
Curiously, I advocate exactly the same thing.
Right right, I agree. I was trying to (not very subtly) shift us back to talking about the OP, because the Electoral College has been done to death as it is.
So a question, then, to help hijack the hijack: it could be fairly argued that the US is at least a “rogue nation” (I’m not saying it necessarily is so, but let’s assume it is), but does that make it an evil empire? What qualities does a country actually need before it can be considered evil?
Sailor:
Well, you are right about the point that the Electoral College doesn’t make the US “evil”. Somehow the discussion came to this point, and I tried to get over what Europeans thought about the events of November 2000.
Secondly, let me assure you I NEVER wear a lederhose 
(BTW, it’s some Bavarians who wear those, not the Germans, but doesn’t matter - strangely enough, Germany’s image abroad is largely coined by Bavaria.)
You’re also right about American occupation after WWII; in fact, many people who lived in the areas conquered by the Soviet Army tried by all means to get to the American zone to get captured there.
Nitpick: America’s constitution is not the oldest one in the world, but one of the oldest; #1 is San Marino.
About your statement on what if, say, Canada were the world’s superpower: Of course many would consider Canada “evil”, but certainly with some reason (this is not to say Canada actually is evil). If one country is unchallenged superpower, it can hardly avoid behaving in a way that is considered arrogant by others; it can afford doing things it would not do otherwise, and it can to some extent force smaller nations to follow. This would exactly match the same way for any other nation that happened to rule the world, so the absolute #1 position makes it inevitable to behave the way others would disprove.
IIRC a couple of states use this system, at least in part. The US Constitution does not require that states use a “winner take all” system.
Oh, I quite understand that. I don’t know how the winnder take all thing got started, but I do know that there are a few states that don’t do things that way. I could wish there were more.