What a marvelous little fable, Shodan. But, of course, that’s what it is…surely you recognize that? It is entirely devoid of arguable contention…well, save one. “They lost”. This poor phrase, how embarrassed it must be, to stand there naked upon the stage, without props, without costuming…and everybody in the audience knows that half a million more people voted for Gore than for Bush.
You knew that, right, Shodan? It was in all the newspapers, even NewsMax covered it, I’m fairly sure. Is that when you discovered the splendid truth of the Electoral College, the somber wisdom of our Founders, to ensure that government by the people, for the people, can be abridged if deemed expedient, that we really need not concern ourselves overly much that fundamental principles are glossed over, so long as the right man ascends to power, however unworthily.
But that is a fable as well, I hear you sputter! Ah, 'tis true! But my fable has a fact at its heart, and yours…has none.
The original SDMB, I’m sure, was populated mainly by left-leaning folks precisely because of the column’s haven in alternative press.
As the site continued, it attracted people across the political spectrum. Those who leaned left found a welcoming home; those that did not were not made to feel welcome. So as the board continued to grow in cyberspace, it was somewhat self-selecting for left-leaning members.
That’s how we get to today: friendly progressives from all over the world find a home here. Conservatives have to struggle a bit to feel welcome.
Utter rot. Nobody said Democrats always tell the truth, you are boldly flaying a contention made by no one but yourself. You wrestle with your own invention and announce your victory to anyone fool enough to listen. Under the streetlamp, beckoning to passing sailors, offering discounts, you darkly whisper that the bitch across the street, she is a whore.
If God shall cease to avert His gaze, that truth shall come home to you. Quite soon.
Still nope. The promulgators of falsehoods and poor reasoning are not welcome here and never have been. The explorers of fact and thought are welcome. That’s what “Fighting Ignorance” is about, if you’ll take a look at the masthead. If the more persistently ignorant are more attracted to one end of the political spectrum, that is certainly not the fault of those on the other end or the middle.
Do not put words into my mouth. I never made the claim that democrats are “always telling the truth”, or anything resembling such a statement.
And are you telling me that the accusations from the Bush campaign regarding Kerry being “weak on defense” (especially the parts I mentioned above with the body armor, and such) are not blatant lies?
Again, I never made such a suggestion, so do not try to tell me that I did. If you have a cite showing where I did say this, I would be very interested in seeing it.
If this whole thing is about “payback”, then drop the age-old grudge you have against “the party”, and start addressing the actual issues.
It’s like trying to reason a child; “Well they started it!!”
The total number of people voting for a President is utterly irrelevant in selecting a President. If your guy wins each of his states by a million votes, and my guy wins each of his states by 100 votes, we could conceivably end up with your guy ahead by 20 million votes.
But not the Presidency.
Those are the rules. It’s like complaining that you lost the football game even though you had more total yards on offense and outrushed the other team 3:1. That’s interesting. But it doesn’t change the fact that points on the board are what counts.
Don’t like the Electoral College? Fine. Work to change it. But until it’s changed, don’t suggest that the end result is wrong. It’s not. It’s the correct result under the extant rule.
My contention is that the rule degrades the principle that the rule is presumed to support: that each citizen has a vote, that all votes are equal, and that the sole purpose of an election is to effect the will of the people, as embodied in that vote. Any mechanism, however hallowed, that thwarts that rule is wrong. Surely I don’t have to point out to you that it is entirely possible for something to be legally “correct” and nonetheless “wrong”?
I also contend that the Senate, as structured, is a flagrant obscenity, in that it bestows wildly unequal power upon citizens, dependent on which “state”, which polite political fiction, they happen to reside in.
I also contend that Thomas Paine could kick that silly little bitch Al Hamilton’s butt!
Whooshing is generally frowned upon in GD and so is the accusation.
Just thought you should know.
elucidator, the Electoral College works the way it was designed to work. The Fathers knew that a mojority of votes for one candidate may not the election win. For you to assume that the Fathers failed in their attempt to support a principle that is presumed is wrong. They stated what they meant and meant what they stated, knowing all along what may happen.
Elvis, with all due respect, nope again.
So, you’re saying that the reason for the left lean is because the left can support fact (which is what the board is all about) and the right flail about because our tenets are based on lies and poor reasoning? Explain the flourishing abundance of conservative talk radio and how it fits into your tidy little explanation.
If I agreed that each of the United States was, in fact, a political fiction, I think your other contentions would follow. But this is where I disagree with you.
Each of the states is sovereign in her own right. We live in a federal system. The states are not fictions, nor should they be relegated to mere historical bookmarks. The citizens of Massachusetts do not have the same needs as the citizens of Montana, and the laws of Vermont should not be applied to the citizens of Idaho.
If it were really one-person, one-vote, one pro-rata share in the Senate as well as the House, then California’s interests will effectively dominate Wisconsin’s.
Our dual sovereign system is the best way to ensure fair representation amongst the states and their citizens at a national level.
You contend that there is a principle that each citizen has a vote, and that all votes are equal. No, there isn’t. Who told you that? Someone who wasn’t paying much attention in history or civics classes, I suspect. There is no such principle. Your vote is worth as much as someone else from your state, yes, but there is no principle that all votes across the country are equal in effect. That’s not the way it is; that’s NEVER been the way it is, and your belief that such a principle exists is baffling.
On the Paine-Hamilton matchup… seems to me if it’s pistols at 20 paces, Hamilton’s got problems, at least if Paine attended the same marksmanship classes that Aaron Burr did.
How incredibly self-serving. I assume we can bring this up in reference to any suggestion you make that the Republicans differ in any way from the Democrats in any other respect as well?
It’s true that the “promulgators of falsehoods and poor reasoning” are unwelcome here.
But so are the promulgators of conservative philosophy, even if their reasoning is solid. There are aspects to the left vs. right debate tha lend themselves to cogent analysis, and I agree that anyone spouting unsupported garbage (on either side) is quickly disposed of. But there are positions which a well-informed and well-armed debater can hold that ultimately come down to opinion, and those whose opinions fall to the right are also made to feel unwelcome here.
You excluded that case when you offered your analysis.
“One man, one vote” Perhaps it was all just a dream, after all, I have your word on it. And you are a hard headed realist, are you not? Rather more like Mr. Hamilton, than Mr. Paine, would you say? “Your people, sir, are a Great Beast.”
And, just as you say, the needs of Montana are different from the needs of New York. Save for food, shelter, security and love. But we have Representatives, don’t we, to attend to that? Representatives selected by population, the more people, the more political power. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that a direct embodiment of the principle you claim is fictitious?
Correct. The House does embody the concept you highlighted. But since laws must be passed by both the House and the Senate, the overarching principle is a blend of both overall population and states’ power. There is no overarching “one man, one vote, equal power” principle. The House ensures that states with large populations have a greater voice than those small populations; the Senate ensures that the small ones are not drowned out.
I bet you regret skipping civics so often now, even if it was so you could feel up Betty Lou under the bleachers during sixth period.
She majored in Political Science. So it all works out. And if it makes you feel good to imagine you are informing poor ol’ ignorant me…that’s fine too.
Yo, Rick, it’s a fascinating hijack and all, but I’m wondering if you’re ever going to address my post to you near the bottom of page 2, where your contention that “Kerry’s voting record in the Senate on defense spending is not a good one” was debunked. Since FactCheck has updated their debunking, I’ll go ahead and post it here for you (all emphasis from original)…
So, just to be sure you didn’t gloss over this part…
[Kerry] hasn’t opposed an annual Pentagon appropriation since [1996], nor did he do so in 16 of his 19 years in office. So by the Republicans’ own measuring stick, Kerry voted for the weapons they list far more often than he voted against them.
