On 15 Sep 2002 at 19:07, rhinoceros wrote:
>
> [rhinoceros]
> I have been thinking about democracy as a philosophical ideal and as a
> government system in connection to why Bush, with his specific
> (dis)abilities and traits, was nominated from his party and then
> (almost) elected. I am not talking about how media manipulations or
> mischief were possibly carried out; I am talking about what is implied
> by these facts. Why not some other republican? Is democracy really
> working as supposed to, according to its philosophical basis?
>
>
> [Joe Dees]
> I believe that the electoral college should be abolished and that
> elections should be decided by direct popular vote. There was a need
> for electors 200 years ago before we developed out present
> transportation and communications technology; the system is not an
> obsolete anachronism, and should be repealed.
>
>
> [rhinoceros]
> Probably. The system seems a little bit feudal. On the other hand, it
> may promote regional initiative. But then again, electors are not
> going to surrender their power gracefully. I wouldn't know.
>
> No, they won't; going to the conventions is a big party perk.
>
> However, how would direct popular vote avert the nomination or
> election of someone less qualified than most, such as Bush. What would
> the difference from the current system be in that respect?
>
>
> [Joe Dees]
> Democracy is all about trusting the people to elect capable leaders,
> and, whether they do or not, living with the electoral decision that
> the people make, for better or for worse (short of Nixon-style
> criminality), with the sure knowledge that the decision will be
> enjoyed or endured for only a finite term (or, at most, two). We get
> the leaders that we deserve, because we choose them. We may not tell
> the electorate who they must not vote for, any more than we may tell
> them who they must vote for, from among the candidates that meet the
> constitutional conditions; either command is a freedom-killer.
>
>
> [rhinoceros]
> This is all good in theory but, from what the mainstream media
> themselves say, fund raisng for a campain is a very important factor.
> Doesn't that mean that the current distribution of wealth is also a
> very important factor?
>
That is why campaign finance reform was recently passed. Of course,
that sieve will have to be constantly patched, as more creative ways
around it are discovered.
>
> And it is still not clear why, for example, the republican party would
> choose to nominate someone like Bush instead of another republican who
> knows his/her geography. Although in democracy anyone has the right to
> be elected, an apparently irrational choice implies that some forces
> besides democracy are at work.
>
Nope; it all had to do with the electability which name recognition
confers. After eight years of Clinton, the Republican party wanted to
win at all costs, so they ran everyone they could find (eight hopefuls),
and the Republican primary voters selected Dubya from among them.
Then, Dubya exceeded exceedingly low expectations in the debates
with Gore, and the vote split almost down the middle. Had we had a
direct popular vote instead of an elector system, however, Gore
would've won (without any court intervention).
>
> This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2002 board on
> Church of Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;thread
> id=26597>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:24 MDT