Re: ARE AMERICANS STUPID????

"Adam Albright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:11:28 -0700, blindjester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Allan Lindsay-O'Neal
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> "Peter H. Proctor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:36:32 -0700, blindjester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > .
> >> > >The basis of democracy is one citizen, one vote.  The electoral
college
> >> > >is a vestige of an elitist system that the great majority of
Americans
> >> > >would rather do away with.
> >> >
> >> >         The US is not a democracy.    We are a constitutional federal
> >> > republic that  protects the rights and liberties of individuals
> >> > against democratic "tyrrany of the majority".
> >> >
> >> >          It is also good  to give a little extra weight to the
smaller
> >> > "flyover" states,   ...  Otherwise,  their interests will be ignored
> >> > in favor of the Urban coastal areas.     A good example is firearms
> >> > legislation-- just ask Al Gore why he lost the 2000 election..
The
> >> > electoral college is part of all this....
> >>
> >> Woman in crowd: "And what do we have Mr. Franklin?"
> >> Benjamin Franklin: "A Republic, madam, if you can keep it."
> >>
> >> I don't want the future of America decided by the elites in New York
and
> >> California, so I'm all for the electoral college.
> >
> >I'm amazed at the rationalizing that goes into these inherently
> >undemocratic views.  Why should minority opinions be preferred to
> >majority opinions?  A priori, two opinions are equal in value; we don't
> >know who's right.  We vote to see which is preferred by more people.
> >It makes no sense to frustrate the will of the majority of stakeholders
> >based on the geographic clustering of votes (i.e., red states and blue
> >states).
> >
> >In every other kind of election or vote, each vote counts equally.  Why
> >should selecting the president be different?  It's not logical or just.
> >My vote shouldn't count for nothing (as it did in the last election)
> >because more people in my state voted for the other guy.
> >
> >This is what "disenfranchised" means.  Literally.
>
> The whole concept of the electoral college should have been done away
> with about 1890. Its that outdated. It makes no sense that a handful
> of hayseeds in the fly over states or people in tiny states like Rhode
> Island or near empty states like Wyoming or Montana should together
> have an impact on a national election simply because of some half-ass
> winner takes all stupidity. One man, one vote, majority wins is much
> fairer. It is the height of lunacy that in a national election the guy
> that has more people vote for him ends up the looser. Its the same
> half-baked logic of bell curves, weighted averages when used to decide
> who passes or fails a test and other such nonsense.
>
>

Sure it does..
Too bad you didn't pay attention in civics classes to understand exactly WHY
it still is important..