Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | The philosophy, work & influences of Noam Chomsky |
Date: | Wed, 13 Dec 2000 05:59:17 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
"Issodhos @aol.com" wrote:
> In a message dated 12/12/00 2:26:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> > the below is a strange comment for a person who SHOULD be
> > supporting democracy.
> > w
> > >
> > > In a message dated 12/11/00 10:04:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> > > [log in to unmask] writes:
> > >
> > > > Re the subject line, the latest totals put Gore ahead by 524,000 votes,
> > > > after final totals from NY came in.
> > >
> > > Ahead in what, a contest for Mr. Congeniality? There is no national
> > > popular vote in the USA.
> > > Yours.
> > > Issodhos
> > >
>
> So you find that a truthful statement somehow subverts democracy, William?
> Yours,
> Issodhos
A truthful statement does not subvert democracy. The Electoral College system
(with help from the US Supreme Court) subverts democracy.
Here is something I wrote a few days ago:
LL
> We have states - therefore citizens -
> whose power over the selection of the head of the executive branch exceeds their
> proportion of the population. Why does a citizen of Wyoming deserve more votes
> in national affairs than me? This is a _national election_ . What about my
interests as a citizen (for the sake
> of argument) of a populous state?
> And we have the case where a 51% majority of a state's population elects
100%
> of that state's presidential electors. Do the 49% deserve representation?
> Should the majority of a nation's citizens get to choose the chief executive of
> that nation? Certainly direct democracy is impossible, but what level of
> dilution of democracy is desirable to freedom loving people? The nationwide
> popular vote is irrelevant, that's what the Electoral College is for. The
> Electoral College exists to dilute democracy.
> Larry Libby
|
|
|