I have said it before and I will say it again, the United States has a moderate right wing party (The Democrats) and a Far Right Party (The Republicans) The idea that Obama is a socialist is ridiculous, he would still fall well right of our Canadian Conservative Party.
I think you're confusing your branches of government. The representatives go to the legislative branch. The three branches work, to some extent, on all levels of government.Local: Local judges, selectmen, mayorsState: State judges, states reps, governorsFed: Supreme court, Congress, PresidentYou could argue that the local represents the interests of the town, the state the state, and the feds the county as a whole.However, our federal reps are supposed to keep in mind the interests of the states they represent in the federal govn't (hence pork-barreling). It's true they also deal with international matters, but again it's really in (state) self-interest. "No, I oppose the war, too many from my state will die and I won't get re-elected." "No, I oppose NAFTA, too many from my state will lose their jobs and I won't get re-elected." "Yes, I support spending $17 billion on a jet fighter that is only slightly better than the previous one, because it will mean more jobs for my state and I will get re-elected. And the people in my state will be taxed, and their taxes will pay for the $17 billion jet... it's a vicious circle, but whatever... Ooo an intern!"Now, where does the President fall into all this? Well, let's think of the mayor. His job is oversee the offices of the local government (police, trash collection, city parks, fire department, etc.) The mayor is the town executive. Governor - oversee the offices of the state government (state taxes, other things I'm sure). The Governor is the state executive.President - Oversees the IRS, NASA, DOA, DOC, DOD, (and the other 800 some agencies). He is the head of the Executive branch.I agree, the president it a "representative" of the country to the rest of the world. He is the most visible, his actions have impact on the entire country, often the world. However, his main job is maintaining the union and "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed". In doing so he protects the interests of the country, the states, the cities, and the people, sometimes at the expense of international relations. (This self-interest is pretty much guaranteed if you follow Rational Choice <a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice</a> )I wouldn't say we've elected him to "represent" anything. He isn't siting with a group of peers at some world government (think U.N., but with power). He's just the CEO of our country.If you think we should have a popular vote so our country is represented by someone popular (meaning either cool, or just won't embarrass us by turning the country into a giant frat party for his cronies), then shouldn't we also vote for our movie stars, pop-music stars, athletes, etc? If your argument is that he represents (as in "To stand for; symbolize," or "To serve as an example of") then what you're asking for is a popularity contest. And, in that case, I'm voting for the The Fonz. God bless America. Aaaaaaaaa.If your argument is that he is a representative, then I would argue he's not. He's merely an executive.
Well, to enhance the status of minority groups. Require widespread popular support to win. Encourage stability. Neutralize disparities between states. But largely, a national popular mandate could undermine the legitimacy of the other two branches of government, and potentially result in tyranny.For example, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was elected by a popular vote, but I think one could argue to some extend that his popularity has allowed him to become tyrannical. Another example would be Hitler. Although he lost the presidential election, his vast popularity and populist rhetoric got him appointed Chancellor, and ultimately allowed him to suppress opposition through murder (Night of the Long Knives), without large public outcry.When founding the union of states, the representatives to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, were interested in state sovereignty and preventing a strong (tyrannical) federal government. At that point the union was more like the EU, than what we think of the US today.There's a wealth of information out there and, it seems to me, the majority of articles written by political scientists and economists, support the EC. There must be a reason that we still have it after 200 years.From an abstract, "...we view the electoral college as a critical force in shaping American political development. With its structured system of competition for doubtful states and pivotal groups, the electoral college injects a unique logic into the dynamics of national politics."<a class="user" href="http://www.jstor.org/pss/2585764">http://www.jstor.org/pss/2585764</a>Another, "Our results are in line with previous analyses indicating no significant bias within the electoral college. We conclude that parties and their presidential candidates are rational political actors who utilize sophisticated campaign strategies which allow them to efficiently employ their resources and limit any institutional disadvantages they may face."<a class="user" href="http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00063.x">http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j ...</a>Honestly, if you want to talk REAL bias, look here: <a class="user" href="http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do">http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do</a><a class="user" href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/">http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/</a>In the end, we shouldn't be worried about the bias of Wyoming. It's a conservative state. That's 3 electoral votes for the Republicans, and 0.55% of the EC. Nobody has ever said, "It's just down to Wyoming."It comes down to swing states. To win swing states you need to campaign. To campaign you need money. Money doesn't guarantee you a win (Mitt Romney, I'm looking at you), but it certainly doesn't hurt to be swimming in it.See <a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004CampaignAttention.png">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004CampaignAtt ...</a>In the end its the volatile swing states that typically determines electoral college victory. To win those states you need an army of supporters and money.Money is the real bias.
Plus...I'm actually more for a universal approach to the tax system anyway.Get rid of the IRS, save billions in salaries, etc. get rid of a constant nuissance in the wrong peoples lives, establish a european "flat-tax," like a federal sales tax basically, and everyone can pay the exact same amount of tax, be them rich, poor, business or individual. No more loopholes to hop through, no more deductions and exemptions that make it so simple for business to get away without paying their fair share, and for the rich to reduce their responsibility to this nation..
romistrubMay 16, 2008
wtf Robin? Are you s**tting me?
bradtacsMay 16, 2008
I have said it before and I will say it again, the United States has a moderate right wing party (The Democrats) and a Far Right Party (The Republicans) The idea that Obama is a socialist is ridiculous, he would still fall well right of our Canadian Conservative Party.
jonamericaMay 17, 2008
I think you're confusing your branches of government. The representatives go to the legislative branch. The three branches work, to some extent, on all levels of government.Local: Local judges, selectmen, mayorsState: State judges, states reps, governorsFed: Supreme court, Congress, PresidentYou could argue that the local represents the interests of the town, the state the state, and the feds the county as a whole.However, our federal reps are supposed to keep in mind the interests of the states they represent in the federal govn't (hence pork-barreling). It's true they also deal with international matters, but again it's really in (state) self-interest. "No, I oppose the war, too many from my state will die and I won't get re-elected." "No, I oppose NAFTA, too many from my state will lose their jobs and I won't get re-elected." "Yes, I support spending $17 billion on a jet fighter that is only slightly better than the previous one, because it will mean more jobs for my state and I will get re-elected. And the people in my state will be taxed, and their taxes will pay for the $17 billion jet... it's a vicious circle, but whatever... Ooo an intern!"Now, where does the President fall into all this? Well, let's think of the mayor. His job is oversee the offices of the local government (police, trash collection, city parks, fire department, etc.) The mayor is the town executive. Governor - oversee the offices of the state government (state taxes, other things I'm sure). The Governor is the state executive.President - Oversees the IRS, NASA, DOA, DOC, DOD, (and the other 800 some agencies). He is the head of the Executive branch.I agree, the president it a "representative" of the country to the rest of the world. He is the most visible, his actions have impact on the entire country, often the world. However, his main job is maintaining the union and "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed". In doing so he protects the interests of the country, the states, the cities, and the people, sometimes at the expense of international relations. (This self-interest is pretty much guaranteed if you follow Rational Choice <a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice</a> )I wouldn't say we've elected him to "represent" anything. He isn't siting with a group of peers at some world government (think U.N., but with power). He's just the CEO of our country.If you think we should have a popular vote so our country is represented by someone popular (meaning either cool, or just won't embarrass us by turning the country into a giant frat party for his cronies), then shouldn't we also vote for our movie stars, pop-music stars, athletes, etc? If your argument is that he represents (as in "To stand for; symbolize," or "To serve as an example of") then what you're asking for is a popularity contest. And, in that case, I'm voting for the The Fonz. God bless America. Aaaaaaaaa.If your argument is that he is a representative, then I would argue he's not. He's merely an executive.
jonamericaMay 17, 2008
Well, to enhance the status of minority groups. Require widespread popular support to win. Encourage stability. Neutralize disparities between states. But largely, a national popular mandate could undermine the legitimacy of the other two branches of government, and potentially result in tyranny.For example, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was elected by a popular vote, but I think one could argue to some extend that his popularity has allowed him to become tyrannical. Another example would be Hitler. Although he lost the presidential election, his vast popularity and populist rhetoric got him appointed Chancellor, and ultimately allowed him to suppress opposition through murder (Night of the Long Knives), without large public outcry.When founding the union of states, the representatives to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, were interested in state sovereignty and preventing a strong (tyrannical) federal government. At that point the union was more like the EU, than what we think of the US today.There's a wealth of information out there and, it seems to me, the majority of articles written by political scientists and economists, support the EC. There must be a reason that we still have it after 200 years.From an abstract, "...we view the electoral college as a critical force in shaping American political development. With its structured system of competition for doubtful states and pivotal groups, the electoral college injects a unique logic into the dynamics of national politics."<a class="user" href="http://www.jstor.org/pss/2585764">http://www.jstor.org/pss/2585764</a>Another, "Our results are in line with previous analyses indicating no significant bias within the electoral college. We conclude that parties and their presidential candidates are rational political actors who utilize sophisticated campaign strategies which allow them to efficiently employ their resources and limit any institutional disadvantages they may face."<a class="user" href="http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00063.x">http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j ...</a>Honestly, if you want to talk REAL bias, look here: <a class="user" href="http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do">http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do</a><a class="user" href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/">http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/</a>In the end, we shouldn't be worried about the bias of Wyoming. It's a conservative state. That's 3 electoral votes for the Republicans, and 0.55% of the EC. Nobody has ever said, "It's just down to Wyoming."It comes down to swing states. To win swing states you need to campaign. To campaign you need money. Money doesn't guarantee you a win (Mitt Romney, I'm looking at you), but it certainly doesn't hurt to be swimming in it.See <a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004CampaignAttention.png">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004CampaignAtt ...</a>In the end its the volatile swing states that typically determines electoral college victory. To win those states you need an army of supporters and money.Money is the real bias.
thpateMay 18, 2008
<a class="user" href="http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_Stealth_Socialist">http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_Stealth_So ...</a>
deix15x8May 19, 2008
So it's true, Americans really are getting dumber.
Closed AccountMay 19, 2008
Plus...I'm actually more for a universal approach to the tax system anyway.Get rid of the IRS, save billions in salaries, etc. get rid of a constant nuissance in the wrong peoples lives, establish a european "flat-tax," like a federal sales tax basically, and everyone can pay the exact same amount of tax, be them rich, poor, business or individual. No more loopholes to hop through, no more deductions and exemptions that make it so simple for business to get away without paying their fair share, and for the rich to reduce their responsibility to this nation..