McCain-warns-there-will-be- war

[The_Professor]

<<Plane, didn't you get the memo?  Bush wasn't chosen by the electorate, he was chosen by the Far Right Supreme Court       Wink>>

Minus the wink, sirs, you sure got THAT right.

Actually, with the wink, I'm dead on accurate with how much a joke the idea is.  Borders the Elvis Factor.  But as long as you feel better, that's the important thing     

As I recall Sirs, the electorate chose Al Gore. The electoral college chose George W. Bush.

Gee, isn't that the way it has been done for two centuries, e.g. the electoral college setles it? Whining after the fact is immature. If Gore & Co. don't like this Inconvenient Truth, then they should go about changing it.

[_JS]

No other nation relies on an 18th century board of electors to do their voting for them.

How are the members of the House of Lords chosen? For that matter, how is the British Prime Minister chosen?

Members of the HoL are chosen through a very bizarre process of "honours." The difference is that the HoL has absolutely no real authority.

The British Prime Minister is directly elected by his or her constituents as a Member of Parliament. He or she is the Party Leader of whichever party has the majority of seats in the House of Commons (unless it is a minority or coalition Government which is a very rare circumstance). The difference is that the Westminster system is fundamentally different from the American system. Paliament is the sovereign entity of the Westminster system. There is far much more room to make major changes through the British Parliament than the American Congress. Moreover, the Prime Minister is an MP - he is a "first among equals" of his cabinet which are also made up of MP's (with some peers). He answers to MP's as does the cabinet. They have set Question Time, where they lawfully must provide answers to Parliament's questions.

You're comparing apples and oranges. For what he is, the British PM is directly elected by his constituents.

The American President is not. Why not?

And, it should be mentioned that many of the 18th century institutions that protected the aristocracy from too much democracy in the UK have been removed, unlike in the United States.


China? Seriously? We have to be compared to an undemocratic nation. I think that only proves my point.

[_JS]

<<Plane, didn't you get the memo?  Bush wasn't chosen by the electorate, he was chosen by the Far Right Supreme Court       Wink>>

Minus the wink, sirs, you sure got THAT right.

Actually, with the wink, I'm dead on accurate with how much a joke the idea is.  Borders the Elvis Factor.  But as long as you feel better, that's the important thing     

As I recall Sirs, the electorate chose Al Gore. The electoral college chose George W. Bush.

Gee, isn't that the way it has been done for two centuries, e.g. the electoral college setles it? Whining after the fact is immature. If Gore & Co. don't like this Inconvenient Truth, then they should go about changing it.

I wasn't "whining," just correcting Sirs poor word choices.

And yes, we've used it for two centuries, before women and non-whites could vote. But slaves counted 3/5ths!

[The_Professor]

<<Plane, didn't you get the memo?  Bush wasn't chosen by the electorate, he was chosen by the Far Right Supreme Court       Wink>>

Minus the wink, sirs, you sure got THAT right.

Actually, with the wink, I'm dead on accurate with how much a joke the idea is.  Borders the Elvis Factor.  But as long as you feel better, that's the important thing     

As I recall Sirs, the electorate chose Al Gore. The electoral college chose George W. Bush.

Gee, isn't that the way it has been done for two centuries, e.g. the electoral college setles it? Whining after the fact is immature. If Gore & Co. don't like this Inconvenient Truth, then they should go about changing it.

I wasn't "whining," just correcting Sirs poor word choices.

And yes, we've used it for two centuries, before women and non-whites could vote. But slaves counted 3/5ths!

Sorry, I meant Gore & Co, sounded like whiners when they complained about it.

Again, if someone doesn't like the current system, then they need to go through the proper channels to see about changing it.

[Amianthus]

The American President is not. Why not?

And, it should be mentioned that many of the 18th century institutions that protected the aristocracy from too much democracy in the UK have been removed, unlike in the United States.

As I said, the President is the leader of the various states, and therefore he is elected by the states. Each state sends delegates (called "Electors") to vote. As a matter of fact, the original system had Congress directly elect the President. The electoral college was developed to put the vote closer to the citizens (after all, Senators had 6 year seats, so they would vote for two presidents, even if their constituency had shifted in the meantime) - that is why the number of electors matches the number of congressional delegates.

And, BTW, the PM is selected by the monarch, then approved by the House of Commons. Though most monarchs would see the futility of selecting someone that would not be approved...

[Xavier_Onassis]

And, BTW, the PM is selected by the monarch, then approved by the House of Commons. Though most monarchs would see the futility of selecting someone that would not be approved...
=======================================================
The Queen of the UK, and the monarchs of Spain, Belgium, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway would never think of not approving of the PM. I doubt that they would continue to rule if they did.

The fact is that many EU governments, and even some Latin American governments (Chile and Costa Rica in particular) are more democratic, meaning more responsive to the people, than the present government of the US.
 

[Amianthus]

The fact is that many EU governments, and even some Latin American governments (Chile and Costa Rica in particular) are more democratic, meaning more responsive to the people, than the present government of the US.

That's because the system was designed so that the government most responsive to the needs of the people is the one they directly vote for - local and state governments. Many states in the US are larger than entire countries in the EU.

[sirs]

As a matter of fact, the original system had Congress directly elect the President. The electoral college was developed to put the vote closer to the citizens (after all, Senators had 6 year seats, so they would vote for two presidents, even if their constituency had shifted in the meantime).

BINGO

[_JS]

As a matter of fact, the original system had Congress directly elect the President. The electoral college was developed to put the vote closer to the citizens (after all, Senators had 6 year seats, so they would vote for two presidents, even if their constituency had shifted in the meantime).

BINGO

Make up your mind Sirs, I thought it was because the evil city dwellers may skulk out at night and devour the pastoral puritans of the saintly rural dominions.

[sirs]

Get back to me when you want to have a civil dialog

[_JS]

The American President is not. Why not?

And, it should be mentioned that many of the 18th century institutions that protected the aristocracy from too much democracy in the UK have been removed, unlike in the United States.

As I said, the President is the leader of the various states, and therefore he is elected by the states. Each state sends delegates (called "Electors") to vote. As a matter of fact, the original system had Congress directly elect the President. The electoral college was developed to put the vote closer to the citizens (after all, Senators had 6 year seats, so they would vote for two presidents, even if their constituency had shifted in the meantime) - that is why the number of electors matches the number of congressional delegates.

And, BTW, the PM is selected by the monarch, then approved by the House of Commons. Though most monarchs would see the futility of selecting someone that would not be approved...

You know as well as I do that the Queens role is ceremonial. Unlike the electoral college, the Queen is permitted to act on these duties for traditional purposes. They are relics of the past, but the British, who understand tradition far better than we, know to place tradition in a context that does not interfere with modernity.

Your paragraph explains why the electoral college was developed. Yet, I've still to hear why it is needed today.

[_JS]

Get back to me when you want to have a civil dialog

Ah, 'twas just a joke.

OK.

Why shouldn't urban areas have more say since they have more people? Isn't that how democracy works, one man = one vote regardless of where he lives?

[Plane]

When it ain't broke don't fix it.


When it ain't broke and it has been reliable for the performance of a vital function for a long time , don't meddle with fixes that change the known into the untried.

[Plane]

Get back to me when you want to have a civil dialog

Ah, 'twas just a joke.

OK.

Why shouldn't urban areas have more say since they have more people? Isn't that how democracy works, one man = one vote regardless of where he lives?

Because the rural people have a vital role and could not perform it if subject to the tyrany of the mass who do not know which end of a chicken gets fed.

[sirs]

Why shouldn't urban areas have more say since they have more people?

Because this is the United States of America.  Not the United states of California/New York/Texas, or the United State of Urban America.  
Because it's far too easy for politicians to pander to those urbanites, and with a quid-pro-quo, push legisative and executive decisions completely contradictory to the welfare and needs of those evil pastural puritans.  
The President is the President of ALL the states, even the rural ones, and as such rural America should have just as much representative say as urban America....which the Electoral College does to a fair degree.

And as Professor has already referenced, by all means initiate a Constitutional convention to amend the Constitution, if you don't like it.  And while you're at it, best use the time to add how the Fed should provide Universal healthcare, so that there's no longer any confusion as what the Fed should be providing vs simply promoting

Isn't that how democracy works, one man = one vote regardless of where he lives?

Yea, it does quite well, at the state & local level, where one's constituencies are much more specific.  Thankfully, we don't run this country via mob rule