At 12:29 PM 11/10/00 -0800, John D. Giorgis wrote:
>4) We are not engaged in a national plebiscite on the Electoral College
>system. Both of the candidates have sworn to uphold the Constitution, and
>it decrees how new presidents are to be selected. Those who wish to amend
>the Constitution are entirely free to do so. See Article V. And set aside
>a couple of years to get it done.
Phooey. Or more precisely, this is a ridiculous non sequitur. Most
pointedly, it assume the unconstitutionality of a Florida legal precedent
that lets a judge throw out the results of an election if the court finds
that it does not reflect the will of the people. That's what voting in a
democracy is about -- the will of the people.
Even forgetting the precedent, does anyone really think that our
Constitution would tolerate elections that do not reflect the peoples'
will? We put economic and military pressure on nations that hold sham
elections; why would we allow one here?
Buckley would have us believe that the question of who will become
President is subordinate to how well people can make marks or punch holes
in paper. What a putz.
This is almost as bad as the media idiots who argue that Bush should
concede to save the nation having to wait several weeks for the result. We
seem to have institutionalized impatience, as if immediate gratification
has become more important than a fair election of the leader of the free
world. Or did I forget that the most important thing is that viewers might
become bored and miss the deodorant and car ads?
Nick
