At 8:32 PM -0400 13/11/2000, John D. Giorgis wrote:
>A lot of people have recently suggested that the "winner-take-all" system
>of electoral college votes is somehow unfair or unjust. Unfortuantely,
>this meme is a very devious one, whose logical extension undermines our
>entire basis of government.
Up until here I am almost with you, John. I don't agree with you, but I am
following you. I can overlook the attempt to use inflammatory language by
calling this idea a "meme" -- obviously you missed the fact that if one
idea is a meme, then all ideas are memes, and have thus committed yourself
to some form of relativism. But I can overlook that inconsistency in your
argument because I see through to the rhetorical action you were trying to
take. Fine, whatever, you think this is a "bad" meme and you propose you
have a alternative "good" meme. What you do here therefore is set up the
expectation that you will, after this point, demonstrate why critiquing
this system's representational efficacy is so dangerous and bad.
[This also presupposes, of course, that there is a meme you are speaking of
specifically. It seems to me further in the post that you're not critiquing
a meme at all; instead you are attempting to condemn all criticism of the
notion that the meme you happen to think is good. This is not a meme, this
is merely criticism of a meme-set that comprises your political worldview
to some degree. I would tender that using rhetorical gestures like "this
meme is a devious one" and "I hope you all can understand just how
dangerous these memes are" does not at all defend your own beseiged meme.
In fact, it leads the critic to suspect that, since you must engage in such
elaborate gestures, there probably IS something to the criticism. Otherwise
you could simply explain why the criticisms are unfounded.]
>The United States operates on a "winner-take-all" system of government.
>One person is elected President, and that person gets to execute the Office
>of the President for four years. There is no co-Presidency, no rotating
>Presidency, no sharing of power.
This is exactly what several people have critiqued. Your underlying
assumptions are not the same as everyone else's. Stating the underlying
assumptions of the system that is being critiqued is not a defense against
that same critique -- not at all. It's like having a system where,
everyone with a German name is deemed "German." So a black man named
Schoenstrassen (probably not a real name) stands up and says, "Hey, we got
a problem here, I don't consider myself German." Well, restating "But all
people with German names are considered German" is not an effective defense
of the system.
I know that not everyone is out to critique those primary issues, so to
some degree this is for the benefit of a few criticisms I have seen so far
-- especially those asking why the USA does not have proportional
representation. To continue with your post:
>Thus, in every vote there will be a winner and a loser. To listen to some
>of you talk, anybody who votes for a loser has "wasted their vote."
>Likewise, anybody who casts their vote for the victor when the margin of
>victory is >1 has cast a "meaningless vote."
>
>I hope you all can understand just how dangerous these memes are.
I hope you realize how overt your rhetorical gestures are. ;)
>Casting
>a vote is all about participating in the process. Win or lose, it is the
>casting of a vote and active participation in the political life of the
>nation that helps give legitimacy to the process.
But if there are winners and losers, then participation -- and
representation -- is an all-or-nothing majority question. This *might*
have been suitable in a more homogenous society, but I am growing to
suspect that for an increasingly heterogenous society, this system cannot
but fail -- especially one where interests seem to be split in the
(admittedly rather homogenous) political spectrum along the major axis of
Left and Right. When you are that close to 50-50, I don't think that one
tribe's leader being ritually named leader over both tribes is gonna work
all that well. What might make more sense would be a cooperative,
resolutive dialogue between the two tribes.
But I guess that anything other than "I win, you lose" doesn't fit the
partisan aesthetic, the "NO, I'm right!" stance that has been fostered in
the US.
>So, consider again, no matter how you construct it - there are still
>winners and losers.
This is the subject of critique among those asking about proportional
representation, and therefore restating your assumptions about how the
system ought to work -- which happen to coincide with the present system
-- fails to address the critique adequately: "But all people with German
names are considered German."
Instead of spending brain power cooking up excuses for the present system,
and fingerpower cooking up reasons to keep it in place, would we not be
better engaged trying to imagine that perhaps some other form of
organization might be more effective? I'm not saying we should run out and
institute it, but my goodness, when did it become dangerous to even suggest
considering alternity?
[as a small side note, and not this is not an attack, but a question of my
own curiosity: I'm surprised you actually read SF, John. How is it that you
enjoy reading literature that fundamentally confronts you with the "other"
and with the transience and inevitable erosion of what it seems is
everything you value as a conservative? That is something I've scratched my
head about several times but never gotten to the point of asking. Honestly
I am curious!]
> If all states go to the Maine/Nebraska system, there
>will still be "safe" Democratic and Republican districts, just like states.
> All the purported "problems" that have been described will still very
>much exist.
Right, but that one model is not the only model available. I believe that
this is insufficient evidence to declare all critique of the system as
"dangerous". Dangerous to your meme-set, perhaps, but that's not a danger
we as a society are obliged to worry about, is it?
