>
> Because it is the way that best affirms the principal one person, one vote.
> For president, people in California get one vote, and people in Montana get
> 5 votes. Lets use an example from the state I live in. Texas gets 32
> electoral college votes. Its 1990 population (the basis of the electoral
> college votes in 2000) pegged its population at about 16 million.
>
> Wyomin, Alaska, Vermont, D.C., North Dakota, Delaware, South Dakota,
> Montana, Rhode Island, and Idaho also have 32 electoral votes between them,
> but they only have a population of 6 million. Why do people in these states
> count more than Texans?
How can you weigh people against each other that way? People aren't people
to politicains, they are votes. America is very diverse. It's pretty hard
for one person to represent everybody (hey, Congress does that better) but
we do need a chief executive and it's a heckuva lot better than, say,
divine right of kings. Let's just accept that no president will ever be
representing even close to all of the people and in many cases (such as
now with the electoral/popular split) it's not even half.
>
>
> >After all, which President would be more representative of the >people:
>
> >A) A President who has the narrow support of the urban coastal areas,
> >producing a narrow overall popular majority, and little support from >the
> >vast central rural areas?
>
> >B) A President with overwhelming support of the vast central rural >areas,
> >and a decent minority of support in the urban coastal areas?
>
> Why are geographic minorities the important ones? Why are rural voters
> enshrined, and various types of urban voters lower class people that are
> lumped together?
>
There is no particular reason to enshrine rural voters EXCEPT" what was
being talked about in another thread - "The Frontier Meme." Also known as
"rugged individualsts." Some who really dislike them say
"rednecks," ,although the latter term may apply to an extremist
fringe. We're don't need to set out to enshrine rural over urban or over
anything because the frontier meme is deep in out culture - the meme has
done it for us. Even city people sometimes admire the rough spirit of
country people although they don't see that life style as being for them.
There are fewer people on the so called "frontier," but American culture
admires them.
Did you see the map of how the votes went? It's pretty classic
historically too. Cities for Gore, countryside for Bush. There is a
fundamental political and ideological division between people with urban
and rural lifestles. It mpas along geographic lines because people with
different life styles think very differently. Those in less populous
states, as a group, are FAR more suspicious of government. (Of course this
also applies to the urban rich, who have more to lose if government takes
too strong a hand. It is still a matter of voting self interest.) You
could almost say there are *two* Americas. There is the sophisticated,
urban and often more liberal crowd and the very conservative heartland
(also religious; it's not called the Bible Belt for nothing.) One tends to
vote Democratic, the other to vote Republican. I find it odd many
conservatives see liberals as "elitist" since their ranks tend to include
the urban poor and others who are THREATENED by elites *other than
government.* The claim may apply to the *academic* left wing of
postmodernists perhaps (but ar they a huge voting bloc?) Conservatives see
goverment as the only threat.
> What about asking the same question in race. What about a president with a
> decent minority of white voters and an overwhelming majority of black
> voters? How is this different from urban/rural?
>
It's less race than economics. Blacks tend to be poorer and see government
as a savior rather than a threat. Wealthier blacks often do vote more
conservative. Rural blacks might feel torn between religious belief (which
would push them republican or at least anti abortion) and the fact they're
traditionally Democratic. But don't forget it once wasn't the religious
right, it was the religious left! What do you call Martin Luther King? As
for urban blacks, their lower socioeconomic status tends to push them in
the liberal direction. ALso charismatic leaders like Jesse Jackson.
Kristin
An urban/suburban/liberal/not wealthy Gore voter struggling with the
citizenship duty of accepting Bush as my president for the next four years
(yes, Gore was ruining his image IMO by grasping at straws in Florida.)
