Herman Rubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In article <001801c04d82$38529f80$70690e3f@wards>,
> Joe Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Does anyone know WHY so many states DON'T DO IT THIS WAY?
>>Perhaps the Political Science/History folks can comment.
>
> The principal reason is that the two major parties want
> to keep their position AS PARTIES. If you read the
> Constitution, there is no mention of parties, and it
> was expected that the Electors would be people of trust,
> who would use their judgment. The near catastrophe of
> 1800 caused separate voting for President and Vice-President.
>
> Even worse is plurality voting. But doing something
> about it would weaken the Demopublicans.
>
> As it stands now, probably 2/3 of the people are not
> "represented" by someone who agrees with them.
Agrees with them in respect to *what*? Reasonable
people may come to agreement along some dimensions
of discourse; and to no agreement along others.
If there is to be something called "representative
government", then reasonable people will just have
to get accustomed to putting up, to some extent,
with politicians who do not "agree" with them on
every single, solitary laundry-list item that
may be in contention at this or that point of
space or time. Reasonable people tolerating
a certain amount of disagreement amongst each
other has a venerable name, it is called "Compromise".
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
