--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > your argument appears to be that those who can glob onto more power > > > over others, relative to their population, will do so. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not so much a globbing on to power as it is a protection > > against the misuse of power by a majority. > > So says the minority globbing on to power. > > I think baisc protections for minorityes are needed in constitution, > but that doesn't mean every minory should have unequal voting power. > TMers are a minority, why should we have 100x the voting power of > otehrs. Blues guitarists are a minority, why shouldn't they hav 100x > the voting power of others. Smart people are a minority, why shouldn't > they have 100x voting power? And ergo, why should smart, TMing blues > guitarists have 1,000,000 (10^3) voting power? > > So give minority more voting power so it can misue power over the > majority? > > > "Tyranny of the majority" is also "globbing onto more power" and is > > one that can run roughshod over minorities. > > The power you talking about is funding and allocation power over tax > dollars, IMO. Its raw power grabs. Thus, push gov't programs to lowest > possible level of decentralization, IMO. But a big gov't central > planning type like you might disagree. :) > > > > You huffily, > > No, you huffiliy heard, apparently > > proclaimed that because of it's absense of pure one-man- > > one-vote, the U.S. is a "democratic back water". I pointed out to > > you that democracy is more than just one-man-one-vote and > > concessions to this don't necessarily mean an abandonment of > > democracy nor because democratic principles are ignored. > > So its less democratic. I didnt say US was totally dsevoid of > democracy.
Oh, I think the use of the words "democratic backwater" and "backwater of darkness and corruption" and "black shroud of darkness choking American democracy" comes pretty close. > But more than not, ruled by entrenched powers. > > So you support electoral college, Yes. > jerryrigging house districts, No. > out of > state funding for local elections, Doesn't bother me in the slightest > corrupt campaign finance and > lobbying rules, etc? Anything less than laissez-faire in the area of campaign finances bothers me. > Because these are among the major things for > which I advocated reform > > > > > Protection of the weak and minorities is hardly "darkness and > > corruption". > > If you want to create strawmen, and make arguemnts totally black and > white, have a great go at it, if that amuses you. I am interested in > serious discussion, not polemics. I see. And your "darkness", "backwater" etc. comments are...what...examples of maturity? > > > > > > > > No huge insight > > > there. The question is whether a democracy of one-person one vote > > is > > > more reflective of the will of the people than systems where some > > > peoples vote count 10x, sometimes 100x of others. > > > > > > Let Canadians do what they will. In the US, I advocate one- person > > one > > > vote. And the abolishment of hugely distortianal systems like the > > > electoral college which not only distorts the will of the popular > > vote > > > (Gore 2000) but makes all but a handful states mere observers, not > > > participants in national elections. I lived in California most of > > my > > > life. In memory, few presidential candidates ever visited or spent > > > energy in California. What kind of system is that where the most > > > populous state, the largest state economy, and some would venture > > the > > > most creative, innovation and research-focussed state, is basically > > > excluded from presidential systems. > > > > > > Blame the election on Iowans! :) > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB > > <no_reply@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > Americans as a whole don't care whether the people in the > > > > > > > > Third World live or die. That's why they elect leaders > > > > > > > > who don't care whether these people live or die and who > > > > > > > > design and implement their global strategies accordingly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, no, not "Americans as a whole." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > More than 51 million Americans voted *against* > > > > > > > George Bush in 2000; more than 59 million voted > > > > > > > against him in 2004. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately only around 60 percent of those > > > > > > > eligible to vote actually voted in 2004, so we > > > > > > > don't know how the rest felt. But we *do* know > > > > > > > that less than a third of voters actually pulled > > > > > > > the lever for Bush. > > > > > > > > > > > > We DO know how those who didn't vote felt. > > > > > > > > > > > > They didn't care enough even to vote. > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore in effect they voted. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bush is President because the American people > > > > > > caused him to be there, via comission or omission. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your "theory" appears to presume the US is a pure democracy -- > > one > > > > > person, one vote. While that is the standard throughout much > > of the > > > > > civilized world > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, really? > > > > > > > > Tell us where this is a standard, please. > > > > > > > > Often, the "one-man-one-vote" standard is purposely NOT built > > into a > > > > country's democratic system. > > > > > > > > For example, where you have minorities, the one-man-one-vote > > > > principal can wipe out their individual and minority rights and, > > > > often, a country's constitution will provide protections for > > them. > > > > In Canada where I'm from, the constitution provided certain > > > > minorities guaranteed minimum seats in pariament, despite their > > > > dwindling numbers or their percentage of the population. > > > > > > > > The most blatant example of that is the tiny Island of Prince > > Edward > > > > Island with a population of about 150,000. The Canadian > > > > constitution guarantees them 4 seats in the federal parliament > > > > whereas if it were done on the basis of one-man-one-vote they'd > > get > > > > less than one. > > > > > > > > And one of the big complaints by provinces such as Alberta is > > that > > > > the one-man-one-vote principle is grossly unfair to them in ther > > > > federal parliament. Alberta didn't exist when Canada and its > > > > constitution were created in 1867. Today, relative to Ontario > > and > > > > Quebec, Alberta and B.C. have little population and have no hope > > of > > > > being a majority in parliament. Capture the votes of just > > Ontario > > > > and some of Quebec and the other 8 provinces can be ignored. And > > > > that's why separation is not just a Quebec phenomenon but an > > Alberta > > > > one as well. > > > > > > > > Indeed, Alberta has been crying for decades for precisely the > > sort > > > > of thing that you rail against below: the distortion of and > > > > antithesis of one-man-one-vote...that is, a Senate with equal > > > > provincial representation in a bicameral legislature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the US is a democratic back water. > > > > > > > > > > It remains a backwater of darkness and corruption due to i) the > > > > > electoral college (Gore won in 2000 -- the was the true > > reflection > > > > of > > > > > US will), ii) a bi-cameral system of legislature where one > > house is > > > > > the antithesis of one persone, one vote, and the other is so > > > > rigged > > > > > (jerrymandering) that only 10% or so of races are actually > > > > competitive > > > > > -- that is -- democratic. The rest of the races are simple > > > > > power-maintnenace by entrenched "rulers". Further, out-of- state > > > > > contribution to local races, corrupt lobbying rules and > > campaign > > > > > finance, and no centralized national election rules -- > > allowing > > > > local > > > > > corruption (Ohio, Florida, Kathleen Smith, paperless trail > > voting > > > > > machines) all are choking the true will of the people by > > entrenched > > > > > powers. > > > > > > > > > > With so many distortions in in ts so-called democracy, > > democracy in > > > > > the US is a sick patient in intensive care. Hardly vibrant and > > > > > reflective of the will of the people. The US currently is more > > than > > > > > than not, a banana republic of entrenched powers sustaining > > their > > > > > power. Its not a wonder corrupt low-vibe policies are > > developed and > > > > > implemented. > > > > > > > > > > How to break the black-shroud of darkeness choking american > > > > democracy? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
