Republicans are in it to win it!

[Cain]

To me this is not really a controversial point of view, but I suppose the Republican-leaning members of this forum, and perhaps others as well, are inclined to disagree. Here it is: Republicans want power more than Democrats. Democrats want power too, of course, but not as much, and they win it by selling out the Left in order to play Republican-lite. Look at the warrantless wiretapping nonsense, the inactivity on Iraq. Republicans are so hard-core they impeached Clinton for getting a BJ! Bush's constant power-grabbing, Cheney's secrecy, and Tom Delay's tenure in the House are exhibits A, B, and C.

As far as the 2000 election goes the ideal outcome would have been if Nader won. OK, but out of the plausible available outcomes the ideal would have been if Gore clearly won in the Electoral College and Bush clearly won the popular vote. Why? Because I think it's fair to say left-leaning folks are more inclined to abolish the EC even if it slightly favors our side (not that I want to align myself with the Democratic party). You know, democracy, one person one vote and all that jazz. Self-advantage plays a more important role for Republicans, though this side usually appeals to the "Founding Fathers," the Constitution, and that inane slogan "we're a republic, not a democracy." Both parties are hypocritical, of course, the Democrats probably more so, but when it comes down to it the Republicans are in it to win it. Democrats simply do not exhibit the same amount of party-loyalty, and legislators are not as rank-and-file.

Here was an article from the Daily News the day before the election:

So what if Gore wins such crucial battleground states as Florida,
Michigan and Pennsylvania and thus captures the magic 270
electoral votes while Bush wins the overall nationwide popular vote?

"The one thing we don't do is roll over," says a Bush aide. "We fight."

How? The core of the emerging Bush strategy assumes a popular
uprising, stoked by the Bushies themselves, of course.

In league with the campaign — which is preparing talking points
about the Electoral College's essential unfairness — a massive
talk-radio operation would be encouraged. "We'd have ads, too,"
says a Bush aide, "and I think you can count on the media to fuel
the thing big-time. Even papers that supported Gore might turn
against him because the will of the people will have been thwarted."

Here's the Gore side:

And what would happen if the "what if" scenario came out the
other way? "Then we'd be doing the same thing Bush is apparently
getting ready for," says a Gore campaign official. "They're just
further along in their contingency thinking than we are. But we
wouldn't lie down without a fight, either."(1)

Yeah, right. What it really boils down to is that Democrats are pussies. When a few thousand people down in Florida accidentally voted for Buchanan, Republicans just said "too bad." It was an illegal ballot and clearly they did not intend to vote for Buchanan, but hey, hey, hey, it was designed by a Dem and published in the newspaper before the election. You're talking about the will of the people, and their response is that of a screeching 12 year-old boy who has a win-at-all cost attitude toward boardgames.

(1) http://www.bartcop.com/111tie.htm

Poll: Which Party is more power hungry?

The two major parties are equally power hungry.
Democrats are more power hungry.
Republicans are more power hungry.

 

[Overman]

I would say they are equally power hungry, but the republicans seem to be willing to do whatever it takes to much larger extremems, so I voted for them.

 

[corplinx]

Hillary honestly wants to just make the country better. She's not power hungry at all.

Bill Richardson however is a power hungry job climber salivating to take the reigns.

See the problem? I don't think power hungry works well as a wide brush description. It does work well with a small one.

Why does Romney want to be president?

 

[Darth Rotor]

To me this is not really a controversial point of view, but I suppose the Republican-leaning members of this forum, and perhaps others as well, are inclined to disagree. Here it is: Republicans want power more than Democrats.

My single data point response to this position is Hillary Rodham Clinton. She wants power, political power, and badly. Is it your position that the motivation (proclaimed or private) for wanting power matters?

Why? Because I think it's fair to say left-leaning folks are more inclined to abolish the EC even if it slightly favors our side (not that I want to align myself with the Democratic party). You know, democracy, one person one vote and all that jazz.

But that isn't how the Constitution was written, and amended, and I think it was so written to account for the shortcomings of democracy. The amendments have been to expand franchise, which is to the good. IIRC, democracy has been observed as holding the the seeds of its own destruction due to its potential for mob rule. In a pure democracy, minorities can really get screwed. Pithy quote by wise philosopher not on the tip of my tongue at the moment. Support for that point includes the Texas constitutional amendment two years ago banning homosexual marriage. Is that the sort of one man one vote illustration you'd like to hang your hat on? A lot of folks don't.

Both parties are hypocritical, of course, the Democrats probably more so, but when it comes down to it the Republicans are in it to win it.

Agreed, but I can't agree that the Democrats are not in it to win.

Democrats simply do not exhibit the same amount of party-loyalty, and legislators are not as rank-and-file.

Has Ron Paul has no analogue in the Democratic Party? I'd say that James Webb's win in Virginia, first in the primary, then in the election, shows that a non rank and file can win, so maybe your are correct in pointing to the GOP being better, at the moment, at enforcing party discipline. (I think that was your point. Hope I got it right.)

Yeah, right. What it really boils down to is that Democrats are pussies. When a few thousand people down in Florida accidentally voted for Buchanan, Republicans just said "too bad." It was an illegal ballot and clearly they did not intend to vote for Buchanan, but hey, hey, hey, it was designed by a Dem and published in the newspaper before the election. You're talking about the will of the people, and their response is that of a screeching 12 year-old boy who has a win-at-all cost attitude toward boardgames.

My dad pointed out that people who were too stupid to use a ballot were a detriment to the voting franchise. An awful lot of people got it right in Florida, millions voting for both, heck, all three or four, parties. How is it that a few thousand who allegedly didn't is a valid condemnation of the ballot? Is this a cherry pick?

My dad was disgusted, being 72 at the time of the 2000 election, at how "they are taking advantage of old people" commentary arose when he, an old person, had the wit to decipher a ballot.

The chad issue I'll leave alone, as I vote in a chadless state.

Poll: Which Party is more power hungry?

Yes.

DR

 

[ponderingturtle]

My single data point response to this position is Hillary Rodham Clinton. She wants power, political power, and badly. Is it your position that the motivation (proclaimed or private) for wanting power matters?

The problem is that in spite of what she and possibly you think, she is not the democratic party.

But that isn't how the Constitution was written, and amended, and I think it was so written to account for the shortcomings of democracy.

You can't trust the mob.


I think that as a group the democratic party is no where near unified enough and willing to show that their sole interest is raw naked power. It did seem like certain members of the repiblican party wanted to turn the country into a one party state in effect.

 

[mumblethrax]

But that isn't how the Constitution was written, and amended, and I think it was so written to account for the shortcomings of democracy.

This is one of those uniquely American arguments that I just don't understand. Why on Earth should the constitution frame our political discourse? How are we to discuss which amendments should be proposed if it does?

Can't we just point out that the framers of the constitution were clearly wrong here? I mean, I'm not aware that the other democracies in the world that don't employ the electoral college (at last count, all of them) have fallen to mob rule. If they have, I can only point out that mob rule is looking pretty attractive lately.

Sometimes I think that I live in a necrocracy.

 

[Darth Rotor]

This is one of those uniquely American arguments that I just don't understand. Why on Earth should the constitution frame our political discourse?

It has been shown to work reasonably well.

How are we to discuss which amendments should be proposed if it does?

Discuss away. Prohibition points to some amendments not being so hot, the XIIIth and XIXth point to some being pretty darned good.

Can't we just point out that the framers of the constitution were clearly wrong here? I mean, I'm not aware that the other democracies in the world that don't employ the electoral college (at last count, all of them) have fallen to mob rule.

You judge them clearly wrong. I don't. So, show your work.

These other countries also use different forms of republican/democratic/representative or parliamentarian governments, which makes their comparison to the US system dubious. Do you propose we adopt the English system? New Zealand? German?

If they have, I can only point out that mob rule is looking pretty attractive lately.

Got it. I'll call you when I stand up my first Vigilance Committee. Our first targets will be all of those jerks who drive around shattering eardrums with over amped sub woofers. Bring your shotgun, and your kercheif. I will bring the caltrops for their tires.

Sometimes I think that I live in a necrocracy.

A new idea isn't always good due to being a change, though sometimes it is. Likewise, an old idea isn't always poor becuase it is old, though sometimes it is. See Prohibition and Women's Suffrage, above. Some changes are better than others.

DR

 

[Cain]

My single data point response to this position is Hillary Rodham Clinton. She wants power, political power, and badly. Is it your position that the motivation (proclaimed or private) for wanting power matters?

I have no love for Hillary Clinton, but as Turtle observed she is not representative of the Democratic Party. Also, if we look at the political continuum, I think it's fair to say that more self-consciously liberal or left-wing members of the electorate are against Hillary (perhaps with exception to some women's groups) while the more die-hard Republicans are happy with Bush, think Delay was persecuted and so on.

But that isn't how the Constitution was written, and amended, and I think it was so written to account for the shortcomings of democracy. The amendments have been to expand franchise, which is to the good. IIRC, democracy has been observed as holding the the seeds of its own destruction due to its potential for mob rule. In a pure democracy, minorities can really get screwed. Pithy quote by wise philosopher not on the tip of my tongue at the moment. Support for that point includes the Texas constitutional amendment two years ago banning homosexual marriage. Is that the sort of one man one vote illustration you'd like to hang your hat on? A lot of folks don't.

Perhaps you're thinking of Federalist #10 and Madison's warning against "the tyranny of the many." What's problematic is the people all-too willing to quickly invoke "mob rule" seem to have a charming disregard for tyranny of the few. At their heart democracies are egalitarian, so I have never understood the argument about a "pure democracy" severely limiting the rights and powers of a minority. Plenty of social democracies that have been on the "road to serfdom for the better part of the last century have got along just fine. The Electoral College is an antiquated institution and I find it revealing cannot generate free-standing moral-political arguments for its existence. The Constitution is not a product of pure reasoning, but a political document borne out of compromise, and those compromises were made in a very different political environment.

If anyone were to design a rational system consistent with people's values do you sincerely think they would settle upon something resembling the Electoral College? It's a holdover from another era.

Agreed, but I can't agree that the Democrats are not in it to win.

They're just not in it to win to nearly the same extent. Do you think that if we were attacked on 9/11 in a Gore presidency that people would have rallied behind him just the same? Every talk radio station in the country would be citing a certain presidential daily brief -- "Bin Laden Determined to Attack." You have the insanely influential Delay/Norquist contingent enforcing party discipline in order to consolidate power. The Democrats were in it to win it in 2004 inasmuch as they voted for the most "electable" candidate in John Kerry, who got swift boated. They hold their bloody convention in Boston of all places, while the Republicans oh-so-shamelessly delayed their's to early September in New York (for obvious political reasons).

My dad pointed out that people who were too stupid to use a ballot were a detriment to the voting franchise. An awful lot of people got it right in Florida, millions voting for both, heck, all three or four, parties. How is it that a few thousand who allegedly didn't is a valid condemnation of the ballot? Is this a cherry pick?

I don't see how it's cherry picking unless I am purposely and systematically ignoring other similar, relevant examples. The election was decided in Florida by a few hundred votes. Now, considering the demographic composition of the county in question, I think everyone agrees there were voting anomalies -- old Jewish people voting for Pat Buchanan! Moreover, I don't think a person's ability, or inability, to use an illegal ballot says a great deal about their intelligence vis-a-vis making an informed choice for president.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Republicans: Incapable of governing well or behaving with decency.

Democrats: Incapable of getting elected regularly or showing backbone.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I have no love for Hillary Clinton, but as Turtle observed she is not representative of the Democratic Party. Also, if we look at the political continuum, I think it's fair to say that more self-consciously liberal or left-wing members of the electorate are against Hillary (perhaps with exception to some women's groups) while the more die-hard Republicans are happy with Bush, think Delay was persecuted and so on.

Aye, Hillary is working hard to lead the Democratic Party, which as President she would tend to do, but I recall a Will Rogers line:

"I am not the member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.:"

Perhaps you're thinking of Federalist #10 and Madison's warning against "the tyranny of the many." What's problematic is the people all-too willing to quickly invoke "mob rule" seem to have a charming disregard for tyranny of the few.

That would be Activist Progressives, who fight to implement rules 'for your own good' and/or plutocrats, who rule 'because we know better and can hire better lawyers' and so on.

At their heart democracies are egalitarian, so I have never understood the argument about a "pure democracy" severely limiting the rights and powers of a minority.

In theory, yes, egalitarian. It helps for that egalitarian society to operate off of a lot of strongly held common convictions, which the US seems to be doing less of as time passes.

Plenty of social democracies that have been on the "road to serfdom for the better part of the last century have got along just fine.

True. Plenty have failed, as well. Kenya. Haiti. Well, they tried anyway.

The Electoral College is an antiquated institution and I find it revealing cannot generate free-standing moral-political arguments for its existence.

Changing an existing method, a part of it, requires that one change it for a rational reason. See my remarks on Benjamin Harrison. That said, objections to the EC predate W's tenure, so how about you tell me:

Why didn't getting rid of the EC arise already, along with, for example, lowering voting age to 18 and the ERA?

Is it solely inertia, or are marksman's points in the other thread on its feature as a check and balance still somewhat worthwhile? (Same thread as my comments on Harrison, a few post up)

The Constitution is not a product of pure reasoning, but a political document borne out of compromise, and those compromises were made in a very different political environment.

Yes indeed. It was built with provision for amendment, exercised 26 times. Are you proposing an amendment removing the EC?

See above, why the lack of support for that position?

We changed voting radically with women's suffrage. We change voting franchise radically via universal suffrage. What's the driving need for changing this feature of the system? "That it's old" is not much of an argument, and that Bush won in 2000 is no argument. Harrison won thanks to the EC, and wasn't a complete tool of a president. Is it really the system that is wrong? It may be, and it may be that the EC is like the human appendix: not much use lately.

If anyone were to design a rational system consistent with people's values do you sincerely think they would settle upon something resembling the Electoral College? It's a holdover from another era.

What harm does it do?

They're just not in it to win to nearly the same extent.

Your assertion is based on what: stronger party discipline in the GOP?

Anything else?

Do you think that if we were attacked on 9/11 in a Gore presidency that people would have rallied behind him just the same?

Yep. That depends, of course, on how well he led, but I think he'd have done his best. He's an American, and I think that being one he'd have been rather pissed at Osama's little strategem, and would have wanted revenge. I don't think he'd have gone to Iraq, however.

The Democrats were in it to win it in 2004 inasmuch as they voted for the most "electable" candidate in John Kerry, who got swift boated. They hold their bloody convention in Boston of all places, while the Republicans oh-so-shamelessly delayed their's to early September in New York (for obvious political reasons).

The Dallas Cowboys were in it to win in the Ice Bowl on the Frozen Tundra of Lambeau Field in 1967. They lost to the Packers. The Dems were in it to win in 2004, and lost. That they were unsuccessful does not mean they were not sincere about winning. They were merely outplayed.

ETA: marksman's comments on EC checks were in the other thread, sorry.

DR

 

[The Painter]

They are equally power hungry.

Anyone one who voted for anything other than this is stupid and naive

 

[Cain]

Changing an existing method, a part of it, requires that one change it for a rational reason. See my remarks on Benjamin Harrison. That said, objections to the EC predate W's tenure, so how about you tell me:

Why didn't getting rid of the EC arise already, along with, for example, lowering voting age to 18 and the ERA?

Because too many people have an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. I personally despised the EC before 2000, which is why, as I said, I hoped Bush would win the popular vote and Gore would win the EC.

Is it solely inertia, or are marksman's points in the other thread on its feature as a check and balance still somewhat worthwhile? (Same thread as my comments on Harrison, a few post up)

Yes indeed. It was built with provision for amendment, exercised 26 times. Are you proposing an amendment removing the EC?

See above, why the lack of support for that position?

Why the lack of political support for an Amendment abolishing the Constitution? If that's the question, then the answer is obvious: self-interest. Self-interest from Republicans and Republican dominated small states.

We changed voting radically with women's suffrage. We change voting franchise radically via universal suffrage. What's the driving need for changing this feature of the system? "That it's old" is not much of an argument, and that Bush won in 2000 is no argument. Harrison won thanks to the EC, and wasn't a complete tool of a president. Is it really the system that is wrong? It may be, and it may be that the EC is like the human appendix: not much use lately.

What harm does it do?

This is touched upon in Imaginal's thread earlier. Politicians have a much stronger incentive to pander to swing voters in key states. It's inequitable: vote for vote, a person in Wyoming has relatively more influence than a resident of California. It's the tyranny of arbitrary geography.

Bush's "victory" in 2000 stank apart from the EC. The problem with the EC is that it muddied the issue. Also, the Holy Founders did not think the hoi polloi were capable of directly electing Senators.

Your assertion is based on what: stronger party discipline in the GOP?

Anything else?

Stronger party discipline in the GOP is probably a reflection of their win at any cost attitude. Anything else?... other than the other examples cited above?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Why the lack of political support for an Amendment abolishing the Constitution?

No, why the lack of political support for an amendment changing or removing the EC.

This is touched upon in Imaginal's thread earlier. Politicians have a much stronger incentive to pander to swing voters in key states. It's inequitable: vote for vote, a person in Wyoming has relatively more influence than a resident of California. It's the tyranny of arbitrary geography.

Understood. Pick your tyranny, and rage against it.

Bush's "victory" in 2000 stank apart from the EC.

Aye, there was plenty of wrong to go around. Too many votes uncounted, in all fifty states, for one thing.

The problem with the EC is that it muddied the issue. Also, the Holy Founders did not think the hoi polloi were capable of directly electing Senators.

Yes, so that got changed. For the better, I think. The American Experiment continues.

How do you sell, considering that at best 65% vote in national elections anymore, the Amendment that changes or does away with the EC?

What's your proposal? All I hear so far is "I don't like it" and roughly "it's unfair to urbanites and those living in large population states."

You'll find me more interested in a change if the structure of the EC has negative influence on the 2008 election. Until then, I am unimpressed with the argument that it has a detrimental influence on the process.

I may be convinced otherwise with other evidence, however.

DR

 

[mumblethrax]

It has been shown to work reasonably well.

There's no reason to believe that our political system works reasonably well due to the deference we show to people two hundred years dead, so this hasn't been shown. I'd question whether it's working reasonably well at all. At any rate, this argument is complacent.

Our electoral system is a good example of extreme institutional conservatism leading to a stagnant mess. We can't change the constitution in the face of a deeply troubled system, because *mumble, mumble, the constitution, mumble*.

You judge them clearly wrong. I don't. So, show your work.

The first and easiest way to do this is to point out that the electoral college--as defined by the framers of the constitution--led to a constitutional crisis within a few years, and a second one a few years later. That's a pretty good indication that they were wrong: it doesn't work, and we don't use it anymore.

What we've replaced it with is a system in which we perceive of ourselves as voting for the president, when we're actually voting for a slate of robotic party loyalists. This is an electoral college in name only, and provides us with nothing more than rounding error and disproportionate weighting on arbitrary criteria. It doesn't favor the interests of the few over the many, or of the many over the few, but of the lucky over the unlucky. If I move to DC tomorrow, my presidential vote (in aggregate) suddenly counts about four times more than it does today. Nobody thinks of residents of DC as 'the few' or residents of New York as 'the many' anymore--we just aren't that parochial in the 21st century. We think of presidential elections in terms of broader demographics. And if I proposed disproportionate voting in those terms--say, counting the votes of ethnic minorities or agricultural laborers twice to ensure that their interests aren't stomped on--I can only imagine the brouhaha that would follow.

It's also important that the fight over perception has already been decided--nobody thinks "I'm voting for John Smith! He's a capable elector and I trust him to choose the right candidate" when they vote for president.

These other countries also use different forms of republican/democratic/representative or parliamentarian governments, which makes their comparison to the US system dubious. Do you propose we adopt the English system? New Zealand? German?

No, I propose that we eliminate the electoral college. That doesn't entail a radical shift in our form in government, it just means that erase the aforementioned slate of nominal electors from the ballot and stop shuffling up the results; that we conduct our elections in the manner that most of us think of them as being conducted in. It's more likely to prevent a crisis of confidence (for example, the 2000 vote) than to cause one, because it's not counter-intuitive that the person who receives the most votes wins, in the way that the person who wins the most arbitrarily rounded blocks of arbitrarily rounded districts is.

The authors of the electoral college didn't argue that democratic elections won't work here--they made the argument against the tyranny of the majority in broad terms, so I don't see how general examples of successful democracies that elect their heads of state more directly aren't evidentiary.

A new idea isn't always good due to being a change, though sometimes it is. Likewise, an old idea isn't always poor becuase it is old, though sometimes it is. See Prohibition and Women's Suffrage, above. Some changes are better than others.

The idea isn't bad because it's old--it's simply defended because it's old (and because the whims of political fortune sometimes demand it). It's a bad idea because it makes nonsense out of election results, without doing any good at all.

Anyway, to bring this back on topic (and we should probably move this discussion if we want to keep it going), it seems to me that Democrats are still holding to a gentlemens' agreement years after the rules changed. I don't know whether they haven't had the time to shift the gears of their political machine, or if they are somehow prevented from doing so (say, because they're too married to an I-feel-your-pain image). I'm still kind of hopeful that there will eventually be a backlash against scorched-earth politics before this stuff becomes permanent. But not that hopeful.

 

[DanishDynamite]

The trivialities which appear important to the people of a country handicapped by having only two parties to choose from is old and boring news. It is of not interest to anyone aside from those who care. A minority indeed.

So please.....post something of interest next time please? Thanks.

Yawn.

 

[Darth Rotor]

There's no reason to believe that our political system works reasonably well due to the deference we show to people two hundred years dead, so this hasn't been shown.

That isn't why it has been shown to work well, this chimerical deference, it is the results of a participatory democracy working, thriving, and adjusting. So far so good, but that doesn't mean that the experiment can't turn sour. You will note that aside from the occasional lead plebiscite, four to date, and a few more attempted (Reagan and Ford leap to mind) the change of government comes about peaceably and in an orderly fashion. Granted, it took blood and iron to end slavery and preserve a continent sized union, but the system as set up continues to work well enough.

I'd question whether it's working reasonably well at all. At any rate, this argument is complacent.

Yes, it is working well. Could it be better? Yes. Why do you think the system of government isn't?

The first and easiest way to do this is to point out that the electoral college--as defined by the framers of the constitution--led to a constitutional crisis within a few years, and a second one a few years later. That's a pretty good indication that they were wrong: it doesn't work, and we don't use it anymore.

Indeed, but rather than junking it, the system as a whole was, or has been, amended. However, "we aren't using it anymore" in its original form is absolutely correct. Therein lies the strength of your position, from where I sit.

What we've replaced it with is a system in which we perceive of ourselves as voting for the president, when we're actually voting for a slate of robotic party loyalists. This is an electoral college in name only, and provides us with nothing more than rounding error and disproportionate weighting on arbitrary criteria. It doesn't favor the interests of the few over the many, or of the many over the few, but of the lucky over the unlucky. If I move to DC tomorrow, my presidential vote (in aggregate) suddenly counts about four times more than it does today. Nobody thinks of residents of DC as 'the few' or residents of New York as 'the many' anymore--we just aren't that parochial in the 21st century. We think of presidential elections in terms of broader demographics. And if I proposed disproportionate voting in those terms--say, counting the votes of ethnic minorities or agricultural laborers twice to ensure that their interests aren't stomped on--I can only imagine the brouhaha that would follow.

Interesting take on the system as it stands now, I will keep it tucked away for future reference. Oh, and who is this "we," KeemoSabe? Getting royal on us all of a sudden?

It's also important that the fight over perception has already been decided--nobody thinks "I'm voting for John Smith! He's a capable elector and I trust him to choose the right candidate" when they vote for president.

I am not sure how wide spread the perception is, but I have to agree that the feature no longer holds true.

No, I propose that we eliminate the electoral college. That doesn't entail a radical shift in our form in government, it just means that erase the aforementioned slate of nominal electors from the ballot and stop shuffling up the results; that we conduct our elections in the manner that most of us think of them as being conducted in.

Got it. Appendectomy.

It's more likely to prevent a crisis of confidence (for example, the 2000 vote) than to cause one, because it's not counter-intuitive that the person who receives the most votes wins, in the way that the person who wins the most arbitrarily rounded blocks of arbitrarily rounded districts is.

This is not a weak position, since in politics, perception is frequently mistaken for reality.

The authors of the electoral college didn't argue that democratic elections won't work here--they made the argument against the tyranny of the majority in broad terms, so I don't see how general examples of successful democracies that elect their heads of state more directly aren't evidentiary.

Since our system has expanded franchise considerably in any case, but has retained the method of choosing the Chief Executive by other than "the leader of the majority party" and the attendant "no confidence votes" (reference Italy having over 50 governments since WW II) we benefit from a certain stability and predictability. Is the EC necessary for that? Perhaps not. Your position makes some good points for why not.

The idea isn't bad because it's old--it's simply defended because it's old (and because the whims of political fortune sometimes demand it). It's a bad idea because it makes nonsense out of election results, without doing any good at all.

"Without doing any good at all." Your opinion. Got some facts to back that up?

By the time I came back from over there, and was exposed to the month long vitriol fest that led up to the 2004 election (I was personally disgusted by the Swift Boat smears vis a vis John Kerry) I found myself in contempt of the political class in ways that dwarfed my earlier cynicism. I share your hope that scorched earth politics can be weeded out of our system, but I think that the internet aids and abets it, rather than dampens it, and as a result scorched earth is here to stay.

Free political speech includes the freedom to be asshats, with all players leaping at chances to do that.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

The trivialities which appear important to the people of a country handicapped by having only two parties to choose from is old and boring news. It is of not interest to anyone aside from those who care. A minority indeed.

So please.....post something of interest next time please? Thanks.

Yawn.

Attention whoring again, DD?

DR

 

[DanishDynamite]

Attention whoring again, DD?

DR

In the sense of bringing attention to a subject, yes.

 

[Darth Rotor]

In the sense of bringing attention to a subject, yes.

If you want to discuss a topic, I recommend you begin a thread on it. Others are not obliged to do that for you.

DR

 

[The Painter]

Why the lack of political support for an Amendment abolishing the Constitution?

OK, let me see if I have this right. You want to abolish the Constitution with an amendment to the Constitution? My head is spinning.