Home | Recent Posts | Pages
« Next: Respect my authoritah!! | Previous: Ahmadinejad looking to get Iran bombed? »
Posted in: Uncategorized
Speaking ahead of the lecture, Dr Alex Belenky, a visiting scholar at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Center of Engineering Systems Fundamentals and author of the book ‘How America Chooses Its Presidents’, said: “Under a certain composition of Congress to be sworn in January 2009, a tie in the 2008 Electoral College may result in a constitutional crisis in the form of an election stalemate, making the US Supreme Court intervention in the 2008 presidential election inevitable.
“Contrary to widely publicised beliefs of the Electoral College opponents, making the nationwide popular vote a decisive factor in determining the election outcome doesn’t require the elimination of the Electoral College.
“Slightly modified election rules would let the country elect a US President with a mandate from both the nation and the individual states and would make all the states ‘battleground’ in election campaigns while keeping the Electoral College as a backup.
Dr Belenky, who holds a PhD in systems analysis and applied mathematics, will tell an audience in The School of Mathematics that in Presidential elections held from 1948 to 2004, only 16.072% to 21.103% of all voting voters could have elected a President under the Electoral College system, and the modified election rules eliminate such election outcomes.
“Numerous publications in the national and international media bear evidence that reporters often offer incomplete and sometimes incorrect information about the system of electing a President in the US.
Moreover, lack of understanding of both the origins and the quantitative features of Electoral College, especially the way it works in close elections, causes some reporters abroad even to question whether the existing rules of US presidential elections are democratic.”
No, they aren’t democratic nor are they supposed to be. The fact we use the Electoral College shows you that it’s a republican form of election and not democratic. A constitutional republic. If they can’t figure out the difference between a republic and a democracy they should go back to school. If they are substituting the work “democracy” for “republic” they should quit misleading people. I agree there are issues with the election of the POTUS but then again I see issues with the entire federal government. If we roll it back to its original function the Electoral College will make a lot more sense.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
« Next: Respect my authoritah!! | Previous: Ahmadinejad looking to get Iran bombed? »
Home | Recent Posts | Pages
Exit the Mobile Edition (view the standard browser version).
Powered by WordPress. WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
Question for you bile. You’ve said in previous posts that popular vote is a bad idea that leads to tyranny of the majority. (Correct me if I’m wrong here.) Given that, why do feel so strongly in letting individuals dictate markets through free trade? Why doesn’t the tyranny of the majority extend to markets? (Are we going to play the definition game? Ie, a market just is, it isn’t dictated or influenced?)
by beetlbumjl on 2008-06-18 at 8:28 am
How is it tyranny when it’s voluntary? State is compulsory and (at least considered by many) absolute, the market is voluntary. If you don’t want to bother with the sticky issue of whether compulsion is legitimate or not that’s fine too. If you take any sort of utilitarian view on society you can see that voluntary markets function better. Assuming you wish to raise the wealth (standard of living) per individual that is.
Popular vote (democracy) is tyranny by the majority by definition. If people are going to believe they need a State I’d rather it be one with artificial limits on the majority and itself. The Constitution is “just a goddamn piece of paper” and the government authority is just in people’s imagination… that doesn’t mean people don’t give weight to it simply because it exists. I’d rather people legitimacy to a more efficient and less violent system then not. Proxying the desires of the majority through representatives can, like speculators, smooth out the spikes of public demand. They can also lead to our current corrupt situation over time which is why I advocate working toward abolishing all forms of coercive government. I’m not claiming it’d work without hard work or at all, just that it’s a goal and working toward that is worthy and effective.
And yes… definition game. I don’t see how “the market” which is a broad description of human economic interaction can be “dictated.” “Influence” is too general a term to bother with. Individuals in the market can be influenced. Consumers can influence producers and entrepreneurs to attempt to provide what they desire. Propagandists can try to advocate a new technology or way of doing things. I don’t see that as market dictation. That is just “the market.” There is no absolute authority. When the government involves itself I’d say the market is being distorted not dictated. They don’t negate demand they just distort it. They are attempting to change the natural flows cause false signals to be generated. No one individual can have a total view of the market and therefore the unnatural signals lead to malinvestments, inefficient use of resources, etc. You end up with gang wars and artificial food scarcity. Debasement of the currency, centralized theft and unnatural monopolies. You can’t have these are any large scale in a decentralized voluntary market.
by bile on 2008-06-18 at 9:25 am
The state is one decision for everything, one-size-fits-all. Therefore, tyranny of the majority by definition.
In the free market, if there is enough demand, multiple options can be sustained. For example, go down the toaster section in Walmart and see how many choices you have. There is clearly no tyranny there. beetlbumjl, I think you’re confusing “influence” with “control”.
by Will Buchanan on 2008-06-20 at 12:30 am
I think practically determining the difference between “influence” and “control” is damn-near impossible.
by bosco on 2008-06-21 at 9:06 am
You can’t control the market. It’s like claiming you can control every atom of water in the ocean. Control by definition is direct, authoritive influence of something. You don’t have that with government interference. The rules aren’t being changed, the games playing field is just being distorted.
by bile on 2008-06-21 at 9:20 am