Mike Malloy

[Yuri]

After hearing, on Thursday's show, that Brad sparred with John Fugelsang on 'The Point' I decided to watch the clip and found it quite entertaining and informative.

Brad raised a point that I found thought-provoking: that this whole Red State / Blue State two-party duopoly is a myth: the cases in point being that both California and New York -- supposedly liberal/blue states -- routinely elect Republican governors and that "reliably red" San Diego has a crapload more registered independents than Democrats or Republicans.

What prompted me to post though, were comments made about the (continued) need for the Electoral College. The whole panel seemed to recognize that the Electoral College is undemocratic but both the republican freaklady and the asshat conservative comedian concurred that the Electoral College is vital so that regional powers are balanced - i.e. so that "New York and LA ...... can't decide policy for Wyoming" and that "you want a president who is representing a broad group of people". Besides raising the matter, Fugelsang did not come out expressly on one side or the other. Brad, who normally gets quite animated when he has a point of disagreement, was quite subdued during this part of the discussion and seemed to murmur what I interpreted as agreement.

Judge for yourself: You can watch the whole 42-minute video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J-6LgKe0nk

(the segment in question begins at 15:33 with a question by the not-so-amazing -- in fact, quite dickish -- Amazing Atheist)

Putting aside why a strong pro-democracy advocate like Brad Friedman would side (even on a lukewarm basis) with the need for an Electoral College, I was left wondering how a country like Canada -- geographically larger than the USA, with as many continental time zones and similar economic and population diversity -- manages to get by without such an entity ..... and still is able to balance regional disparities quite adroitly. What am I missing?

And yeah, I could have sent these comments to Brad - but I already know what he thinks. I'm curious to know what you think.

Thanks.
_________________

This space for rent

[NeonLX]

Wow. Sure seems like they got to Brad somehow.

I think the electoral college moves the U.S. one step further away from true representative democracy. "All or nothing" makes it a binary choice.

Of course, so does the existing two party structure (which has become a single corporate-warmongering party, as far as I'm concerned).
_________________
Blindly following failed leadership is NOT patriotism.

[greyowl]

The most popular argument is that it protects less populous states from the tyranny of the majority. Which of course leads us to the tyranny of the minority where a handful of people determine for the rest of us how everything will work in our society. Which is better? That is the question.

The danger of the tyranny of the minority is an autocratic regime or incremental moves towards one as we have seen in the United States. I suspect even in fascism if its given long enough we will have corporations bloodletting each other as they attempt to climb to the top of the pyramid ultimately leaving one entity holding most of the cards.

The danger of the majority is that there would arise cases where the majority would suppress the interests of the minority. At times the majority might be on the wrong side of things. But I think that the vast majority of times, you would see the majority vote in their interests had they the power to do so as in a Direct Democracy system. Representative government is only effective as the representation is in that system. The moment that system can easily be subverted to the will of a few (as our government can) it is inevitable that it shall pass. Relying on the good fortune of a benevolent ruler coming to power is the ultimate faith based initiative imo.

At the end of the day I am far more comfortable with majority rule than minority overrule. As it stands most countries in the world are run as a tyranny of the minority system. Its not what the people want but what those few at the top want. That is what the electoral college epitomizes to me. The shackles on each and every free citizen that keep us anything but.

Also on watching a bit of the segment I'd say I agree with the premise that we do have other options on the ballot and more people need to exercise that choice. But that doesn't negate the way votes are voided as they are counted up in elections in the US. Which is setup intentionally to allow the few to dominate the system imo. It is ultimately why we are arriving at a one party solution as the outcome.
_________________
Time to go Green.

[Don Smith]

The original premise of the system was to protect the republic from the whims of the mob. It is disguised in the wordy fashion of the elites of the day, they were loathe to use plain language, whether it was about the rabble or the slaves which propped up a great deal of the economy.
_________________
" A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends."- Lenin
Patriotism is a manifestation of the Stockholm Syndrome.
"How does it become a man to behave toward this American government to-day? I answer that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it."
-Thoreau
"Information is the currency of Democracy." Jefferson