The liberal left rants about the prospects and reality of the popular vote of the U.S. President. What is an obvious omission on the part of the liberal left in this regard is that what they don't say is that the popular vote is meant for “their” candidate. They argue particularly that the presidential candidate should win the election primarily on what the popular vote tabulates. This notion has been raised by the liberal left due to the reality that they say Gore and Kerry won the popular vote, yet “G-dub-e-ya” won the votes of the Electoral College. They argue that this is unfair; to them.
An article, for reference, has been written to educate the liberal left for the reasons of our founding fathers having installed the Electoral College. Tara Ross wrote a fine article Hot Flash, and also authored a book entitled, Enlightened Democracy. In it she describes the error in logic the liberal left presents when arguing the point for dismantling the Electoral College in favor of the “popular vote.”
Her primary argument for the Electoral College is to prevent demagogues, i.e., Gore, Kerry, and now H. Clinton, from obtaining the office of the U.S. Presidency by placating to just a few liberal states to win the popular vote. Because there is a totally higher populations on either coast (NY and CA) of the US than the population count in between, demagogues do not have to bother enticing the least populated states with their political rhetoric. In this sense the minority states, NY and CA, total popular vote could end up dictating who will be president to the majority of states.
When unpacking the liberal left’s rhetoric of the “popular vote” argument, the result presents itself as being elitist. Due to the liberal left’s tendency to regard the conservative’s point of view as being “behind the times” is the plain reason for having the Electoral College. The Electoral College acts as a stop gate to keep the liberal left demagogues from obtaining for themselves government power.
With the Electoral College system in place as it is now, it forces presidential candidates to attenuate to “all” the states, not just a particular few. This is demonstrated by the fact that H. Clinton is manicuring her political stance, i.e., having a more moderate rhetoric, to actually attenuate to the “whole” of the US states, not just pleasing just the liberal left of herself located in the coastal states.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think the problem with the electoral college is that every vote does not count. If you were republican in any of the coastal states I think you would appriciate if your vote counted. So i think it is important to ask that if every vote does not count, what is the point of voting?
Eric,
First, I would like to thank you for visiting my web-log and leaving a comment, and I have visited your site as well (I will leave a comment or two). Second, your address to my reasons for the Electoral College was not rude (thank you), but obviously you wanted to make your point. I am sorry to say that you missed the point I was making.
I understand the idea behind the argument for having a popular vote and the argument behind the desire to contribute to the political process of installing government officials and public representatives. Voting for a candidate that voters have put a personal value on would be a rewarding feeling if that person were voted into office.
At the beginning of our country our founding fathers found that if the popular vote were limited only to representatives and senators of local areas of the population, the democratic process would have a better platform to operate. If you didn’t know the President is not yours or my government representative, but instead that person is the “president” of the Senate. In actuality, it was first thought that the Senate ought to vote for the president, due to the reality that they are our representatives.
At this point I would like to parse your comment.
You said, “I think the problem with the electoral college is that every vote does not count.”
True, in the process of only electing a president the “direct” vote does not count. What votes DO count is the totality of each State’s vote count “indirectly,” the Electoral College is then “directed” to vote for the president.
You said, “If you were republican in any of the coastal states I think you would appriciate [sic] if your vote counted.”
I am a republican in spirit and libertarian in reality, and I do appreciate the fact that our founding fathers were monstrous in their intellect to design a scheme to eliminate demagogues from obtaining the highest office in the land. In a side bar that ought to be in the same ranks as Kerry and Gore, there is one right-wing demagogue (George Wallace) that was eliminated from the democratic process I am glad that didn’t make it.
You said, “So i think it is important to ask that if every vote does not count, what is the point of voting?”
Your verbal focus here is only on the “presidential” aspect of voting. You always have the luxury of voting for your local representative to the federal level. This, I think, is a much more powerful reward of the voting process than only voting for a president.
In conclusion I would like to invite you to verbally spare with me with whatever political issue you may have. Just think, it is possible for you to grow and start having correct ideas. Here I am just joking. Thanks again.
Darrell
شركات تنظيف في خورفكان
شركة تنظيف في الشارقة
تصليح مكيفات دبي
Post a Comment