Is the American democracy a myth?

[jayem]

And Bush would have won anyway.

Of course. Bush got more votes nationwide, and he should have won. But the electoral college, at least in the winner-take-all format, only magnifies big state/small state inequities. A candidate can be elected president by winning bare majorities in only 20 or so populous state, even while losing by a landslide everywhere else. How does this relflect the will of the people? The "mob rule" argument is misplaced. We won't have mob rule because (by and large) we don't vote directly for legislation. But we do vote directly for legislators and officials. It works for governors and congressmen. No reason, in this day and age, why the people shouldn't vote directly for President.

I've heard the claim that each state's electoral votes should be apportioned according to each candidate's total in that state. True, this may more accurately reflect the voter's will. But then why the need for a middleman? Isn't it much simpler just to have the candidates elected by popular vote?

 

[Scholar in training]

Of course. Bush got more votes nationwide, and he should have won. But the electoral college, at least in the winner-take-all format, only magnifies big state/small state inequities.

Abolishing or modifying the electoral college would only exacerbate the problem. States like California would be the ones most "pandered" to, and conversely states that have a small population would be almost entirely left out of the decision process. The electoral college allows both types of states to have a say in who the president will be.

 

[pantsman52]

Nothing there.

Put your reading glasses on.

 

[jayem]

Abolishing or modifying the electoral college would only exacerbate the problem. States like California would be the ones most "pandered" to, and conversely states that have a small population would be almost entirely left out of the decision process. The electoral college allows both types of states to have a say in who the president will be.

I don't see how you can say that.

A hypothetical. Look at two neighboring states, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Voters in Mass. (12 electoral votes) cast about 2,800,000 votes in 2004 for the two major candidates. In N.H.(4 electoral votes) 670,000 votes were cast. Suppose Candidate A totally ignored N.H., or even said something like their state was the armpit of New England. He gets 1000 votes from N.H, and his opponent, Candidate B, gets 669,000 votes. In Mass., Candidate A spends a lot of time schmoozing and pandering to the voters. He gets 2,401,000 votes, while Candidate B, who also spent time in N.H., gets 2,399,000 votes. Combined results from both states:

A: 2,402,000 votes 12 electoral votes

B: 3,068,000 votes 4 electoral votes

When only the electoral votes count, why would a candidate pay any attention to the small states? He can lose them by a huge margin, but only gives up a small number of electoral votes. But if the election is decided by direct popular vote, then every vote in every state adds to his total.

 

[BrownCoat]

Abolishing or modifying the electoral college would only exacerbate the problem. States like California would be the ones most "pandered" to, and conversely states that have a small population would be almost entirely left out of the decision process. The electoral college allows both types of states to have a say in who the president will be.

Yep. That's what happens in Washington State. King County which has about 1/3 of the total votes of the states, is where the gubernertorial candidates tend to pander to as a general rule.

 

[MethodMan]

Put your reading glasses on.

Try cut&paste

 

[StMatthew2429]

the following was cut an pasted from http://www.iraqtimeline.com/stolen.html



This is as important an issue facing our still-endangered democracy as our colonial ancestors faced in 1776. What we do will go down in history as just as important, and critical to the continued survival of freedom and democracy in this country, as the call to arms of Paul Revere or the gallant resistance of American patriots to Tory and Hessian soldiers on Breed's Hill.

Some will not agree, and refuse to even consider the possibility that anyone, particularly the Republicans, would steal an election. Those readers are invited to either continue on to the rest of this site through the links above or below, or they are invited to peruse other Web sites. Naturally, hard-core Bush supporters will not agree. These people, by and large, have chosen to abandon American ideals once they accepted the 2000 voter fraud that gave us the first G.W. Bush term. They have chosen might over right and their own fanatical ideology over American ideals and the U.S. Constitution. Like the self-satisfied elites of the former Soviet Union, they care nothing for freedom as long as their own interests and ideologies are supported by their government. They don't care if Bush won fairly or unfairly; they don't care if the bedrock ideal of "one citizen, one vote" is destroyed as long as their candidate, and their ideology, is victorious. Others do not choose to believe because they can't bring themselves to accept the fact that America's democracy was thwarted by vote manipulation. They believe that "it can't happen here." For those people, I suggest they make the attempt to open their minds to the possibility that yes, it did indeed happen here. Follow the links above. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. Don't base your conclusions on the corporate media's breathless acceptance of the Bush "victory." The mainstream American media has long since abandoned any pretense of independence. They are wholly owned and manipulated -- in most cases, willingly manipulated -- by the conservative corporations who control their content. You will not hear this story on CNN, Fox, or the networks.

(However, I would think that a fair-minded conservative would rather have a legitimately elected president representing a true majority of the American people than the candidate he or she personally favored if it was evident that the favored candidate won through election fraud and manipulation.)

For the rest of us -- the liberals and progressives who already know that this election was stolen, the Bush supporters who believe more in American standards than in radical conservative ideology, and the moderates who don't strongly support either candidate but know that the election results are unbelievable and unacceptable -- the next question is, "What can we do?" The first thing to do is to decide to FIGHT. We cannot afford to roll over and let this destruction of democracy happen unchallenged. Argue among yourselves as you will, blame this or that aspect of the Kerry candidacy as you will (and you may well join me in being tremendously angry and disappointed that Kerry chose to bow to the Bush campaign's theft of the election rather than fight), but it is imperative that we decide, together and separately, to oppose this theft of the American presidency and this ultimate subversion of American democracy.

Right now, the biggest and potentially most effective challenge to the election theft is being mounted by Bev Harris's organization at Black Box Voting. BBV is mounting the largest Freedom of Information Act request in US history to attempt to retrieve the Diebold and ES&S voting machines used to perpetuate this vote theft before they can be "sanitized." The organization is calling for lawyers, computer specialists, election officials, and anyone with knowledge that may prove useful in proving this election was actually fraudulent. If you are one of these people, contact BBV immediately. Most of us, however, aren't in the position to provide this kind of help. In this case, the rest of us can help by donating money to BBV. The organization needs at least $50,000 to pay for the FOIA documents and fees that they are requesting. BBV has NO rich sponsors or corporate donors to aid in their efforts. The organization is truly a David battling a Goliath. BBV needs your help. Visit the Web site to see how you can help with a donation of money, time, or both. (I don't know what the problem is between "blackboxvoting.org" and "blackboxvoting.com," and I don't care. It doesn't matter. Both sites seem to be fighting the good fight, so their personal differences are irrelevant to me, and hopefully to you. The .ORG site does seem to have more credibility, and is more involved in fighting for examination of election results.)

Next, you can help by getting personally involved. If you have a Web site or blog, this needs to take center stage. Everything else is secondary. Make it the main focus of your site. You should also contact your local media outlets. Maybe they'll treat you as a nutcase. So what? Pressure the local media to make an issue of this, ESPECIALLY if you live in a battleground state, and PARTICULARLY if you live in one of the three states -- Ohio, Florida, and New Mexico -- whose voting results were reversed by the Bush campaign's tampering. Write letters to the editor. Phone local TV news stations. Whatever it takes. Raise hell on local and national talk radio. The locals will probably give you a hearing, though they may make fun of you, but again, who cares? The important thing is that you are getting your message out. Listeners who have come to the same conclusions as you will realize that they are not lone voices in the wilderness, and may decide to get involved themselves. Next, contact your local and state Democratic Party outlets. Most of them have decided to cooperate with the Kerry rollover, but the more pressure they get from the grassroots, the more likely they are to respond by adding their voices to the call for action. Contact your local ACLU and other activist organizations. Contact ACT, MoveOn.org, and other progressive organizations. Pressure them to take action. Lastly, contact your local election officials. Demand a full audit of each precinct's votes.

Recognize that the more active you become in this fight, the more likely it is you will be targeted by the anti-American forces that swept Bush into office against the will of the people. You will undoubtedly be reviled by friends and co-workers, and perhaps even family members. You may be verbally or even physically assaulted or vandalized. You may even draw the attention of the Secret Service and the FBI. If this kind of pressure to remain quiet is too much for you, then I can understand that. Leave the overt fight to the rest of us, and God bless you. You can, however, make donations or help out with other supportive activities "under the radar."

Lastly, join the fight to make paperless, unverifiable voting machines illegal. Verified Voting is a bipartisan organization committed to bringing reliable, verifiable voting to all 50 states. Visit their site to find out how you can help.

I can not overstress how important this issue is. What is at stake is nothing less than the future of American democracy. No matter your party affiliation, if you are a freedom-loving American with a real commitment to American liberties and the affirmation of the principle of "one citizen, one vote," then you MUST become involved in this fight. No candidate in any election, Republican or Democrat, President or dog-catcher, can be allowed to take office through voter fraud. This cannot stand. This far, and no further.

In conclusion, I will quote a poster on the Democratic Underground forums simply known as "TruthIsAll," who sums up the entire stunt most succinctly: To believe that Bush won the election, you must also believe:

1. That the exit polls were WRONG...
2. That Zogby's 5 pm election day calls for Kerry winning OH and FL were WRONG. He was exactly RIGHT in his 2000 final poll.
3. That Harris's last minute polling for Kerry was WRONG. He was exactly RIGHT in his 2000 final poll.
4. The Incumbent Rule I (that undecideds break for the challenger) was WRONG.
5. The 50% Rule was WRONG (that an incumbent doesn't do better than his final polling)
6. The Approval Rating Rule was WRONG (that an incumbent with less than 50% approval will most likely lose the election)
7. That Greg Palast was WRONG when he said that even before the election, 1 million votes were stolen from Kerry. He was the ONLY reporter to break the fact that 90,000 Florida blacks were disnfranchised in 2000.
8. That it was just a COINCIDENCE that the exit polls were CORRECT where there WAS a PAPER TRAIL and INCORRECT (+5% for Bush) where there was NO PAPER TRAIL.
9. That the surge in new young voters had NO positive effect for Kerry.
10. That Bush BEAT 99-1 mathematical odds in winning the election.
11. That Kerry did WORSE than Gore agains an opponent who LOST the support of SCORES of Republican newspapers who were for Bush in 2000.
12. That Bush did better than an 18 national poll average which showed him tied with Kerry at 47. In other words, Bush got 80% of the undecided vote to end up with a 51-48 majority -- when ALL professional pollsters agree that the undecided vote ALWAYS goes to the challenger.
13. That voting machines made by Republicans with no paper trail and with no software publication, which have been proven by thousands of computer scientists to be vulnerable in scores of ways, were NOT tampered with in this election.

"John Kerry will win it. Oh, but put the question the other way around, because Americans never vote for anybody -- whom will they vote against? They will vote against Bush, which means Kerry will be elected by the popular vote. The problem is that Kerry may never be allowed to be president. All of the plots that were in line during the 2000 election are still there, from the purge list of supposed felons to computer touch screen voting and so on." -- Gore Vidal, November 1, 2004


http://www.iraqtimeline.com/stolen.html

 

[Maxwell511]

European democracies rewrite their Constitutions and governments almost every decade

I don't see what the problem with this is. We have had 27 amendments since 1939. The constitution is seen as the living will of the people and as the will of the people changes so should the constitution.