Polls Show Many Americans are Simply Dumber Than Bush (illegal, illegal immigration, high school)

[Miborn]

Originally Posted by ayannaaaliyah

Sorry, but Bush is far from smart There is a force of power behind him that's pulling the strings. He's merely a puppet with the brains to match!
And as this article suggests, it may be that the string pullers are not so smart, it's us who are actually dumb

Sort of like every Prez who has a cabinet of advisers!

[Yeledaf]

Originally Posted by burdell

I just see no reason to believe that the Electoral College is more capable of representing demographics (literally:characteristics of the population ) than the popular vote. If the president represents allegedly represents all the people it would seem only fitting that all the people had an equal vote in electing that president, currently they do not.

Please reveiw my post. I am arguing that the EC provides a balance between proportional and gross representation, which is analogous to the balance established by the House/Senate system.

[Miborn]

Originally Posted by ayannaaaliyah

Almost one year later, has anything changed - unfortunately, IMO, NOT!

"Two recent polls, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll and a New York Times/CBS News poll, indicate why Bush is getting away with impeachable offenses. Half of the US population is incapable of acquiring, processing and understanding information.

Much of the problem is the media itself, which serves as a disinformation agency for the Bush administration. Fox "News" and right-wing talk radio are the worst, but with propagandistic outlets setting the standard for truth and patriotism, all of the media is affected to some degree.

America has become a rogue nation, flying blind, guided only by ignorance and hubris. A terrible catastrophe awaits."

Polls Show Many Americans are Simply Dumber Than Bush

This Poll is almost 2 years old!

[ontheroad]

While the poll is 2 years old, I do wonder if any of us are wiser?

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

Please reveiw my post. I am arguing that the EC provides a balance between proportional and gross representation, which is analogous to the balance established by the House/Senate system.

Oh, I understand what you're arguing, I just disagree.

Like I've said, in the early years when media was newspapers alone and news could take months to reach the people, there may have been some validity to it. As others have said, these days with radio, TV, the intenet, we're a very homgenous society, at least in the availability of news of the day to all who choose to seek it. If for no other reason than that I would still vote for an amendment abolishing the EC and giving us a government truly elected by the people.

[Yeledaf]

Originally Posted by burdell

Oh, I understand what you're arguing, I just disagree.

Like I've said, in the early years when media was newspapers alone and news could take months to reach the people, there may have been some validity to it. As others have said, these days with radio, TV, the intenet, we're a very homgenous society, at least in the availability of news of the day to all who choose to seek it. If for no other reason than that I would still vote for an amendment abolishing the EC and giving us a government truly elected by the people.

OKay.

But unless you live in New York or California, you would quickly become irrelevant....

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

OKay.

But unless you live in New York or California, you would quickly become irrelevant....

Uh, please explain just how when if every American's vote counted equally there would be any difference in the value of that vote that was dependent on where they lived?

It's the EC that causes polticians to pander to certain states more than others in presidential elections, exactly why I think it shoulld be eliminated.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by burdell

Uh, please explain just how when if every American's vote counted equally there would be any difference in the value of that vote that was dependent on where they lived?

It's the EC that causes polticians to pander to certain states more than others in presidential elections, exactly why I think it shoulld be eliminated.

There are good reasons for the EC to be honest.

Why Keep the Electoral College?

Why Keep the Electoral College?
Opinion - Part 1: What were the Founding Fathers thinking?

Under the Electoral College system, it is possible for a candidate to lose the nationwide popular vote, yet be elected president by winning only in eleven key states. Should you ever forget this fact, critics of the Electoral College will be sure to remind you of it every four years.

What could the Founding Fathers -- the Framers of the Constitution -- the Champions of Democracy -- have been thinking in 1787? Did they not realize that the Electoral College system effectively took the power to select the American president of out of the hands of the American people? Yes, they did. In fact, the Founding Fathers always intended that the states -- not the people -- select the president.

Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants the power to elect the president and vice president to the states through the Electoral College system. Under the Constitution, the highest-ranking U.S. officials elected by direct popular vote of the people are the governors of the states.


Tyranny of the Majority

To be brutally honest, the Founding Fathers did not give the American public of their day much credit for political awareness. Here are a few relevant quotes from the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

"A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment." -- Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787

"The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates." -- Delegate Mason, July 17, 1787

"The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men." -- Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787.

The Founding Fathers had seen the dangers of placing ultimate power into a single set of human hands. Accordingly, they feared that placing unlimited power to elect the president into the politically naive hands of the people could lead to a "tyranny of the majority." In response, they created the Electoral College system as a process to insulate the selection of the president from the whims of the public.

Preserving Federalism

The Founding Fathers also felt the Electoral College system would enforce the concept of federalism -- the division and sharing of powers between the state and national governments.

Under the Constitution, the people are empowered to choose, through direct popular election, the men and women who represent them in their state legislatures and in the United Sates Congress. The states, through the Electoral College, are empowered to choose the president and vice president.


Whoa! You call that democracy?


Critics argue that by taking the selection of the president out of the hands of the public at large, that Electoral College system flies in the face of democracy. America is, after all, a democracy, is it not? Let's see.

Two of the several recognized forms of democracy are:

• Pure or Direct Democracy -- All decisions are made directly by a majority vote of all eligible citizens. By their vote alone, citizens can enact laws and select or remove their leaders. The power of the people to control their government is unlimited.
  
  
  
• Representative Democracy -- The citizens rule through representatives who they elect periodically in order to keep them accountable. The power of the people to control their government is thus limited by the actions of their elected representatives.

The United States is a representative democracy -- under a "republican" form of government as provided for in Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution which states, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican form of Government..." (This should not be confused with the Republic political party which is merely named after the form of government.)

In 1787, the Founding Fathers, based on their direct knowledge of history showing that unlimited power tends to become tyrannical power, created the United States as a republic -- not a pure democracy.

The Founders were unanimous in their desire that no single entity, be it the people or an agent of the government be given unlimited power. Achieving a "separation of powers" ultimately became their highest priority.

As a part of their plan to separate powers and authority, the Founders created the Electoral College as method by which the people could choose their leader while avoiding at least some of the dangers of a direct election.

But just because the Electoral College has worked just as the Founding Fathers intended for over 200 years does not mean that it should never be modified or even abandoned completely. What will it take for either to happen?

Any change to the way in which America chooses its president will require a constitutional amendment. For this to come about, the following will have to happen:

First, the fear must become reality.That is, a presidential candidate must lose the nationwide popular vote, but be elected in the Electoral College.

This has happened exactly twice in 213 years:

In 1876, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, with 4,036,298 popular votes won 185 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, won the popular vote with 4,300,590 votes, but won only 184 electoral votes. Hayes was elected president.

In 1888, Republican Benjamin Harrison, with 5,439,853 popular votes won 233 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Grover Cleveland, won the popular vote with 5,540,309 votes, but won only 168 electoral votes. Harrison was elected president.

You may hear people say that Richard M. Nixon received more popular votes in the 1960 election than winner John F. Kennedy, but official results showed Kennedy with 34,227,096 popular votes to Nixon's 34,107,646.[/SIZE]
Source: National Archives - Electoral College Box Scores

Next, the loser/winner must turn out to be a particularly unsuccessful and unpopular president. Otherwise, the impetus to blame the nation's woes on the Electoral College system will never materialize.

Finally, the constitutional amendment must get a two-thirds vote from both houses of Congress and be ratified by three-fourths of the states. [See: Amending the Constitution]

Even if all of the above were to happen, it remains highly unlikely that the Electoral College system would be changed or repealed.

Under the above circumstances, it is probable that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats would hold a strong majority of seats in Congress. Requiring a two-thirds vote from both houses, a constitutional amendment must have strong bi-partisan support -- support it will not get from a split Congress. (The president cannot veto a constitutional amendment.)

To be ratified and become effective, a constitutional amendment must also be approved by the legislatures of 39 out of the 50 states. By design, the Electoral College system grants the states the power to elect the president of the United States. How likely is it that 39 states are going to vote to give up that power? Moreover, 12 states control 53 percent of the votes in the Electoral College, leaving only 38 states that might even consider ratification.

Come on critics, can you really say that in 213 years of operation, the Elector College system has produced bad results? Have your fears ever come true? Only twice in its history have the electors stumbled and been unable to choose a president, thus throwing the decision into the House of Representatives. Who did the House decide on in those two cases? Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams.

[spunky1]

I find the title of this tread amusing in itself; Polls Show Many Americans simply dumber than Bush. Earth shattering!

Of course it is meant as a slur on both our President and countrymen.

I for one assumed it was a given that there are many citizens that are less intelligent than an Ivy League educated man, and the son of a President of the United States.

But hey, that's just me.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Nomander

There are good reasons for the EC to be honest.

It seems an awfully large part of these arguments is based on cinditions in 1787, I think a few things have changed since then.