Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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.
I have met many of them. Very arrogant and ignorant on the issues. In my book Arrogance + Ignorance = Stupidity. Thats just me though.
It seems an awfully large part of these arguments is based on cinditions in 1787, I think a few things have changed since then.
And yet in order to take that position, one must combat all that this nation is founded on.
That is, if you disregard the EC, you are likely to also disagree with a representative form of government and pursue that of a pure or direct democracy. To hold that form of government as your goal, you must take into consideration the flippant powers of the people to which have the power to change the constitution and its protections.
Basically, you end up rejecting everything the founders designed the nation around in pursuit of a completely different form of government.
Besides, the founders were clear on the dangers of a pure democracy. They knew what could happen. It is arrogant to think that because they were from a different time, they could not fathom the results of corruption of power and the oppression of the people. In fact, they are far more qualified than anyone today to speak on such things. They experienced it to its fullest. How many Americans have truly experienced what they have? I don't think you give them enough credit. Then again, the first step these days in being able to ignore what someone says is to just attack them directly. Once you discredit them, you can merely wave away anything they said.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,368,826 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Besides, the founders were clear on the dangers of a pure democracy. They knew what could happen. It is arrogant to think that because they were from a different time, they could not fathom the results of corruption of power and the oppression of the people. In fact, they are far more qualified than anyone today to speak on such things. They experienced it to its fullest. How many Americans have truly experienced what they have? I don't think you give them enough credit. Then again, the first step these days in being able to ignore what someone says is to just attack them directly. Once you discredit them, you can merely wave away anything they said.
I think statements like these make it clear that their being from a different time does affect the validity of their ideas today.
"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 ignorance of the people? I hardly think the education level of the general voting public is at the same level it was back then, if it is we've wasted far too much $$$ on schools.
"The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates." -- Delegate Mason, July 17, 1787
The extent of the country? It takes six hours to physically cross the country and news is spread nationwide instantaneously, hardly the case in 1787.
"The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men." -- Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787.
While some may still be uninformed it's only through their own choice and laziness, for many in 1787 there was no other possibility. In those days 'designing men' could mislead the uninformed simply because many had no means or opportunity of becoming informed, While there are no doubt still misleaders among us misleading the uninformed, it's not because everyone doesn't have the means and opportunity of becoming informed if they so choose.
I don't believe that eliminating the EC would in anyway be contrary to the original intentions of the founders but would be merely evolutionary, no different in spirit than the establishment of an Air Force which was certainly never mentioned in the Constitution.
I think statements like these make it clear that their being from a different time does affect the validity of their ideas today.
"A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment." -- Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787
The ignorance of the people? I hardly think the education level of the general voting public is at the same level it was back then, if it is we've wasted far too much $$$ on schools.
"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 extent of the country? It takes six hours to physically cross the country and news is spread nationwide instantaneously, hardly the case in 1787.
"The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men." -- Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787.
While some may still be uninformed it's only through their own choice and laziness, for many in 1787 there was no other possibility. In those days 'designing men' could mislead the uninformed simply because many had no means or opportunity of becoming informed, While there are no doubt still misleaders among us misleading the uninformed, it's not because everyone doesn't have the means and opportunity of becoming informed if they so choose.
I don't believe that eliminating the EC would in anyway be contrary to the original intentions of the founders but would be merely evolutionary, no different in spirit than the establishment of an Air Force which was certainly never mentioned in the Constitution.
You misinterpret all of what is being said. Being educated in general does not make a person educated on the issue. They were not questioning peoples "intelligence", but their self centered nature of letting personal direction motivate them. A personal direction fostered by spreading panic and gossip about issues. Do you honestly deny that this is happening today?
Also, I would bet the education of many of that population against ours today. Read up on the educational standards back then. My grandfathers 8th grade education is what we would compare to more than a high school diploma today.
There is that old saying "a Person is smart, people are stupid" and this shines through as a truth every time you turn on the news. The problem is the "mob" and education has nothing to do with the mob. Read the Federalist No. 10 where Madison explains a bit about the motivations of people.
edit:
And yes, it would be contrary to the founders. One only need to actually read what they were saying to determine this. Then again, revisionism and gossip has attempted to "change" this very perception. People "think" they know what is going on, but they have no clue. The follow what their favorite puppet master tells them. The very problem with this issue in the first place.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,368,826 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
You misinterpret all of what is being said. Being educated in general does not make a person educated on the issue. They were not questioning peoples "intelligence", but their self centered nature of letting personal direction motivate them. A personal direction fostered by spreading panic and gossip about issues. Do you honestly deny that this is happening today?
And your interpretation should be deemed the correct one because?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Also, I would bet the education of many of that population against ours today. Read up on the educational standards back then. My grandfathers 8th grade education is what we would compare to more than a high school diploma today.
This would be relevant to the discussion of thoughts in 1787 because? Was your grandfather being schooled in 1787? And while I agree about varying standards you're ignoring the fact that years ago many weren't given the opportunity to even attend those schools or simply couldn't afford to.
And I'm not confusing schooling with education. It's a fact that today, with the internet, the availability of very inexpensive books, public libraries open to all, etc., that anyone who desires to educate themselves has the opportunity, that simply wasn't the case in 1787 when those comments were written.
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.
You think that the EC causes politicians to pander to certain states more than others, but actually removing the EC would cause presidential candidates to pander EXCLUSIVELY to large urban areas like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and Houston. Urban concerns would be the only matters of importance. A candidate would travel to the places where his/her audience would be the most concentrated, where the most votes could be captured. This would be the large urban areas. The EC exists not to give states like OH or FL more weight, it exists solely to provide a balance. It's not about candidates pandering to remote areas, it's about giving people in rural areas an opportunity to express what their concerns are to the candidates. It's a recognition of the fact that people who live in rural areas make significant contributions to the economy and infrastructure of this country, and have a set of concerns and issues that are different from the concerns and issues of people living in cities. It's a recognition of the fact that if you don't have farms and ranches and orchards and water supplies and the supports around them to get food to the cities, then you might as well close down the factories. This may seem less relevant in the current world-based economy where so much of our food is imported, but when mad-cow disease, terrorism, the super-flu and food controls in other countries are thrown in, having the ability and capacity to be self-sufficient becomes more relevant. The design of the Electoral College isn't about the candidates educating the rural population, it's about the rural population educating the candidates.
You seem to be essentially saying that our political climate is static, and that voting patterns never change. That is simply and demonstrably not true. The Electoral College system, which requires that the candidates wage credible campaigns in each state, is fairer and more accessible to more voters than a remote national campagin focusing on a relatively small number of highly-populated urban areas.
I understand that the states can change color. Still, many sway significantly one way or the other, so for any given election period, lots of people have their votes essentially not count if they live in the wrong color state. How many people say I don't care the candidate but I am going to vote (one party or the other).
I just think that following the discussion you and Burdell have been having, I don't see how the fact that more people live in New York City than in Albuquerue means people in New York will vote any differently than people in Albuquerque for the President. Iraq, housing and the economy, illegal immigration, are all national issues of importance that they would vote on no matter where they lived. It might drive more people to get out and vote and participate in their Democracy.
And your interpretation should be deemed the correct one because?
Because mine is not a subjective one? That is, their statements are well documented over many forms of the issues. They are stated, stated again, clarified, discussed, and explained by those that created the nation? That history verifies my claim through legally valid facts?
You read those quotes as if you had no background understanding of the authors and no understanding of our government. The concepts I am discussing are freshman level, even high school level in some schools topics of government.
Maybe you can explain to me in your own words:
What is a pure democracy?
What is a representative democracy?
Which one did the founders choose and why? What are the flaws of both systems? What are the benefits of either?
Explain that to me, then explain to me why you think a pure democracy is more beneficial to that which we have now.
This is basic US Government 101. You explain them to me and I you do so correctly, you will answer your own questions on the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
This would be relevant to the discussion of thoughts in 1787 because? Was your grandfather being schooled in 1787? And while I agree about varying standards you're ignoring the fact that years ago many weren't given the opportunity to even attend those schools or simply couldn't afford to.
And I'm not confusing schooling with education. It's a fact that today, with the internet, the availability of very inexpensive books, public libraries open to all, etc., that anyone who desires to educate themselves has the opportunity, that simply wasn't the case in 1787 when those comments were written.
You ask questions that are silly and you already have the answers. My point about my grandfather is that the education system has gone down hill big time. Also, those 1787 people you so refer to as being less educated are actually in many cases more educated than many college graduates. Look at Noah Websters early text books and tell me that even a college freshman could answer them with confidence.
The point is, while some people were uneducated, those that were educated were much more so than those of today. So the whole "they were just some country bumpkins" is an ignorant position.
You are also trying to avoid the discussion by going off on tangents. Stay on topic.
Why is a pure democracy better than a representative democracy? The EC is a protective measure built for the republic and its design to balance out the impact of mob rule. Why do you think giving the mob complete control over the presidency is a fair way to do things? Did you not read the article I gave you? Contest its information. Bring issue to it.
Picking at what you seem to be using as "convenient" subjective interpretations of the founders quotes is not helping your position. You won't gain any advantage by playing a relativistic role in those quotes. They are backed and verified with much discussion and context to place them correctly.
Defend a pure democracy.
How do you keep the mob from oppressing the minority? Does a law have any meaning if the majority can change any law? What is to stop them from doing so. What is to stop iconic figures playing lies and deception to drive the public into a frenzy?
What makes your mob controlled government more appealing?
I have met many of them. Very arrogant and ignorant on the issues. In my book Arrogance + Ignorance = Stupidity. Thats just me though.
Really? There are many people with lower intelligence that arn't arrogant, but humble. On the other hand, there are some intelligent people who are very arrogant. They may be blessed with a high IQ but they lack people skills, and emotional intelligence. It seems there are far more of these.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,368,826 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
You ask questions that are silly and you already have the answers. My point about my grandfather is that the education system has gone down hill big time. Also, those 1787 people you so refer to as being less educated are actually in many cases more educated than many college graduates. Look at Noah Websters early text books and tell me that even a college freshman could answer them with confidence.
I think THAT's a pretty damn silly statement considering you attempt to explain statements made in 1787 RE: education by bringing up your grandfather's 8th grade education unless of course your grandfather's education is of that era, which it seems would make you a very old person. It's hard to take much of what you say seriously when you make silly statements accusing me of asking silly questions. All I've said is that times have changed since 1787 and I believe the country must change along with it.
And contrary to what you state I find your interpretaion of things to be highly subjective.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
