Any Thoughts on "The Race Monologues"?
 

Read the transcript of Obama's speech online - hoping to catch a rebroadcast this evening on C-SPAN.

Still not comfortable with his association with Rev. Wright, but gotta say, that was a gutsy speech to give. Sure to give the right-wing talk-radio idiots lots of material to quote out of context and misconstrue beyond all recognition. Ah well, the whole "Obama will impose Muslim shariah law" shtick was getting kinda old - and the kinds of folks who actually listen to the Rush Limbaughs of the world were never gonna vote for anyone like Obama anyway. Heck, even McCain makes them uncomfortable, due to his left-wing "liberal tendencies".

"Clinton backer points to Electoral College votes as new measure"

[URL]http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/24/america/24campaign.php[/URL]

I'm sure both Senator Bayh and Obama spokesman Bill Burton know all the fine points better than I, but something like "integrate candidate preference differential times probability that it would make a difference in general election outcome, weighted by electoral vote, over 50 states and the District of Columbia" would have little chance of making it past the reporter into the article.

- -

[quote]Many Democrats, including Clinton and Bayh, have opposed the Electoral College in the past, particularly after 2000, when Florida's 25 electoral votes were awarded to George W. Bush, who became president, even though Al Gore, the Democratic nominee, had won the popular vote nationwide.[/quote]Dems can be shortsighted and petty, too.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;129635]"Clinton backer points to Electoral College votes as new measure"

[URL]http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/24/america/24campaign.php[/URL]

I'm sure both Senator Bayh and Obama spokesman Bill Burton know all the fine points better than I, but something like "integrate candidate preference differential times probability that it would make a difference in general election outcome, weighted by electoral vote, over 50 states and the District of Columbia" would have little chance of making it past the reporter into the article.

- -

Dems can be shortsighted and petty, too.[/QUOTE]

Does anyone else know the reason behind the use of the electoral college???
Our founders were afraid of "mob rule". What they called the "tyranny of
the majority". Tyranny of the majority has been well exhibited recently
with the "defense of marriage" act, and the writing into states' constitutions
of prohibition against gay marriage. The majority has actually written
bigotry and denial of equal rights into their (respective) state constitutions.

[I am not gay, but am a strong believer in equal rights. I also like the
idea of gay marriage simply because it pisses off the religious wackos]

The electoral college was intended as a curb on mob rule. Does it do
its job imperfectly? Yes. And someone will always find a reason to criticize
a social institution that they don't like. However, if we required that
everything be done perfectly, no laws would ever get passed.

The electoral college is a compromise between unbridled democratic
mob rule and selection of a president by elitists.

I can see merit in getting rid of it. I can see merit in keeping it.
However, I think there is no change of the former. It would require a
constitutional amendement.

From the article pointed out by Mr. Silverman above:

[QUOTE]The Clinton camp has argued that Clinton's having won the big states should be an important factor when considering her electability.

[/QUOTE]

The argument against that, of course, is that she won those states against another Democrat. What's really important is whether she would win those big electoral states against the Republican nominee.

Personally, I consider the electoral college system to be outdated and now based on arbitrary, artificial geographic boundaries. Contrary to the politically correct "Every vote counts" statements, every vote simply doesn't count in that system.

Norm

Just lost last shred of respect I had for Hillary
 

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;129672]Does anyone else know the reason behind the use of the electoral college??? Our founders were afraid of "mob rule". What they called the "tyranny of the majority". [/QUOTE]
In the case of the EC, I fear it was more the "tyranny of the unwashed masses of people who are not rich white landowners" which they were afraid of. The "tyranny of the majority" argument is a non sequitur in the context of a public election. Hello? Whatever happened to "One person, One vote"?


Now on to today's real news: Hillary just revealed a key part of her strategy with regard to the ongoing and deepening economic "red phone" moment, and it's not good. The bogus claims of "Me and Chelsea dodged a hail of bullets to take out a Bosnian-Serb sniper nest and save all those starving Bosnian refugees"? Typical campaign hyperbole. The equally-bogus claims of "35 years of experience" of alleged relevance to public service? Similarly predictable résumé inflation. But *this*, this is the last straw:

[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2430663920080324?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews]Reutres | Clinton proposes Greenspan lead foreclosure group[/url]
[quote]WHITE PLAINS, New York (Reuters) - Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and other economic experts should determine whether the U.S. government needs to buy up homes to stem the country’s housing crisis, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will propose on Monday. Clinton, a presidential candidate and senator from New York, said the Federal Housing Administration should “stand ready” to buy, restructure and resell failed mortgages to strengthen the ailing U.S. economy.[/quote]
That's right, have the bankers' pet pigman - who is in large part responsible for the economic crisis due to his disastrous malfeasance-riddled tenure at the Fed - help you figure out how to clean up the mess he caused, of course at taxpayer expense. I'm sorry, that amounts to poor judgment at a level so profound that leaves one speechless to accurately describe it.

[QUOTE=Spherical Cow;129680]I consider the electoral college system to be outdated and now based on arbitrary, artificial geographic boundaries. Contrary to the politically correct "Every vote counts" statements, every vote simply doesn't count in that system. [/QUOTE]

That's silly. Every vote counts in the present system. Some count a little more than others (small state voters get a somewhat higher electoral college weighting).

I'll stir the pot :) I think Florida should do away with the voters choosing the President. Our electors should go to the President that delivers the most kickbacks to our state. Just imagine how much money would have flowed our way in 2000.

[QUOTE=Prime95;129699]That's silly. Every vote counts in the present system. Some count a little more than others (small state voters get a somewhat higher electoral college weighting). [/QUOTE]
Not true - winner-take-all means that by definition the votes of the 49.999% of the voters of state X who didn't vote for the winning candidate [who got 50.001% of the vote] do not count - they get exactly ZERO electoral college votes. If 100% of the state had gone for the winner, the EC vote total would be exactly the same.

Ah, but you have to count them before they don't count.

P.S. I like the electoral college system. :)

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;129672]Does anyone else know the reason behind the use of the electoral college???[/QUOTE]

The EC servers as a safety. Back in the day before nationwide news coverage, a person could be well known in their area and not well known in another. The EC was supposed to be a group of well informed and reasonably well traveled folks. If, between the general election, and the EC vote, a scandal was found out, they could resolve the problem. Also, presumably they would come with vote in hand, like the current nomination process. Now-a-days, we don't realize the importance that the states (as single soverign bodies) played in the national scene. Just as the Senate gives power to the states and the house, to the people.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;129700]Not true - winner-take-all means that by definition the votes of the 49.999% of the voters of state X who didn't vote for the winning candidate [who got 50.001% of the vote] do not count - they get exactly ZERO electoral college votes. If 100% of the state had gone for the winner, the EC vote total would be exactly the same.[/QUOTE]

That's like saying that in a 9-8 baseball game the 8 runs for the losing team didn't count. But the record books show the runs were faithfully recorded in a losing effort. And in a 7-game World Series you can easily outscore your opponents and lose the series - yet no fans complain "Unfair - our runs weren't counted!"

[QUOTE=Prime95;129715]That's like saying that in a 9-8 baseball game the 8 runs for the losing team didn't count. But the record books show the runs were faithfully recorded in a losing effort.[/QUOTE]

Exactly - in terms of determining the outcome of the game those 8 runs were meaningless. You win 70 games by an average of 10 runs, lose the other 92 by an average of 1 run, it's still a losing season - no playoffs, proceed directly to winter off, do not pass Go. If I were a fan and saw my team routinely celebrating run output in losing games rather than winning games by any means necessary, I'd be plenty pissed off.

Putting aside all the obfuscatory hoohawing about "historical precedent" and "enfranchisement of smaller states", It's really very simple: Do you believe in the principle of "One person, One vote"? Well, do you?

The mere fact that there is a formal concept of "faithless elector" tells me all I need to know about whether the EC is a "democratic institution." "Historical reflection of States' rights" and similar rhetorical crapola be damned - slavery used to be legal in the U.S. as well, and had "strong historical precedent" supporting it. Didn't make it any less execrable.