--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > your argument appears to be that those who can glob onto more power > > over others, relative to their population, will do so. > > > > > > It's not so much a globbing on to power as it is a protection > against the misuse of power by a majority.
So says the minority globbing on to power. I think baisc protections for minorityes are needed in constitution, but that doesn't mean every minory should have unequal voting power. TMers are a minority, why should we have 100x the voting power of otehrs. Blues guitarists are a minority, why shouldn't they hav 100x the voting power of others. Smart people are a minority, why shouldn't they have 100x voting power? And ergo, why should smart, TMing blues guitarists have 1,000,000 (10^3) voting power? So give minority more voting power so it can misue power over the majority? > "Tyranny of the majority" is also "globbing onto more power" and is > one that can run roughshod over minorities. The power you talking about is funding and allocation power over tax dollars, IMO. Its raw power grabs. Thus, push gov't programs to lowest possible level of decentralization, IMO. But a big gov't central planning type like you might disagree. :) > You huffily, No, you huffiliy heard, apparently proclaimed that because of it's absense of pure one-man- > one-vote, the U.S. is a "democratic back water". I pointed out to > you that democracy is more than just one-man-one-vote and > concessions to this don't necessarily mean an abandonment of > democracy nor because democratic principles are ignored. So its less democratic. I didnt say US was totally dsevoid of democracy. But more than not, ruled by entrenched powers. So you support electoral college, jerryrigging house districts, out of state funding for local elections, corrupt campaign finance and lobbying rules, etc? Because these are among the major things for which I advocated reform > > Protection of the weak and minorities is hardly "darkness and > corruption". If you want to create strawmen, and make arguemnts totally black and white, have a great go at it, if that amuses you. I am interested in serious discussion, not polemics. > > > No huge insight > > there. The question is whether a democracy of one-person one vote > is > > more reflective of the will of the people than systems where some > > peoples vote count 10x, sometimes 100x of others. > > > > Let Canadians do what they will. In the US, I advocate one-person > one > > vote. And the abolishment of hugely distortianal systems like the > > electoral college which not only distorts the will of the popular > vote > > (Gore 2000) but makes all but a handful states mere observers, not > > participants in national elections. I lived in California most of > my > > life. In memory, few presidential candidates ever visited or spent > > energy in California. What kind of system is that where the most > > populous state, the largest state economy, and some would venture > the > > most creative, innovation and research-focussed state, is basically > > excluded from presidential systems. > > > > Blame the election on Iowans! :) > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > <no_reply@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > Americans as a whole don't care whether the people in the > > > > > > > Third World live or die. That's why they elect leaders > > > > > > > who don't care whether these people live or die and who > > > > > > > design and implement their global strategies accordingly. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, no, not "Americans as a whole." > > > > > > > > > > > > More than 51 million Americans voted *against* > > > > > > George Bush in 2000; more than 59 million voted > > > > > > against him in 2004. > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately only around 60 percent of those > > > > > > eligible to vote actually voted in 2004, so we > > > > > > don't know how the rest felt. But we *do* know > > > > > > that less than a third of voters actually pulled > > > > > > the lever for Bush. > > > > > > > > > > We DO know how those who didn't vote felt. > > > > > > > > > > They didn't care enough even to vote. > > > > > > > > > > Therefore in effect they voted. > > > > > > > > > > Bush is President because the American people > > > > > caused him to be there, via comission or omission. > > > > > > > > > > > > Your "theory" appears to presume the US is a pure democracy -- > one > > > > person, one vote. While that is the standard throughout much > of the > > > > civilized world > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, really? > > > > > > Tell us where this is a standard, please. > > > > > > Often, the "one-man-one-vote" standard is purposely NOT built > into a > > > country's democratic system. > > > > > > For example, where you have minorities, the one-man-one-vote > > > principal can wipe out their individual and minority rights and, > > > often, a country's constitution will provide protections for > them. > > > In Canada where I'm from, the constitution provided certain > > > minorities guaranteed minimum seats in pariament, despite their > > > dwindling numbers or their percentage of the population. > > > > > > The most blatant example of that is the tiny Island of Prince > Edward > > > Island with a population of about 150,000. The Canadian > > > constitution guarantees them 4 seats in the federal parliament > > > whereas if it were done on the basis of one-man-one-vote they'd > get > > > less than one. > > > > > > And one of the big complaints by provinces such as Alberta is > that > > > the one-man-one-vote principle is grossly unfair to them in ther > > > federal parliament. Alberta didn't exist when Canada and its > > > constitution were created in 1867. Today, relative to Ontario > and > > > Quebec, Alberta and B.C. have little population and have no hope > of > > > being a majority in parliament. Capture the votes of just > Ontario > > > and some of Quebec and the other 8 provinces can be ignored. And > > > that's why separation is not just a Quebec phenomenon but an > Alberta > > > one as well. > > > > > > Indeed, Alberta has been crying for decades for precisely the > sort > > > of thing that you rail against below: the distortion of and > > > antithesis of one-man-one-vote...that is, a Senate with equal > > > provincial representation in a bicameral legislature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the US is a democratic back water. > > > > > > > > It remains a backwater of darkness and corruption due to i) the > > > > electoral college (Gore won in 2000 -- the was the true > reflection > > > of > > > > US will), ii) a bi-cameral system of legislature where one > house is > > > > the antithesis of one persone, one vote, and the other is so > > > rigged > > > > (jerrymandering) that only 10% or so of races are actually > > > competitive > > > > -- that is -- democratic. The rest of the races are simple > > > > power-maintnenace by entrenched "rulers". Further, out-of-state > > > > contribution to local races, corrupt lobbying rules and > campaign > > > > finance, and no centralized national election rules -- > allowing > > > local > > > > corruption (Ohio, Florida, Kathleen Smith, paperless trail > voting > > > > machines) all are choking the true will of the people by > entrenched > > > > powers. > > > > > > > > With so many distortions in in ts so-called democracy, > democracy in > > > > the US is a sick patient in intensive care. Hardly vibrant and > > > > reflective of the will of the people. The US currently is more > than > > > > than not, a banana republic of entrenched powers sustaining > their > > > > power. Its not a wonder corrupt low-vibe policies are > developed and > > > > implemented. > > > > > > > > How to break the black-shroud of darkeness choking american > > > democracy? > > > > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
