FAIRVOTE, also called the Center for Voting and Democracy, has just released a new study about the "shrinking battleground" in American politics, looking forward to the 2008 election. The report criticizes the Electoral College and really attacks something that many of us take for granted: the idea that a presidential election will be decided in just a small group of states.
In 2004, there were fewer than 20 states, and really about 10, that were genuinely contested. They were contested because whoever wins that state gets all the electoral college votes. Therefore, if the state isn't close, the voters don't matter and the campaigns ignore them.
Pointing out that the difference in voter turnout for young people between battleground states (64.4%) and non-battleground states (47.6%) is nearly 17 percentage points, the group makes the claim that this is on the face of it evidence that people outside of the battelground states are disenfranchised---and they know it. That's why they don't turn out to vote as much.
FAIRVOTE board member Hendrick Hertzberg, a writer for the New Yorker magazine, has said that its a miracle half of all Americans vote in non-battleground states. After all, a rational calculation in those states is that "voting doesn't matter."
In 2004, there were fewer than 20 states, and really about 10, that were genuinely contested. They were contested because whoever wins that state gets all the electoral college votes. Therefore, if the state isn't close, the voters don't matter and the campaigns ignore them.
Pointing out that the difference in voter turnout for young people between battleground states (64.4%) and non-battleground states (47.6%) is nearly 17 percentage points, the group makes the claim that this is on the face of it evidence that people outside of the battelground states are disenfranchised---and they know it. That's why they don't turn out to vote as much.
FAIRVOTE board member Hendrick Hertzberg, a writer for the New Yorker magazine, has said that its a miracle half of all Americans vote in non-battleground states. After all, a rational calculation in those states is that "voting doesn't matter."
posted by Hans Riemer at 9:46 AM
28 Comments:
Then the answer is simple, petition your state to change its rules governing the awarding of their electoral votes. Right now the states have pretty much fallen into line with each other by awarding all of the states electoral votes to the winner of that state's general election. This doesn't have to be the case, as Colorado almost illustrated last election. If the state wants to they can divide their electoral votes any way they seem fit, including a percentile split based on the general vote tally or based on a vote of the state's elected officials. The one major point that everyone needs to understand is you do not have a right to vote for President, and the Constitution declares that as a fact. The Electoral College was put in place to protect the country from having one big state determine the political landscape for the rest of the country, of course making the election for President a popular one, like Senators did when they repealed the electoral process for their elections, would do more harm to this country and really make those in small state 100% insignificant.
So if you want to reform the election process take it to the state level and ask your federal representatives to work harder to bring back states rights, otherwise get use to having your small state be a non-issue in every election.
The electoral college is a good thing, but I don't expect RTV to back it up, because it has led to the loss of Democratic candidates in the last 2 Presidential elections. Note, however, that the electoral college has also put Democrats into office at times, so RTV shouldn't call it "disenfranchisement."
It is put into place for the specific reasoning to make sure that no one state or area dominates the country. Without an electoral vote, all one would have to do to win a Presidency is to show up to LA, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, and other urbanized areas, and ignore the rest of the country. All of those places would get all the money, all the say, all the privileges. This is wrong. That is why the electoral college works; it's still proportional, yet also prevents any one area from taking over.
If you split your electoral vote within each state proportionally (it is legal as Sean said), you'd be able to improve things a bit, but every state would have to do it in order to make it fair. Colorado wanted to do it, but if they had done it, they would have essentially reduced their state to having 1 electoral vote (a 5-4 split). Thus, it's all or nothing.
The point, however, is that the electoral college is a necessary thing.
I'm not sure how anyone can really justify defense of the electoral college. It was put into place to counter widespread illiteracy and give the south a means of counting slaves towards representation in presidential races. Guess what, we've moved beyond these considerations.
How can you argue that we should have a system that so obviously violates the one person, one vote principle?
Seems the report from FairVote isn't saying we can just snap our fingers and will be able to amend the constitution, but I applaud them for putting forward a call or a vision of how our presidential elections should work to make sure everyone is included and that everyone has the chance to cast a meaningful vote.
Bottom line, the electoral college is outdated and should be scrapped. If I live in a red state or a blue state my vote should count no matter if I'm in the majority or minority. I should be given incentive to get politically active behind the candidate I support and I should have some prayer that a candidate for president will actually listen to the issues that concern my area.
your vote does count dumbass. Somehow, the most successful process and fairest elections in the history of the world is not good enough for liberals. Obviously, we need to change the system. Give me a break. The system works and shouldn't be tampered with.
Bottom line, the electoral college is outdated and should be scrapped. If I live in a red state or a blue state my vote should count no matter if I'm in the majority or minority. I should be given incentive to get politically active behind the candidate I support and I should have some prayer that a candidate for president will actually listen to the issues that concern my area
You must live in a highly urban area, and are looking out for purely your own interests. How selfish.
I retain my initial point that if the electoral college were nonexistent, all a politician would have to do is focus on a few cities, and they could win the entire country. They could ignore the needs of the vast majority of this country; hell, they could ignore the entire midwest, the entire southeast, the entire northwest, and simply focus on New York, California, and the northeast to win the election. Thus, a great majority of the states would be disenfranchised.
It makes absolutely zero sense to eliminate the electoral college. Repealing it gives way too much power to cities, and that is unfair whether you're a Democrat or a Republican.
The electoral college is as needed today as it was back in the beginning of the Republic. The thought that we have an all encompassing federal government controlling 50 districts is something the founding fathers wanted to prevent. 50 independent states with equal representation in DC (senate) and votes in the Presidential Election (electoral college) where setup in the Constitution along with the Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This was to ensure that the people would only be responsible for voting for their respective in-state representatives and it would be those representatives that voted for their state's senate seats and electoral votes for President. It is important to understand that local elections were expected to be the most important in the new Republic, but over time as federal politicians craved power the safeguards put in place to prevent an all-powerful federal government were slowly removed. From Amendment XVII (removal of the electoral process for US Senators) which destroyed state's representation in DC to ever increasing caps on the tenth amendment placed upon the states by legislating courts, the push towards a single popular vote is becoming a frightening reality.
If you took the time to read what the founding fathers actually thought of Democracy and popular votes as a form of elections you would realize it is crazy for anyone to possibly suggest the Electoral College is outdated. Democracies and popular / mob rule elections are the two aspects of government that the founders were being specific to prevent. Once the electoral college is pushed aside to history America will finally cease being a representative republic and within a few decades there will be nothing from stopping another revolution as big urban cities become the power base that runs the entire country.
Its interesting to note that anon mentioned race as a reason why the electoral college should be scrapped, since its the ONLY thing standing in the way of our country discriminating against anyone not living in a handful of big cities.
First of all, what the electoral college effects is a blending of states and popular interests. A state's number of electors is equal to it's number of senators plus representatives. So this gives people in sparsely populated states a *little* more representation then they would otherwise. But changing the system to be strictly popular vote election wouldn't change things very much. Politicians already spend most of their time in big cities since big cities also equal lots of electoral vote influence.
Second, Foushee, if you did want to change the system, states can't do it. Only the feds can. Take colorado for example. If they change to a percentile split, for example, then what happens is that since their electoral votes will most likely be close to 50/50, no candidate will care about winning in colorado. Winner take all will make candidates just look elsewhere for votes where their efforts have a better potential for votes. *If* you want to change the system, the feds really have to change things to a popular vote.
Third, one actually horrible difference from our founding constitution that actually desperately needs to be fixed is the election of senators by the people. It *should* be done via state legislatures so that states rights aren't constantly undermined. That's a huge problem.
Fourth, the real reason why everyone's vote is increasingly meaningless is their unwillingness to vote third party. By not being willing to do so, it creates no disincentive for either major political party to gravitate towards anything but a corrupt big government republicrat middle.
Take Hillary for example. She hasn't voted against a single war spending or authorization bill, and makes talk of government protecting us from indecency part of every speech. No matter which candidate for president we get in 2008, their gonna be pro-war and pro-censorship precisely because big government is what both parties agree on. The more involved government is in people's lives, the more powerful govt officials become and both parties candidates like that.
Foushee is right, states have the power to change the way electoral votes are allocated. They could shift to the proportional system, the congressional district system (like ME & NE do today) or even a popular system. We don’t need to wait on Congress to ensure the will of the people is enacted (www.gallup.com has shown strong support for direct election from Americans for over 50 years).
Conservative posts seem to think a direct election of the president will a) incite mob rule, b) send candidates exclusively to urban centers. Wrong on both accounts.
To begin with, every other office in the country is elected by direct election. I suppose they protest to the raging mobs that elect senators, governor, mayors, you name it. I don't see the mob mentality at work here, does anybody?
As for the urban myth, fact is half the population in this country lives in rural areas. See for yourself (www.census.gov).
In a direct election candidates couldn't afford to ignore any state (they ignore 2/3 of them today) because even in states where they won't win they'll want to stem the loss. With a direct election my vote will count exactly the same as anyone else's. What's unfair about that?
For a decent overview of some of this stuff check out: www.fairvote.org/?page=1555
To begin with, every other office in the country is elected by direct election. I suppose they protest to the raging mobs that elect senators, governor, mayors, you name it. I don't see the mob mentality at work here, does anybody?
I merely point you to New Jersey, where there has been a long-running story of a 9/11 terrorism funding scandal, in which the Democratic administration allocated much, much more security funding to Democratic areas instead of Republican ones.
There are a lot of people on this site who don't know what they're talking about:
"It is put into place for the specific reasoning to make sure that no one state or area dominates the country. Without an electoral vote, all one would have to do to win a Presidency is to show up to LA, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, and other urbanized areas, and ignore the rest of the country."
Bull. Half the electorate lives in rural areas. Do you really think any candidate with a serious hope of winning an election is going to totally ignore half of the electorate? As it is candidates completely ignore small states unless they happen to be swing states. Did you hear about candidates going to Wyoming or Vermont or South Dakota? No way. These places all vote very heavily Republican or Democrat, and under the current system there's no point in campaigning in a given state unless you can plausibly hope to swing its electoral votes. Except for New Hampshire and Nevada, none of the small states fell into this category. And if you actually look at the money, the candidates really concentrated on winning the big three swing states: Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio.
Oh, and for the "your vote does count dumbass" guy let me tell you the following story. I'm from California. Because California was going to go for Kerry no matter what happened, I went to Nevada, a swing state, to do campaign work. The last time I went up--the week of the election--I got a ride from a guy who had decided to go up at the last minute. Because he didn't have time to get an absentee ballot he gave up his right to vote in order to do election work in another state. His vote was less valuable than the possibility of effecting a vote in another state. His vote may have counted, but it counted much less than the vote of somebody in another state.
"If you took the time to read what the founding fathers actually thought of Democracy and popular votes as a form of elections you would realize it is crazy for anyone to possibly suggest the Electoral College is outdated."
Oh, I love people like this. 1) The Constitution was not written by 'the Founding Fathers,' a collective hive mind of superintelligent political philosophers (which seems to be the idea a lot of people have lodged in their heads). Rather it was written by a small number of real human beings with real political agendas and real biases being forced to sit in a stiflingly hot little room in Philadelphia. To get out of the stiflingly hot little room in Philly they compromised. The Electoral College is one of those compromised. 2) I highly doubt that you've ever bothered to read what the founding fathers really thought about Democracy. If you actually want to understand the Constitution, google 'James Madison Constitutional Convention notes', and actually read what the delegates really said at the Convention. You will find:
i) These people disagreed. A lot.
ii) Some of the delegates did want a popularly elected President, including James Madison.
iii) Some delegates thought the people were too stupid to directly elect the President. This includes George Mason.
iv) A lot of delegates though the people wouldn't have enough information to pick a nationwide leader.
v) A lot of delegates wanted congress to pick the President, but others were afraid of this system for various reasons.
vi) They delegates on board with the Electoral College because it was moderately acceptable, and they wanted to get the hell out of Philadelphia. Even then they didn't all vote for it.
3) The Constitution is not a sacred Document. We've changed it before, and if something in the government dosen't work we should change it again.
4) Oh, and we're not going to degenerate into 'mob rule' just because we change the way we Elect the President. Congress and the Supreme court will still be there, and still have just as much power as they did before. This is hardly re-instituting Athenian Democracy.
QUOTE:
4) Oh, and we're not going to degenerate into 'mob rule' just because we change the way we Elect the President. Congress and the Supreme court will still be there, and still have just as much power as they did before. This is hardly re-instituting Athenian Democracy.
/QUOTE:
We've already degenerated into mob rule in many respects and changing the way we elect senators had alot to do with that. I think that change was far less appropriate and far more damaging than a popularly elected president would be.
I agree, we do need to reform the system of Electoral College that we have in place.
Let's also go ahead and debunk some of the critics of the Electoral College. The three most common refrains against a popular election of the President are a) the Founding Fathers rebuttal, b) interests of urban centers instead of smaller states and of course my pet peeve, c) "mob rule"
The Founding Fathers cannot be represented as a single entity. They disagreed on many fundamental points on how to begin this great nation of ours. The Constitution can be amended precisely because we oftentimes need to contextualize the opinions of our framers. Remember, they compromised to the conclusion that African-Americans are only worth 3/5 of a person. We must caution to blindly quote their ideas sometimes.
Urban centers are not that important to presidential candidates. They spend more time in swing states like Ohio or Iowa. And small states don't need any more protection than they already have. The Senate already ensures that we are compensating for the needs of small states.
Now to my pet peeve.
"Mob rule" is such a cliche in political theory that it risks becoming a complete anachronism in the modern political atmosphere. "Mob rule" was reserved for the consternation of ancients like Plato, who in the Republic, discredited democracy for fear of the "mob", and thus justified an ideal city ruled by an elite guardian class, led by a philosopher-king. Trace the worries of mob rule, and then we reach the aristocratic Tocqueville, who famously it penned the "tyranny of the majority", and then retreated to his life of French nobility. Even one of our founding fathers, Alexander Hamilton, shared his concerns of mob rule. But let's be frank. As great as these philosophers were, some of their ideas are no longer applicable to a modern context. The modern American electorate is far more educated, technologically connected, and politically savvy than any citizen of Periclean Athens, Jacobin Paris, or even Hamiltonian New York. Many of these theorists lived in ages where yes it was tough to trust the opinions of the general populace. Are we so elitist nowadays to follow their path? Let's start putting some more trust in the American people.
QUOTE:
a modern context. The modern American electorate is far more educated, technologically connected, and politically savvy than any citizen of Periclean Athens, Jacobin Paris, or even Hamiltonian New York. Many of these theorists lived in ages where yes it was tough to trust the opinions of the general populace. Are we so elitist nowadays to follow their path? Let's start putting some more trust in the American people.
/QUOTE:
Total B.S. Today's american people are far less literate, and far less knowledgeable / respectful about rule of law and constitutional republicanism than we were 100 or 200 years ago. This is mainly because of government schooling and the fact that our media (both entertainment and news) doesn't require literacy like it did in the 1800's.
Quote: Total B.S. Today's american people are far less literate, and far less knowledgeable / respectful about rule of law and constitutional republicanism than we were 100 or 200 years ago. This is mainly because of government schooling and the fact that our media (both entertainment and news) doesn't require literacy like it did in the 1800's.
And you know this how, noid? Pardon my skepticism, but I must point out the following:
1) If you really think the American people are illiterate, then you're obviously wasting your time posting things on the internet. The Canadians don't care about the Electoral College.
2) The internet-- which seems to be composed of a huge number of long articles written by people who expect somebody to read them-- seems to be predicated on the notion of mass literacy.
3) Last time I checked, the internet has been a big success.
4) Some of the people posting on it-- quite a lot of them actually, myself included-- were educated in public schools.
5) The delegates to the Constitutional convention feared that people wouldn't know enough about Presidential candidates to cast educated ballots. That dosen't suggest a really well read, newspaper consuming public.
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but just about every major country in the world has adopted mass compulsory education in the last 200 years-- and the world had gotten a hell of a lot richer over the past two centuries. Maybe it's a co-incidence, but somehow I doubt it.
Here's a couple of sources. I suspect the 90% was just in Massachusetts but bottom line, the american population was probably
about 80% literate in 1780 and improved to 90% or better by 1840. And the test of literacy back then was reading and understanding stuff like the bible, shakespeare, Paine's "Common Sense", etc. and not 4th grade B.S. that meets our present definitions of literacy.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Literacy
"By the time of the American Revolution, [literacy] was around 90 percent. This is seen by some as a side effect of the Puritan belief in the importance of Bible reading."
http://www.mises.org/story/1425
"The situation in America roughly parallels that in England. In 1650, male literacy in America was 60%. Between 1800 and 1840, literacy in the Northern States increased from 75% to 90%, and in Southern States from 60% to 81%. These increases transpired before the famous Common School Movement led by Horace Mann caught steam. Massachusetts had reached a level of 98% literacy in 1850. This occurred before the state's compulsory education law of 1852. Senator Edward Kennedy's office released a paper in the 1980s stating that literacy in Massachusetts was only 91%.[vii]
While some people might wonder exactly what literacy entailed during the early Nineteenth Century, anecdotal evidence points to a highly educated and refined populace. In his book Separating School and State, Sheldon Richman gives a variety of examples of the sophisticated nature of America's readers. Thomas Paine's Common Sense sold 120,000 copies to a population of three million—the equivalent of ten million copies in the 1990s. Noah Webster's Spelling Bee sold five million copies to a population of less than twenty million in 1818. Walter Scott's novels sold the same number between 1813 and 1823—the equivalent of sixty million copies in the 1990s. James Fenimore Cooper's The Last of the Mohicans also sold millions of copies. Scott and Cooper are certainly not written on today's fourth-grade level. Travelers to America during the period such as Alexis de Tocqueville and Pierre du Pont were amazed at the education of Americans.[viii] The reading public of Victorian England is so famous that numerous books and college literature courses are devoted to the subject. In fact, England eventually passed a paper tax to quell a public the leaders felt was too smart."
http://www.readyall.com/Intro2.html
There are economic reasons to be concerned. More than 20 percent of American adults read at or below the fifth grade level – far below the level needed to earn a living wage.We all pay for public assistance programs with our tax dollars.
So I would argue that if anything, the general U.S. populace is less literate not more literate than it was in 1800 and unquestionably more constitutionally ignorant than people in 1800
QUOTE:
And you know this how, noid? Pardon my skepticism, but I must point out the following:
/QUOTE:
See above
QUOTE:
1) If you really think the American people are illiterate, then you're obviously wasting your time posting things on the internet. The Canadians don't care about the Electoral College.
/QUOTE:
I just said that the people were if anything more literate in 1800 than today, not that there is mass illiteracy today.
That said, if you listen to Bill Gates for example talk about the state of education today, (he talks a lot about it because he's charitably interested in the problem and also is a big employer of educated people), he'll tell you that our present school system does okay at educating people up to about a 4th-8th grade level, but totally fails at 8-12 grade. I think part of this failure includes an lack of constitutional understanding.
QUOTE:
2) The internet-- which seems to be composed of a huge number of long articles written by people who expect somebody to read them-- seems to be predicated on the notion of mass literacy.
/QUOTE:
The internet has a better distribution than a newspaper did back in 1800 so even if the population was only 60% illiterate, I'd still be writing to more literate Americans right now than I would in a letter to the editor of my local paper in 1800.
QUOTE:
3) Last time I checked, the internet has been a big success.
4) Some of the people posting on it-- quite a lot of them actually, myself included-- were educated in public schools.
/QUOTE:
While these people may be able to physically read most of the words I write, it doesn't mean they've been educated about important constitutional ideas like the 9th and 10th amendments. Govt. Schools place a large emphasis on memorizing the dates of wars and discoveries but little on actually reading the original texts written by our founders. For that matter, many have been outright lied to by govt schools. For example, the emancipation proclaimation didn't free slaves. No territory under union control had a single slave freed by it. The 13th and 14th amendments freed slaves. If you actually read the e. p. text, it actually delineates territories where slaves are supposedly freed and where they're not which doesn't make any sense until you understand that it was about trying to incite a southern slave rebellion, not free slaves. But govt. schools love Abe too much to admit that.
QUOTE:
5) The delegates to the Constitutional convention feared that people wouldn't know enough about Presidential candidates to cast educated ballots. That dosen't suggest a really well read, newspaper consuming public.
/QUOTE:
If you really want to understand the delegates fears of democracy, you need to understand shays rebellion, why it happened, and its effects, one of which was the U.S. constitution. They were more concerned about a general public screwing
creditors using the ballot box than what you're talking about. But yes the above was also a concern but was so more because of poor information distribution than illiteracy.
QUOTE:
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but just about every major country in the world has adopted mass compulsory education in the last 200 years-- and the world had gotten a hell of a lot richer over the past two centuries. Maybe it's a co-incidence, but somehow I doubt it.
/QUOTE:
I think mass production has way more to do with it than even education, but it's clear to me that govt. schooling in this country has resulted in a more poorly educated populace than what would have been with homeschooling. It just hasn't been so bad that it has crippled industry. That said, one of the reasons for this is that many companies will actually educate people themselves for lack of qualified applicants. They give people a 3 month course on how to write a memo or letter etc. so that they can function in the office environment. I'll try to find the article where I saw that.
the adam and noid show is very entertaining. i thought we were talking about direct election of the president? noid, it sounds like you have a strong libertarian streak - what's your issue with a direct election. why do you oppose one person, one vote? less steps between people and government the better, no?
'noid:
Fine. That said, according to the CIA factbook, the US literacy rate is currently 97%. I'm sure that does include a lot of people who can't read very well, but there were probably also quite a few people who couldn't read very well in the late 18th century as well. 20% of the population may have been reading James Fenimoore Cooper in 1820, but that means that the other 80% wasn't. (Also as a total aside Mark Twain wrote a very funny article the crux of which was that Last of the Mohicans was outright claptrap.) Also according to the National Center for Education statistics, illiteracy in the US dropped from 20% in 1870 to 0.6% in 1979 (see http://nces.ed.gov/naal/defining/defining.asp)
The fun thing of course is that for every statistic there is an equal and opposite statistic; we could duel with them all day.
Anyway, as I vaguely recall, we were actually discussing the Electoral College. (and I see that you've put in a second post...) In general I actually agree that the American people are not sufficiently informed about the government. That said I doubt strongly that people were better informed about the document a century ago. (Remember that there will always be smart people who will go out, read Shakespeare and talk politics very seriously-- and there will always be people who don't. Stupidity cannot fairly be blamed on public education.) The fact that people's perceptions (or your perceptions of people's perceptions) of say the 9th and 10th Amendments has changed is not due to the fact that they're stupid or uneducated, but because the perception of the government's role in life has changed. I am sympathetic towards libertarian viewpoints, but I also like the idea that vast numbers of people will not starve to death if they loose their jobs in a recession, and are not stuck educating their children themselves.
And I could probably write more, but its time for me to be out of the office.
I believe your sources definitions of literacy are complete B.S. and so we don't agree on facts. So there's no point in continuing that discussion.
QUOTE:
president? noid, it sounds like you have a strong libertarian streak - what's your issue with a direct election. why do you oppose one person, one vote? less steps between people and government the better, no?
/QUOTE
My position as stated above was that I didn't think the elctoral college system for president versus direct election mattered much at all. I said however that direct election of senators was a horrible mistake. So no, I think that as far as the senate is concerned, you're wrong. The states have no representation in congress anymore and that means unfunded mandates and centralization of power. This is a huge problem in our country.
If you want to make an important change in the presidential election system, require that a candidate receive an actual *majority* of votes in your state rather than a simple plurality of votes. This would make third parties more important and thus would make major parties care about avoiding alienating their bases and avoid corrupt triangulation.
'noid
Actually I would support a direct nationwide election (requiring a majority threshold of course) which would make the results on a state level inconsequential.
Ultimately I also think that the national concept of what the United States is has fundamentally shifted over the years-- we've gone from being a motley assortment of independent states under the Articles to an actual, honest to God nation at the present (though I fear we may be splitting into two nations, one red and one blue, but thats a tangent that needn't be pursued.) As such it dosen't particularly bother me that state legislatures are no longer represented in Congress. As a practical matter the states are no longer real states. You no doubt find this to be troubling, as I'm sure you prefer something closer to the articles of confederation model, but I'm willing to live with it. The US does seem to be doing rather well with itself, and I'm not inclined to complain (except on things like universal healthcare, but that would require more government, not less...) We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on that.
Though just to say it, at the end of the day the American people have, over the years, consciously moved the government towards a state where they have more direct control in the selection of the people running the government. The Electoral College has been transformed into an ersatz direct election (which only malfunctions some of the time) and Senators are now chosen directly. Perhaps this has required some tradeoff to the principles of federalism, but the people seem to have gotten back something they consider valuable in return-- a more direct hand in picking their leaders. You may not like the results of the tradeoff, but its not an irrational thing to do.
Oh, and while we're at it, my sources may be complete BS, but then again yours may be as well (and yes I noticed the thing about the survey as being self reporting. That said I doubt that only illiterates would have bothered to administer feedback to the census bureau regarding their ability to read. If anything I suspect that number would underreport rather than overreport illiteracy.)
Noid:
This whole debate about relevant statistical evidence of literacy between you and Adam is quite amusing. But don't be too haste to call Adam out on his numbers (which I have no way of verifying either) until we make a wholesale criticism of the legitimacy of your data sets.
When you say that America was roughly 80% literate during the 1780s and whatnot, what kind of sample size were you using? Does that 80% literacy rate apply to the African-American slaves, the non-landowning farmers, or the even the women of Colonial America? In fact, it seems that you are simply rehasing male literacy rates (perhaps the literacy rates of white, well-educated, landowning males) when in fact, modern literacy rates are taking into account the entire American population, regardless of sex, race, or class. So let's be conscious of which data sets we're extracting conclusions from.
Your ideas on the election of senators and public education are interesting, and i agree with the anon in that you seem to have a libertarian bent. But as someone educated at a school with quite the roster of "libertarian" thinkers (lets just say Hayek, Friedman, and Buchanan are mainstays there), I've interacted with quite a few libertarians, so I'm really not understanding this lack of support for the elimination of the Electoral College.
Care to clarify your political philosophy a little more?
QUOTE:
represented in Congress. As a practical matter the states are no longer real states. You no doubt find this to be troubling, as I'm sure you prefer something closer to the articles of confederation model, but I'm
/QUOTE
You have this sort of butt-dumb assumption that Articles of Confederation imply states rights and Constitution implies no states rights. No, the real constitution (tm) based on its very nature of being about *limiting* federal power and the 9th and 10th amendments, was supposed to ensure states rights and did so more or less until that bastard FDR packed the courts.
Have the states become irrelevant. To some extent yes, but that's not because of anything constitutional, but rather because of the lust for power of our federal politicians, and an increasingly ignorant, state educated populace.
QUOTE:
When you say that America was roughly 80% literate during the 1780s and whatnot, what kind of sample size were you using? Does that 80% literacy rate apply to the African-American slaves, the non-landowning farmers, or the even the women of Colonial America? In fact, it seems that you are simply rehasing male literacy rates (perhaps the literacy rates of white, well-educated, landowning males) when in fact, modern literacy rates are taking into account the entire American population, regardless of sex, race, or class. So let's be conscious of which data sets we're extracting conclusions from.
/QUOTE:
Not only that, we'd have to talk about whether reading spanish counts like it does now and didn't back then.
But the more important question is how educated people are, not how literate they are. So not only do I think that your statistics are lies regarding literacy in the sense of being able vocalize printed words, I think they don't capture the fact that education back then focused on different and more important things, like educating people about citizenship and ethics. It was this focus on education (and also on religion), that made the north, new england especially, have the moral clarity to see how evil slavery was. Also, you should also consider that in say, 1800, the american populace was the one of the two best in the world (maybe britain could compete). Now our high schoolers suck when compared to other countries.
QUOTE:
and Buchanan are mainstays there), I've interacted with quite a few libertarians, so I'm really not understanding this lack of support for the elimination of the Electoral College.
/QUOTE:
I don't think the electoral college is a big libertarian issue on way or the other, however that said, I haven't given myself a label except to distance myself from republicrats.
noid
The states have allowed powers that they originally held to eventually be bucked up to the Federal government. While they could once have been regarded as states in the political science sense, they have effectively allowed their position to erode down to being something less than true countries and something more than organization subdivisions of a country. You seem to regard this as a machiavellian scheme on the part of FDR and other politicians, who only got away with it because people have become stupid.
However I think that rational, educated people can be willing to make the tradeoff.
QUOTE:
The states have allowed powers that they originally held to eventually be bucked up to the Federal government. While they could once have been regarded as states in the political science sense, they have effectively allowed their position to erode
/QUOTE:
That's such an ignorant comment. Take medical marijuana. Several states want to allow it, yet the feds deliberately misinterpret the interstate commerce clause to usurp states rights. You'll note that before FDR, when the feds wanted to outlaw a drug like alcohol, they amended the constitution. Now the feds just do whatever they want regardless of proper authority or common sense. You can't tell me that the states are fine with this. But the california national guard loses to the U.S. army so they have to take it. It doesn't make it right and if Americans weren't government educated, they'd be educated enough to know how horrible a situation this is.
Post a Comment
<< Home