Electoral College and "one man one vote" mentality, WHY both left and right get it wrong.
From time to time I get objections to the electoral college, state vs federal rights, and cries to go to one man one vote. I GET THIS from both the left and right. So keep this in mind that this is not a matter of class, or religion or political party. I have gotten these from both liberals and conservatives, Christians and non Chrisitans.
First off, no system can be perfect no matter who sets it up. If you make a hammer, there is nothing stopping the person who buys it from smashing someone's scull in with it. Don't blame the hammer for what the person does with it.
Governments are not made up of machines and they are only as good as the people in them and the society that supports them.
NOW, why did the founders set up the electoral college?
Because they lived under an authority prior, that although had a voting and a Parliament, they lived in under a system that had no check on power, so they could not challenge the authority. Imagine if Hitler ran for president and there was no electoral college to prevent him from taking office. "Majority rules" is a bad idea as an absolute.
1. People complain on both sides the election of 2000 would have been easily settled without the electoral college. Missing the concept behind it. If we value protecting our government from getting to absolute power, the electoral college serves as a reminder that NO ASPECT OF GOVERNMENT, NOT EVEN THE VOTER, should have absolute power. AND IT IS FAIR, why? Because long term it can benefit anyone. It is a law that is not monopolized by one party and only benefits one party. It is merely a metaphorical reminder LONG TERM that our system is a guiding principle and not a dictatorial one. I was NOT happy that BUSH won without the popular vote, but I would not want a voting system where voters ALWAYS got what they wanted. It would be stripping the concept of protection of dissent WHICH IS VITAL in a free society.
2. SUPREME COURT,
Another bullshit claim I get from both sides is "legislate from the bench". Often hurled by one side or the other when a ruling doesn't go their way. I agree that judges do make rulings that suit there agendas, BUT BOTH SIDES DO THAT. BUT IT IS FAIR, why? Because we have elections LONG TERM, those judges EITHER SIDE can be replaced and even prior rulings over turned. Take away their autonomy then the law gets stuck in place and there would be no way to change it in the future if we wanted.
3. Executive order. ANOTHER bullshit argument I get from both sides. AGAIN it is fair because all the presidents have used it, even to over turn prior presidents orders. Fair because WE have the opportunity to CHANGE.
4. States rights vs federal. AGAIN, NOT EITHER OR BUT "DEPENDS". States can have autonomy AS LONG as it does not violate the constitutional rights that ALL citizens have. Thus the Supremacy Clause. Thus when there is a dispute between the two the courts take each case as a case by case basis and not the entire government in all cases as ALL fed or all state. IT DEPENDS, and that keeps absolute power from taking hold either way.
All these things above people are so ready to shit on and get rid of forgetting that if they did, that could potentially make the entire system useless to a minority and give absolute power to a majority.
OUR SYSTEM is not based on absolute power, but a system that says NO ONE ASPECT of our government, be it the President, the congress, the courts, or even the voter, can have absolute power. Our system is one based on anti-monopoly concepts that says WE GUIDE but we do not dictate, and we protect dissent so that ALL OF US can have future opportunities to make change. If we make this about voters having absolute power, then we are no better than one person having absolute power.
THE ENTIRE CONCEPT of our Constitution is to prevent absolute power LONG TERM. I have heard both liberals and conservatives bitch about all the things above, and to me, this is short term selfish thinking. Dissent must be protected in a free society and as such everything our government does should be guiding, not dictating with the ability to change.
PLEASE do not fuck with a Constitution that protects dissent. You strip away those checks and balances and try to make a blanket one size fits all solution, no matter who you are, liberal or conservative, theist or atheist, LONG TERM it wont be good for anyone.
I implore my liberal politically correct friends AND my economic detractors BOTH to not fall for the crap our media uses to divide us. Beyond rightfully does not want absolute power, nor do I, nor should any liberal. It is OUR government, but it is not anyone's absolute right to dictate to others. So WE can only vote as a guiding principle, not a dictatorial one. I accept that sometime my side loses, but I do not lose hope when they do because every November I can vote.
The future is all any of us have, but non of us will have a free society if we strip any part of our checks and balances and insist solely on mob rule by vote.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37