mailing list archives
RE: OT: U.S. 2004 Election Fraud.
From: Paul Schmehl <pauls () utdallas edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:22:56 -0600
--On Monday, November 15, 2004 01:15:23 PM -0600 "Banta, Will"
<Will.Banta () broadwing com> wrote:
I feel the same after reading it as I did before. I have no idea if the
site is "liberal" (or whatever other label you want to put on it), but the
logic is certainly flawed.
Tell me you feel the same about the EC after reading
course Mother Jones is part of the mythical "liberal press" so you can
simply dismiss this article as liberal hokum.....
Look at it this way. *If* the arguments put forth on that site are
persuasive, then consistency would demand that you get rid of the Senate as
well. After all, the main thrust of the argument is that "it's the people
who should decide". Well, "the people" *don't* decide in the Senate,
because the smaller population states are disproportionately represented.
There are sound *reasons* why America is a republic. Our founding father
*rejected* democracy and explained *precisely* why they rejected it in the
Federalist Papers. If you fully understand their arguments yet disagree,
then more power to you. Most people have no clue.
It was to avoid the passions of democracy that our system was designed the
way that it was. Were we to go to a popular vote for President, then the
smaller states would have ample reason to secede because their input would
be meaningless. It is precisely *because* we have the electoral college
*and* the Senate **both of which are "unfair" (to use the popular argument
today) that our nation has lasted as long as it has.
In the election of 1860, Stephen Douglas won *one* state - Missouri. Yet,
due to its population, he came in second in the popular vote. It's
entirely possible for a popular vote to reflect the desires of a small
handful of states, simply because their populations are so dense, and to
completely ignore the desires of the rest of the country.
That is a recipe for revolt. Our forefathers realized that possibility and
rejected it. Now people who purport to be "smarter" than the men who
founded our nation want to change that system and eliminate the safeguards
that have held the nation together for so long.
I *reject* that "wisdom".
Paul Schmehl (pauls () utdallas edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Re: OT: U.S. 2004 Election Fraud. marklist (Nov 13)
RE: OT: U.S. 2004 Election Fraud. Clairmont, Jan M (Nov 15)
RE: OT: U.S. 2004 Election Fraud. Banta, Will (Nov 15)
RE: OT: U.S. 2004 Election Fraud. Pursell, Aaron CONTRACTOR (Nov 16)
FW: OT: U.S. 2004 Election Fraud. Geo. (Nov 16)
OT: U.S. 2004 Election Fraud. Eric Scher (Nov 16)
Re: FW: OT: U.S. 2004 Election Fraud. jpspam (Nov 17)
- RE: OT: U.S. 2004 Election Fraud. Paul Schmehl (Nov 16)