Defending the Truth

Its always the same, businessmen exploit people, deplete resources, polute the earth, yada yada yada.

I recall in the late 1970's and early 1980's everyone saying that we only have a decade or perhaps less of naturally resources left, well that was over 3 decades ago. I guess they wrong.

As far as pollution goes, business has made great strides to produce products and manufacturing cleaner, third world countries release more toxins, including CO2 into the atmosphere than we do. Many business have already reduced the emissions of chemicals from their factories without regulation, and with the tax incentives to do even more, many more will, because of that ever present profit margin.

As far exploiting people, once again although there are those out there in business who are corrupt, for the most part, business is what is providing jobs for people. I hear all the time how companies exploit third world workers because they pay them only dollars a day. Yet those who do not work for those companies are only making dollars per month. In some countries the police officers are making only 43 dollars a month, a worker in a factory is making 8 dollars a day. Which one do you think is better off?

dmk

You could at least comment on a republican who favors Instant Runoff Voting. Why are you against a system that is more fair? Just tell me that!

I was thinking about this a little more...Why is it that all twelve states who were in attendance, approved the proposal of a President elected by an electoral college and only serve for four years without reelection; yet not even think about or consider something like IRV?? Maybe someone did come up with an idea like IRV, i'm not entirely sure...

Any ideas?

The Electora College was made a looooong time ago when people did
not and could not know the Presidential candidate. This was a great
idea in the 1800's. But now the E.C. is a tool to give the Dems and Reps
a monopoly on the U.S Govnmt. And to seal the monopoly (Du-opoly)
They added the "Winner Take All" law.
That's how Bush won when Gore had more Votes!
(Notice the Dems did not take this issue to Court!!!)
And How Perot got ~20% Peoples Vote & 0% E.C. Votes
While Clinton got ~42% Peoples Votes and 70% E.C. Vote
42% is not a Majority.

I just don't understand how Dems & Reps can swallo this Crap and Keep
fighting for these two Parties!!!

Is this intentionally ironic? Well, let me assume that it is not:

"Liberal social engineering" appears to me most likely to be referring to the liberal stance on social issues, revolve around altering our traditional norms. Understanding this, let me point out that removing slavery and removing segregation are both prime examples of liberal social engineering. In fact, they are certainly far more extreme examples of liberal social engineering than anything being proposed by anyone today.

The men of the past are not the men of today, and if some democrats had bad stances on issues in the past, that should not reflect our opinion of them today. Looking at your criticisms of present-day democrats, I do agree with your reverse discrimination criticism. But it appears to me that you criticize democrats today for engaging in liberal social engineering. Yet liberal social engineering is as likely to be an extremely good thing as it is to be a bad one. Just reading that paragraph, I thought it worthwhile to point this out.

As for the topic itself, I am not certain that I would say the party systems are filled with corruption. Certainly money drives politicians, and it some cases, it may be self-interest. But I would argue that most of the time, the individuals who are elected are indeed people who generally have the best interest of the nation in mind, and that isn't a sign of corruption.

Though perhaps it is a sign of corruption that when an issue finds its way into the eye of the public, politicians will often take whichever side of it is more popular at the time, regardless of whether that side is right or wrong. I would also agree that it is almost always those with the most wealth who are elected, instead of those with the right values, and I agree that our politicians are not necessarily the people most able to make the right decisions for our nation.

“removing slavery and removing segregation are both prime examples of liberal social engineering.
“
I think ending Slavery and Segregation was done for humanitarian reasons, or the people
In Government back then were being honest about the human race. The Republicans that stood up for the human rights of others said they did so for religious reasons. Which would be considered “Traditional norms”. And as you pointed out Liberal Social Engineering is trying to change these Traditional Norms.

The word “Liberal” is kind of Like the word “Freedom” they sound good, but if you
Really think about what they mean you might want to qualify them before using.
True “Freedom” is actually Anarchy. Free from limitation. So for people who are in
Slavery being free or liberated is a good thing, but Criminals in jail wanting to be
liberated or Free is not a good thing.

As for what you said about “the most wealthy winning” that might be true “AS Long AS”
You only consider Democrats “OR” Republicans. Ross Perot was very rich and lost.
But since the Dems&Reps have a Monopoly on government that statement can
Cannot be fully exercised .

To end I would reemphasize that restructuring the political system in America is far more
Important and beneficial to Americans than having new Liberal Norms. People are not
Being prevented from having Liberal Norms, but they are being prevented from having
Their votes count. Whether it’s a statistical nullification or an intimidation (if I don’t vote
For A Dem or Rep my vote won’t count).

Easy solution to change the system:

1) Eliminate the Electoral College. (Make your vote count)
2) Have Immediate Runoff Elections. (Make it accurate.)
3) Vote any non-Dem/Rep party. (Let them know we will make
change! Shape up or ship out!)

This way every vote counts, and every politician
will be judged by the "PEOPLE" Directly!!!!
Peace

Those who suggested we should remove slavery and segregation because of their religion were indeed engaging in liberal social engineering. They were not engaging in traditional norms. The traditional interpretation of the Bible suggested that Christianity supported slavery and segregation. It was a liberal interpretation which suggested otherwise. There was nothing traditional about removing slavery and segregation.

I understand what you are saying. I think I would say that freedom is soemthing we should strive to achieve for everyone. But if freeing one person presents a danger to others, we may not be able to provide that freedom. Criminals are not allowed freedom because they present a danger to others or because failing to punish crimes invites people to engage in them.

It may not necessarily be the most wealthy person who wins, but it is a wealthy person. It costs a lot of money to run for political office, and it either takes a huge political party to achieve that or a lot of personal funds. Ross Perot may not have won, but he came pretty close.

Well, I don't think that you're targetting the correct problem. In this most recent vote, for example, George Bush would still have been elected even if we got rid of the electoral college and implemented runoff elections. He had the majority vote.

The problem isn't that the will of the people isn't being followed. The problem is that the majority is not voting for the right people, that the right people do not have any chance at all of winning; the majority probably won't even know they exist, and if they did, they probably wouldn't consider it.

In our system, it's the people who can play the political game the best who win. It's the people who appeal to a relatively ignorant public eye, to a majority that is often more interested in themselves than the welfare of others. Runoff voting isn't going to matter if the people still vote for the candidates who have the most advertising money and who play the political game the best instead of the candidates who have the right position on the issues.

A better solution is to educate the people on the nature of good government and to allow candidates equal opportunities to present their opinions to the people.

With respect to instant runoff voting, let's imagine a scenario where a instant runoff voting would lead to a third-party candidate being elected. The vote would likely be split between two top candidates. Since those top candidates dislike the opposing candidate so much, they rank their favorite candidate on top and the opposing candidate on the bottom. When the vote actually takes place, some middle candidate who the people have barely heard of gets elected. Is this really a good thing? Do the people even know who they've elected?

Instant runoff voting might not be bad if we give candidates equal airtime, an equal opportunity to present their positions to the people, and the people are educated enough to understand the correct positions.

Now let me discuss the electoral college. The electoral college was not designed to necessarily be used the way it has. The idea held by the creators of the Constitution was that the President should not be elected by the majority; that would give the majority too much power, and the majority isn't necessarily going to elect the best person. Instead, each state would elect members of the electoral college, and each state would choose how to do this in its own way. Then, those politically-informed members of the college would use their best judgement to choose a candidate.

But states have chosen a very poor method of doing this. States simply allow the political party which recieves the majority of the votes to choose the electoral college members. Let me present a different method that might be used. This method might allow voters in a state to use runoff voting to choose the electoral college members before the presidential candidates are announced. Although those college members would have certain ideologies, they would not necessarily have to vote along party lines, nor for the top party candidate. Further, presidential candidates would have to campaign to the more knowledgable electoral college instead of attempting an incredibly expensive campaign to a rather ignorant public.

Now such a method is rather radical; it weakens the power of the majority instead of strengthening it. But the majority would still have the ultimate power to control who is elected. Whether this method would result in better or worse candidates is a matter of debate, but I think it is an example of an attempt at addressing the real problem.

As the electoral college stands today, it may not be the best method of electing presidents, but it still puts a filter on the power of the majority, and I think that is a good thing. That is, if we have an election based directly on the will of the majority, candidates will have to compromise on every controversial issue in order to get lots of votes in every state. That compromise is what leads to corrupted officials being elected; the people who won't compromise, who stand firm in their values don't have a chance. With the electoral college, candidates do not have to campaign in every state, which means they do not have to compromise as many values. Further, campaigning in less places means that less money is required to run a sucessful campaign.

Anyhow, that may have been a lot of boring political theory, but my point is that I'm not sure removing the electoral college is a good idea, and although runoff voting might be, neither one of those solutions necessarily addresses the real causes of corrupt officials being elected.

Not true. If IRV had been in effect dubya would not have won. He would not have held the majority in the first place.

And Clinton may not have won in 92 if IRV had been in effect...

Most people would think that is 2 for 2!