How Do We Fix The System?

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by jimmiej
Rush has a 3 hour show 5 days a week because his opinions are popular with a large segment of the population. Ditto Sean Hannity, etc. MM & Franken don't because most Americans don't agree with their opinions. We don't need a Fairness Doctrine. Let the market decide. The libs need to get in touch with middle America.

Do you want to end the deep divisions in this country or don't you?

Freedom of speech and the free market were around a hell of a long time before the Limbaugh's and the Hannity's showed up.

And cut the "libs" bull****. So much for the "let's all unite".

 

[Kendra17]

The Electoral College is another one of the checks and balances in our Democracy. The main purpose of the EC is to prevent a direct democracy. The United States is a Representative Democracy. The power resides in the people as represented by those that they elect to Congress or Senate. This is also true in the Presidential election whereby the president is not elected as a direct result of the ballots cast by the people themselves.

I don't want a direct democracy in the United States because representative democracy has been proven to be an excellent approach and, the reason why the founding fathers created the Electoral College in the first place is to prevent mob mentality from influencing selection of the president. I think the founding fathers were so horrified by what they saw in the French Revolution-- in the unchecked tyranny of the people-- that they wanted to make sure it would not happen here.

On a more cynical level, the Founding Fathers were reluctant to put total trust in the judgment of the general population.

The Fairness Doctrine. HAHAHAH. We want government control? No. Rush Limbaugh is a private corporation, basically. It's a private concern and advertisers pay and sponsor his show. The broadcasters and stations shouldn't have to pay to show all sides of an issue--that is not their role. The listeners should educate themselves. The government should not have to do that work for them! Geesh!

You know, many of us believe that almost the entire media establishment is liberal and shares with us--on air or in print-- this liberal viewpoint while pretending that viewpoint is actually unbiased. These alternative viewpoints such as Rush and Hannity present the other viewpoint. That's why they're so popular--to counter the Left, which is now considered the mainstream (but, as proven in this election is actually NOT the mainstream).

I do agree that we need to improve our voting system, and your ideas are good.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by Kendra17
The Electoral College is another one of the checks and balances in our Democracy. The main purpose of the EC is to prevent a direct democracy. The United States is a Representative Democracy. The power resides in the people as represented by those that they elect to Congress or Senate. This is also true in the Presidential election whereby the president is not elected as a direct result of the ballots cast by the people themselves.

I don't want a direct democracy in the United States because representative democracy has been proven to be an excellent approach and, the reason why the founding fathers created the Electoral College in the first place is to prevent mob mentality from influencing selection of the president. I think the founding fathers were so horrified by what they saw in the French Revolution-- in the unchecked tyranny of the people-- that they wanted to make sure it would not happen here.

On a more cynical level, the Founding Fathers were reluctant to put total trust in the judgment of the general population.

That's not exactly true. It's not that they didn't trust the judgement of the general population wrt to electing a President. They wanted to make sure the states were fairly represented in their ability to have a say in the matter. If they left it to the popular vote they would have had then what we would have today...population centers deciding who is President. Take a look at the vote distribution in Calif from yesterday. Basically San Fran and LA gave Kerry the state. Extrapolate that out to the country.

The Founding Fathers issue with France was what led to us be a Republic not a pure democracy. Democracy is mob rule.

 

[SoonerKate]

I don't believe that we should get rid of the electoral college entirely, but I do believe that it's time for some reform. It seems to me that a system like the one in Maine and Nebraska -- where the winner of each congressional district gets one electoral vote, with two more added to whoever wins more districts -- is the fairest, especially if we establish bipartisan committees for redistricting in each state, preventing ridiculous gerrymandering for political gain.

In a state where 49% of the votes go to one person and 51% go to another, it's not fair that all of that state's votes go to one candidate. Using this method, the electoral votes have not ever been split (since 1972 in Maine and 1996 in Nebraska) but if the EV were to be split, at least it would fairly reflect the vote of that state's residents.

I have so many issues with unfair redistricting that it's not even funny; there needs to be SERIOUS reform, and soon. The Texas redistricting debacle ultimately won't just affect Texas; there's a saying that as Texas goes, so goes the nation and it's true. In TX, a lot of stuff gets thrown on the wall, and whatever sticks, usually winds up happening in other states.

Bipartisan commissions work: Iowa has some of the most competitive congressional districts in the country, and Arizona has enjoyed having politicians who place representing their communities above their party allegiance. As long as we keep letting politicians decide how they get elected, the politicians are the only ones who will benefit, and it will be at the expense of our fair representation.l

 

[Bella the Ball 360]

I have always been under the impression that when one votes he is not really voting for president but rather an elector who will then cast the electoral college vote (or as Dan Rather said the other night the "electrical" college vote). What is really scary to me is that these people do NOT have to vote the way that the majority of the state says. In West Va there was an elector who said if there was a tie through the country, and his state went republican he would vote in favor of Kerry as a means to protest Bush's economic policy. That means that ONE person could pontentially determine who wins!! THAT is really frightening to me.

 

[snarfer1]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
Do you want to end the deep divisions in this country or don't you?

Freedom of speech and the free market were around a hell of a long time before the Limbaugh's and the Hannity's showed up.

And cut the "libs" bull****. So much for the "let's all unite".

Lets also not forget Howard Stern (I was a fan - hope to be one again, now that the election is over) Venom and hatred about anything Bush hitting 16 million Americans 5 days a week on radio, millions more on his BBS and millions more on his E channel show.

I think the market balanced fairly well on its own, although I did prefer the fair and balanced past.

The EC works as intended, leave it alone.

Unified voting with a hard copy paper trail works for me.

-Tony

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by snarfer1
Lets also not forget Howard Stern (I was a fan - hope to be one again, now that the election is over) Venom and hatred about anything Bush hitting 16 million Americans 5 days a week on radio, millions more on his BBS and millions more on his E channel show.

I think the market balanced fairly well on its own, although I did prefer the fair and balanced past.

The EC works as intended, leave it alone.

Unified voting with a hard copy paper trail works for me.

-Tony

I don't think the EC works at all and as an example, let's say Kerry took Ohio. He still would've lost by 3.5 million votes and that would've been a recipe for disaster. But, he would've won the EC and he would've ended up in the WH.

I think the EC is a quaint holdover from the time when only white, male landowner's, from the original 13 colonies, could vote. We've changed and our way of voting has to change too.

And I definitely see the need for a unified voting system. I don't understand how we can have some of the most innovative companies in the world who set the gold standard for data bases and computer systems and yet instead of utilizing those systems, some people in this country are still voting the way they did 50 years ago. This makes no sense to me. Can't Oracle come up with a reliable data base system for the government?

As to redistricting, this grotesque gerrymandering that our politicians are using to consolidate political power is going to be the destruction of this democracy. Right now, because of gerrymandering, incumbents running for re-election to Congress will win 98% of the time. How can someone even get into that club? The competitiveness is gone.

How was our democracy served by gerrymandering a district in Texas so that Pete Sessions and Martin Frost ended up running against each other? They were both good men and brought good things to Congress. Now, one of them is gone because the deck was stacked against him by Tom DeLay and there's an entire group of voters who are angry and starting to lose faith in the system. What good came of this?

Now, as to the Fairness Doctrine; Having 2 shows for one pov and having another show on another station with another pov is not an example of the Fairness Doctrine.

Someone here brought up Dan Rather's story. Here's what would've happened if we still had the Fairness Doctrine. Shortly after Rather's story, CBS would've been compelled to run and give equal time to another pov. I see this as healthy and not infrininging on anyone's freedom of speech. The viewers watch 2 pov's and they make up their mind. And to you "free marketers" who feel that infringed on CBS's rights, CBS is an old company that did very well under the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine does not prevent any tv/radio group from having a show that expresses a specific pov. What the Fairness Doctrine does is tell the tv/radio groups they have to provide equal time to the other side. That to me is good for the American public because all of this using the public airwaves to propogandize is doing nothing but dividing this country and creating deeper divisions with each passing year as groups are demonized constantly.

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
Do you want to end the deep divisions in this country or don't you?

Freedom of speech and the free market were around a hell of a long time before the Limbaugh's and the Hannity's showed up.

And cut the "libs" bull****. So much for the "let's all unite".

Nope, I don't want to end them. I firmly believe that the rationale for designing our government exists today moreso than in the late 1700s. Our system is designed to make it exceedingly hard for the government to do anything. It's designed to pit "faction" against "faction." The whole idea was that groups would spend all their time fighting each other and would be unable to unite and actually accomplish anything (the idea being that government is most dangerous when it accomplishes something).

 

[Teejay32]

ITA. Divisions serve a purpose. The current climate is more like sheer nastiness...this group is immoral, this group is evil, the President is a moron, etc. Don't blame the system, blame the people in it.