Comments on: Obama Wins Election http://www.minthegap.com/2009/01/14/obama-wins-election/ Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God. Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:17:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: MInTheGap http://www.minthegap.com/2009/01/14/obama-wins-election/comment-page-1/#comment-83769 MInTheGap Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:03:11 +0000 http://www.minthegap.com/2009/01/14/obama-wins-election/#comment-83769 <p>@Ling: Everyone plays by the rules of the game, and the rules of the game (up until this point) are that the popular vote doesn't mean anything, it's the number of electoral votes. Regardless whether Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 or not, that wasn't the name of the game.</p> <p>Now, as for whether the popular vote is something that we should base the selection of the President on, that also scares me. Why? Just look at what has happened in each of these close elections. Look at what's going on Franken/Coleman election. We don't know the exact numbers of votes in that race-- it's still being decided. And you can bet that if the numbers are wrong in that race, that there are many races that aren't close, but that the numbers are wrong there.</p> <p>Being a Comp Sci guy, it scares me to think that there are many places where there'll be no recounts because the data was pretty well in favor of one or the other, but if you multiply that across the country, you could only truly believe the numbers if if there were a landslide. Could you imagine nationwide challenges to votes because they're not sure who did get the popular vote?</p> <p>And then from a more philosophical standpoint: What does it mean to be "The United States" if we have direct elections of people to serve? Technically, we're people that belong to states that belong to a Union. There is a federal principle aligned with the creation of our government that (regardless of whether it's been watered down) that says that our states have rights. The right to have representation and to choose the President has always resided with the state, not the individual. Technically (and correct me if I'm wrong), the state legislature has the right to choose the electors for President-- we don't need a vote of the people at all. It's just that all the states have elections. Again, it may just be that the states have to dictate how an election must be carried out, but even then I think that they could dictate that they have the right to decide.</p> <p>Direct democracy leads to anarchy and destruction of society. If we don't learn from the past we'll soon repeat it.</p> @Ling: Everyone plays by the rules of the game, and the rules of the game (up until this point) are that the popular vote doesn’t mean anything, it’s the number of electoral votes. Regardless whether Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 or not, that wasn’t the name of the game.

Now, as for whether the popular vote is something that we should base the selection of the President on, that also scares me. Why? Just look at what has happened in each of these close elections. Look at what’s going on Franken/Coleman election. We don’t know the exact numbers of votes in that race– it’s still being decided. And you can bet that if the numbers are wrong in that race, that there are many races that aren’t close, but that the numbers are wrong there.

Being a Comp Sci guy, it scares me to think that there are many places where there’ll be no recounts because the data was pretty well in favor of one or the other, but if you multiply that across the country, you could only truly believe the numbers if if there were a landslide. Could you imagine nationwide challenges to votes because they’re not sure who did get the popular vote?

And then from a more philosophical standpoint: What does it mean to be “The United States” if we have direct elections of people to serve? Technically, we’re people that belong to states that belong to a Union. There is a federal principle aligned with the creation of our government that (regardless of whether it’s been watered down) that says that our states have rights. The right to have representation and to choose the President has always resided with the state, not the individual. Technically (and correct me if I’m wrong), the state legislature has the right to choose the electors for President– we don’t need a vote of the people at all. It’s just that all the states have elections. Again, it may just be that the states have to dictate how an election must be carried out, but even then I think that they could dictate that they have the right to decide.

Direct democracy leads to anarchy and destruction of society. If we don’t learn from the past we’ll soon repeat it.

]]> By: Ling http://www.minthegap.com/2009/01/14/obama-wins-election/comment-page-1/#comment-83768 Ling Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:44:49 +0000 http://www.minthegap.com/2009/01/14/obama-wins-election/#comment-83768 Problem here is that no one trusts the electoral college to do the right thing, in case they're required to step in. That kind of takes away the very purpose of their existence. Direct elections have their own problems, like you say, but its still a better option than the current sustem, where things like the Florida chads can reverse the popular vote. Problem here is that no one trusts the electoral college to do the right thing, in case they’re required to step in. That kind of takes away the very purpose of their existence. Direct elections have their own problems, like you say, but its still a better option than the current sustem, where things like the Florida chads can reverse the popular vote.

]]>