[geeks] just to stir things up, a few predictions

[Patrick Giagnocavo]

On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 11:22:45PM +0000, Lionel Peterson wrote:
> > From: "Francisco Javier Mesa-Martinez" <lefa at ucsc.edu>
> > Date: 2004/10/26 Tue AM 08:06:30 GMT
> > To: The Geeks List <geeks at sunhelp.org>
> > Subject: Re: [geeks] just to stir things up, a few predictions
> 
> 
> > You guys crack me up sometimes!
> > 
> > As the resident liberal pinko commie, I must ask. What
> > would it take for the US to implement an actual
> > representative system.

I believe this ^^^^ is Francisco, just so we get the quoting correct :-)

The short answer is, that the Founders were quite concerned about a
democracy, seeing it as being only a short step removed from mob rule.

Therefore they were quite careful originally to have every power given
to govt counter-balanced by something else (or maybe you could say
cantilevered).

It terms of "representative" govt, I think the original form was
pretty close to the best we've had, and later changes (popular
election of senators for instance) have served to make things worse
rather than better.

So the original design was:

popularly elected House balanced by each state appointed 2 senators -
the House proposes, the Senate passes or does not pass the bill.

President has power over executive branch, but no ability to pass laws
(eroded greatly IMHO by executive orders which become law by fiat
after 90 days)

Judicial branch to strictly interpret the Constitution as it was
written (eroded, again, by activist judges that let you find a "right"
that was never there, and a usurpation of power over the other two
branches that should be trimmed back, by impeachment of judges if
necessary).

I don't know exactly what the Founders thought of fiscal policy, but I
believe they would be greatly against our current greenbacks, which
can not be converted into something tangible like gold or silver at a
set rate of exchange (thanks in part to FDR, the most duplicitous
SOB-POTUS; I still want to take a trip to DC sometime and load up a
44oz Big Gulp and then visit his grave and give FDR his due.)

BTW Francisco, I don't know how tongue-in-cheek your "liberal pinko
commie" comment is, but your views (if they truly were
socialist/communist) would have little place in American politics,
since the Constitution forbids any form of govt other than a
republican one; thus socialism or communism in any manner would be by
definition prohibited.

> Francisco - I think the first big step would be to lobby each state to "split" their electoral votes - some states do this now (NE and Maine, IIRC - see http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/electoral.college/index.html)...

Which is why I would be against it.

> It would be a small effort for each state to adopt this,a nd
> wouldn't require a "national" change.

> Of course, what would a third-party candidate do with 2 or 3
>electoral votes? I can imagine parties running extreme counter
>candidates (i.e. the republicans covertly run a rabid anti-republican
>candidate in addition to "their guy") to siphon-off electoral votes
>from the democratic party...

I think these paragraphs are from Lionel ^^^^

Essentially you are talking about a Parliamentary-style election, I
think; or worse, one based on popular votes.  

In such a case a candidate winning LA, Chicago, NYC and Mexico City (I
keed, I keed) would automatically win the election, and would be free
from then on to screw over everyone else in "flyover country" with no
fear of retribution.  Which is what the Founders were afraid of.

long winded, can hardly wait for this election cycle to be over,
almost welcoming no-talent Ashlee Simpson furor as an innocent
diversion,

--Patrick