Electoral Colledge

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by jeff

But, is this carried out in practice? I'm more familiar with UK's government than Canada, and the royal family has tacitly approved the actions of governments that nationalized (and denationalized) major industries, went to war, didn't go to war, imposed confiscatory taxes that broke up the estates of the land-rich cash poor gentry, and so on. Even though the Queen is pro-hunting, I'll be very surprised if she vetos the abolition of hunting that Labour is proposing. In UK political analysis, one never reads anything of the form "well, Parliament may choose X, but the Queen will veto it"- the issue never arises.

With all these dramatic and contradictory changes never vetoed by the Queen, and the fact that her approval is never cited as an issue for some change, it's hard to take seriously any claim that the royal family actually interacts in legislature or policy at all. Just look at how the composition of the House of Lords (or its continued existance) have come up recently. No, to me the royal role is a rubber stamp, except for the rather ceremonial duty of accepting a new PM and asking him or her to form a government.

If She considers these issues to be in the best interests of Her people, then doesn't not standing in the way of these questions make Her a benevolent ruler? Your assumption is that the preservation and growth of personal power is paramount to anyone in power at the time. Therefor, because these actions of Parliament threaten Her power, She should oppose them vigourously, correct? This is the fundamental philosphical difference between us when we look at the Monarchy. I would not expect Her to oppose something as trivial as hunting because She disagrees or to thwart the will of the people to go to war if they decided that they should. That She allows Parliament to choose actions that She disagrees with is the height of the point that I'm making.

Originally Posted by Jeff

But then the role would have to change to be essentially ceremonial in nature.

Why?

[quote=Jeff}
Aren't MEPs (Ministers of European Parliament) elected, rather than appointed?
[/QUOTE]

No clue and beside the point.

[quote=Jeff}
But both the judiciary and executive branch are checks on the legislative. The Supreme Court (and, indeed, lesser federal courts) can declare laws unconstitutional. The President does not directly initiate legislation. Just this week the Republican-controlled house rebuked Bush's attempt to change employment laws in a way that would deprive many workers of overtime pay. So, there are both elected and non-elected checks on legislation. I disagree with your premise that 'non-elected' is better: legitemacy ultimately derives from the people
[/QUOTE]

That legitimacy derives from the people is totally correct and besides the point. We're not talking about legitimacy, we're talking about optimal governance which needs *elements* of legitimacy, but not *only* legitimacy. I find it scary that you consider one of the duties of the Judicial branch to determine whether a law is right or not. The judiciary's role is merely to interpret the law in the most consistent manner possible. If a judge rules that something is unconstitutional, then all they are saying is the new law is in conflict with the old law and the old law wins because it is higher in the legal hierarchy. In the US, there is no non-elected check on legislation. It is theoretically possible for the US to ammend the constitution so that homosexuals are not people. In a Constitutional Monarcy, the Queen could prevent that law from ever passing in the first place, regardless of the rules of Parliament.

Originally Posted by Jeff

Here we fundamentally differ. The People may sometimes do foolish things, and sometimes leadership is needed, but the legitemate origin of power is the People.

You're confusing two issues: one, the origin of power is (and has always been in all political systems) the people. A dictator controls the people by force. The people choose to follow this system. The problem with a dictator is that the people must always be dominated or else they will realise that they are stronger and rise up (the Bolshevic Revolution and the French Revolution come to mind). A democracy controls the people by letting them have a say in who governs and changing who governs often enough that the people have no cause to rise up (or can do so peacefully through election). So if they have a problem with a ruler, then they have only themselves to blame. This is the stability in a democratic system: it prevents popular uprising (usually).

The second issue that you are confusing the first with, is the effective use of that power for the people. If you do not have the capacity in your system to go against the will of the people, then you have not the capacity to make the right decision. You may make the popular decision, but not the RIGHT decision. The theory of democracy is that all citizens are rational and intelligent. They make the best choices that they are able to make after considering the options. Two problems with that in reality: 1) the options are usually presented rhetorically (and you don't find it strange that rhetoric and logic are no longer taught in schools?) which makes it difficult to make an accurate decision or find accurate data and 2) the party system forces people to make irrational decisions. You either vote for the party that will kill all the puppies or the one that will kill all the kittens. In a three party system, you can also vote for the party that will kill all the bunnies. The logical fallacy of limited options is built right into the system! How can you have reasonable decisions in that environment?

The party system, BTW, is essentially an oligarchy in disguise. Abolish that, and your ideas on true democracy may have merit.

Originally Posted by Jeff

This doesn't seem to have actually happened. Democracy has a pretty good track record, and there's no need to evoke a French Revolution scenario.

How about a Rwandan one? Or a US one?

Originally Posted by Jeff

That kind of thing is a consequence of the 'state oriented' thinking we should have less of, rather than the 'mob'.

Really? If the people of California significantly outnumber the people of Utah, regardless of their geography, don't you think that the Californian viewpoint will prevail in a general election?

Originally Posted by Jeff

Which begs the question of what other system brings qualified individuals to power. Hereditary monarchy obviously doesn't, and I fail to understand how anybody could be in favor of it. The ability for any person to 'choose for another' is reduced in our democratic system, since it requires consensus, and our system of laws provides the checks to trampling individual rights. I think we have the right system here.

The theoretical system is the Philosopher Kings of Socrates (though this has not been shown to be viable in the long term). I would advocate the modern Constitutional Monarchy as the ideal form of government, with an active, rather then passive, benevolent monarch. The elected Republic has been tried and failed in the past.

Hope this helps.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by jBirch

If She considers these issues to be in the best interests of Her people, ...That She allows Parliament to choose actions that She disagrees with is the height of the point that I'm making.

The point I'm making is not about self-interest, it's about absence from actual participation in government. You claim the Queen has a meaningful role in UK government and I deny that, giving a bunch of examples where the country swung from one side of the pendulum to the other, yet she never intervened. I conclude that her role in government is essentially as a figurehead. Show me otherwise.

Originally Posted by jBirch

Why?

Answered above. Your model is a figurehead.

Originally Posted by jBirch

You're confusing two issues: one, the origin of power is (and has always been in all political systems) the people.

Well, that's flat-out wrong. In monarchy, the origin of power was the divine right of kings. "Le etat c'est moi", as they used to say.

Originally Posted by jBirch

A dictator controls the people by force. The people choose to follow this system.

That's self contradictory. If the dictator (who might be a hereditary king, BTW) controls by force, then the people have no choice.

Originally Posted by jBirch

The problem with a dictator is that the people must always be dominated or else they will realise that they are stronger and rise up (the Bolshevic Revolution and the French Revolution come to mind). A democracy controls the people by letting them have a say in who governs and changing who governs often enough that the people have no cause to rise up (or can do so peacefully through election). So if they have a problem with a ruler, then they have only themselves to blame. This is the stability in a democratic system: it prevents popular uprising (usually).

Originally Posted by jBirch

The second issue that you are confusing the first with, is the effective use of that power for the people. If you do not have the capacity in your system to go against the will of the people, then you have not the capacity to make the right decision. You may make the popular decision, but not the RIGHT decision. The theory of democracy is that all citizens are rational and intelligent. They make the best choices that they are able to make after considering the options. Two problems with that in reality: 1) the options are usually presented rhetorically (and you don't find it strange that rhetoric and logic are no longer taught in schools?) which makes it difficult to make an accurate decision or find accurate data and 2) the party system forces people to make irrational decisions. You either vote for the party that will kill all the puppies or the one that will kill all the kittens. In a three party system, you can also vote for the party that will kill all the bunnies. The logical fallacy of limited options is built right into the system! How can you have reasonable decisions in that environment?

This analogy is completely spurious. For starters, the theory of democracy is NOT "all citizens are rational and intelligent", rather that a majority is. You assume without proof that your substitute authority figures themselves would make superior decisions, and that information presented to them is not also done in a way to influence their behavior. Several posts ago I asked you "who gets to say what the right answer is", and that still hasn't been answered. So, you defer the people's authority to a non-accountable authority figure who kills all the bunnies and the puppies regardless of anyone's input. Pah!

Originally Posted by jBirch

The party system, BTW, is essentially an oligarchy in disguise. Abolish that, and your ideas on true democracy may have merit.

Prove either of those assertions, please.

Originally Posted by jBirch

How about a Rwandan one? Or a US one?

How about Kaiser Bill? Or Nero? Or any of the Tsars? You need to move to demonstrate causality, and you haven't done so. If the Duke of Windsor had had the kind of power you recommend, he wouldn't have abdicated, and he would have turned over the UK to Germany in a heartbeat (since he was a guest and sympathizer).

Originally Posted by jBirch

Really? If the people of California significantly outnumber the people of Utah, regardless of their geography, don't you think that the Californian viewpoint will prevail in a general election?

To which there is the recourse of the courts. Look for example at water law, which is fiercely contested in the West. It's not all about majority rule - we have a system of checks and balances.

Originally Posted by jBirch

The theoretical system is the Philosopher Kings of Socrates (though this has not been shown to be viable in the long term). I would advocate the modern Constitutional Monarchy as the ideal form of government, with an active, rather then passive, benevolent monarch. The elected Republic has been tried and failed in the past.

Since the concept of Philosopher King has been around for a few thousand years and has never been found in the wild, I would say that it's a dead idea, and to my mind, a fascist one. The idea of turning power over to royalty is implicitly racist, though I'm sure you don't intend it that way. How do you think it sounds to recommend putting such power in the sole hands of the limited ethnicity segment that is arbitrarily called "royal". Talk about disenfranchising other races and religions! The system you seem to recommend puts power in a central, unaccountable, authority figure who cannot be replaced.

The elected Republic is the dominant political system in the civilised portions of the world, with some variations in scheme, but all with the idea that power not only comes from the people, but that the individuals representing the people are directly accountable to the people's will.

Any libertarians want to chime in on this?

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Jeff

The point I'm making is not about self-interest, it's about absence from actual participation in government. You claim the Queen has a meaningful role in UK government and I deny that, giving a bunch of examples where the country swung from one side of the pendulum to the other, yet she never intervened. I conclude that her role in government is essentially as a figurehead. Show me otherwise.

What evidence would you accept that would convince you this were so? Are you saying that, because HRH has not vetoed a bit legislation that she is useless as a governmental figure?

Originally Posted by Jeff

Well, that's flat-out wrong. In monarchy, the origin of power was the divine right of kings. "Le etat c'est moi", as they used to say.

That's self contradictory. If the dictator (who might be a hereditary king, BTW) controls by force, then the people have no choice.

Cool off for a sec. Are you really telling me that a monarch derives their power from God? That if you don't do what the monarch says a bolt of lighting from the great beyond will strike you down? The *legitimacy* to rule may have been espoused as being from God, but the power was in actuality derived from the people's willingness to submit to that rule. All governments rely on the people's consent to be ruled. Whether that consent is gathered through fear or love or whatever, is besides the point. I suggest you study the nature of power for a while to understand it a bit better. Start with Machiavelli.

My overall contention is that someone trained from birth to lead is going to do a better job then someone who can merely convince people that they are ok to lead, yet lack the training to do so. That this should be hereditary is where I agree with your argument: it should not.

Originally Posted by Jeff

Prove either of those assertions, please.

Fine.

Oligarchy:

rule by a few members of a community or group. When referring to governments, the classical definition of oligarchy, as given for example by Aristotle, is of government by a few, usually the rich, for their own advantage. It is compared with both aristocracy, which is defined as government by a few chosen for their virtue and ruling for the general good, and various forms of democracy, or rule by the people. In practice, however, almost all governments, whatever their form, are run by a small minority of members. From this perspective, the major distinction between oligarchy and democracy is that in the latter, the elites compete with each other, gaining power by winning public support. The extent and type of barriers impeding those who attempt to join this ruling group is also significant.

-- The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.

I would ask, what are the barriers to becoming a representative for a particular party (not a member, but someone on the ticket) and what are the barriers to becoming the Presidental nominee for that same party? If they are substantially financial (which I contend that they are) then only those with wealth may participate in the ruling class and the party system creates a de facto oligarchy.

Your arguments about democracy assume that people will vote for whomever they feel is the best candidate. In fact, they assume a lot. They assume that whomever is in power is not able to convince the majority to do something irrational (like make homosexuality a felony) or kill all the members of a particular minority. They assume that people can not be influenced along these lines. Aristotle actually lumped democracy as one of three "evil" forms of government (the other two being Ochlocracy and Tyranny). The original Axis of Evil.

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/030927-6.htm

What makes a nation more stable then anything else in the world, is not the representation, nor even the political system, but the concept of the Rule Of Law with the correlated concept of equality under the law. That no-one is above the law and that laws must be interpreted and may be changed. Africa has shown this in stark relief.

Originally Posted by Jeff

To which there is the recourse of the courts. Look for example at water law, which is fiercely contested in the West. It's not all about majority rule - we have a system of checks and balances.

And who created the laws that the courts uphold? The majority perhaps?

Originally Posted by Jeff

Since the concept of Philosopher King has been around for a few thousand years and has never been found in the wild, I would say that it's a dead idea, and to my mind, a fascist one. The idea of turning power over to royalty is implicitly racist, though I'm sure you don't intend it that way. How do you think it sounds to recommend putting such power in the sole hands of the limited ethnicity segment that is arbitrarily called "royal". Talk about disenfranchising other races and religions! The system you seem to recommend puts power in a central, unaccountable, authority figure who cannot be replaced.

I see your ad hominem attack and raise you a logical fallacy: because it has not been done in the past, does not mean that it will not be done in the future, nor does it mean that it is wrong. I'll even throw in a fact to counter your premise, just to sweeten the pot: the Buddhists (and Tibetans by proxy) select the Dalai Lama this way. It's worked quite well for them, wouldn't you say?

Originally Posted by Jeff

The elected Republic is the dominant political system in the civilised portions of the world, with some variations in scheme, but all with the idea that power not only comes from the people, but that the individuals representing the people are directly accountable to the people's will.

So China isn't civilised, eh?

At any rate, I think that we are on un-reconcilable sides of the fence on this one and that our discussion has taken on tones of religion and belief. Let's cut our loses and scat, eh? Before someone sics the political Inquisition on us? *grin*

Take it easy.

[Soldier]

Or worse - the political Inquartata!

[keith]

Originally Posted by jBirch

In Canada, the Executive Branch is the Queen and the legislative branch is headed by the Prime Minister. Because the Queen is not elected, She doesn't feel the need to strike down every bit of legislation or introduce new ones. She merely executes Her Executive authority to confirm that legislation isn't outrageous and that the will of the majority people is actually good for all the people.

snip

you have mentioned the queen a couple of times as the notional head of state. Notional is what matters - royal consent is not going to be withheld on legislation in canada or the UK, or anywhere else dear old Liz is in charge. It just won't happen - well maybe for the reintroduction of slavery but that is probably about it. She'll even happily sign on the dotted line to make you a republic if you so wish.

The appointed upper house is a different issue but it has its own set of problems - I am assuming that canada is like the UK where the lower house can stuff any legislation past the upper house if it so decides. Didn't Brian Mulroney appoint a few extra senators to get the sales tax through?

The relative superiority of parliamentry government is of course obvious.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by jBirch

What evidence would you accept that would convince you this were so? Are you saying that, because HRH has not vetoed a bit legislation that she is useless as a governmental figure?

No, I'm saying that HRH has never done anything to either advance or reject any legislation whatsoever. She has effectively no role here. The evidence that would convince me otherwise would be some evidence that she got involved in the policies of the country and their implementation - the stuff that is actually done by the elected government. Where is the legislation she brought forward or had squashed?

No, I'm not saying "useless as a government figure". One could say "useful in a symbolic sense"

Originally Posted by jBirch

Cool off for a sec. Are you really telling me that a monarch derives their power from God?

This has nothing to do with me, that's what they used to say! The "divine right of kings" was the basis of their power and why their subjects had to let them rule. Consider the British royal family motto "Dieu et mon droit" (since Henry VI): the king owes his royalty to no power other than God and his own heredity, and was therefore subject to no earthly power or monarch. That's the actual doctrine that was espoused. Not my fault.

Originally Posted by jBirch

That if you don't do what the monarch says a bolt of lighting from the great beyond will strike you down? The *legitimacy* to rule may have been espoused as being from God, but the power was in actuality derived from the people's willingness to submit to that rule. All governments rely on the people's consent to be ruled. Whether that consent is gathered through fear or love or whatever, is besides the point. I suggest you study the nature of power for a while to understand it a bit better. Start with Machiavelli.

I suggest you study your history of the British royal system, and that of others. It's a very, very modern concept to say that the crown gets its legitemacy from the people.

All governments rely on the people's consent to be ruled? That's ridiculous - ask somebody from Soviet Union days if they consented, unless you have such a wide definition of "consent" that it includes "under fear for one's life".

Originally Posted by jBirch

My overall contention is that someone trained from birth to lead is going to do a better job then someone who can merely convince people that they are ok to lead, yet lack the training to do so. That this should be hereditary is where I agree with your argument: it should not.

Well, how do the current examples of royals stack up on this test? Not to pick on the British royal family other than they're the most familiar to me, they show no particular aptitude for understanding the issues facing the UK, haven't particularily applied themselves either.

Now, on the part we agree on: great, but can you call it royalty or monarchy if they're not selected by birth? I know that peerages and other honors in the UK can be given to "commoners" (eg: Baroness Thatcher was "ennobled"); are you suggesting that the future king be picked from the (smarter parts of) the population? Well, that's pretty cool, but I don't know if "monarchy" is the way to describe it.

Originally Posted by jBirch

Oligarchy:

rule by a few members of a community or group. When referring to governments, the classical definition of oligarchy, as given for example by Aristotle, is of government by a few, usually the rich, for their own advantage. It is compared with both aristocracy, which is defined as government by a few chosen for their virtue and ruling for the general good, and various forms of democracy, or rule by the people. In practice, however, almost all governments, whatever their form, are run by a small minority of members. From this perspective, the major distinction between oligarchy and democracy is that in the latter, the elites compete with each other, gaining power by winning public support. The extent and type of barriers impeding those who attempt to join this ruling group is also significant.

-- The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.

Oh dear - the last two sentences of the quote make it quite plain that democracy and the party system are not an oligarchy. There are few barriers to joining a party - they actually want people to join, and democracies compete for public support. The definition you quoted disproves your allegation (I would add that the parties do not exercise control: the Dems have darn little control over diddleysquat right now, for example).

Originally Posted by jBirch

I would ask, what are the barriers to becoming a representative for a particular party (not a member, but someone on the ticket) and what are the barriers to becoming the Presidental nominee for that same party? If they are substantially financial (which I contend that they are) then only those with wealth may participate in the ruling class and the party system creates a de facto oligarchy.

It's quite true that finances are a tremendous barrier, but you can join "the oligarchy" very easily; and it's not personal wealth that's the ticket for entry, but the ability to get other people's public support in the form of money. By Columbia dictionary entry, again, not oligarch. What surprises me about this line of reasoning is that your preferred alternative is monarchy - the most explicit form of oligarchy available. You can't join, and you don't need public support to get the job. If the party system is an oligarchy, then your preferred system must be even more so.

Originally Posted by jBirch

Your arguments about democracy assume that people will vote for whomever they feel is the best candidate. In fact, they assume a lot. They assume that whomever is in power is not able to convince the majority to do something irrational (like make homosexuality a felony) or kill all the members of a particular minority.

Not so. There is a constituency that would vote for somebody who could make homosexuality a felony, and, considering the sodomy laws that used to be in place everywhere (gee, did they finally get rid of them in Texas?) they actually did vote for people who made being homosexual a felony.

Originally Posted by jBirch

They assume that people can not be influenced along these lines. Aristotle actually lumped democracy as one of three "evil" forms of government (the other two being Ochlocracy and Tyranny). The original Axis of Evil.

Then Aristotle was a fool, to call democracy evil. Or, I should be fair: he lived in a society in which women had no political rights and where much of the population was slaves. We're much more enlightened now.

Originally Posted by jBirch

What makes a nation more stable then anything else in the world, is not the representation, nor even the political system, but the concept of the Rule Of Law with the correlated concept of equality under the law. That no-one is above the law and that laws must be interpreted and may be changed. Africa has shown this in stark relief.

On this point, finally something with which I wholeheartedly agree.

Originally Posted by jBirch

And who created the laws that the courts uphold? The majority perhaps?

In general, but not always directly. Consider Brown vs. Board of Ed. "Equality of the law" was a principle in law, but there was a time that nobody ever would have considered that it could be applied this way. Or, "Loving vs. Virginia", which ended Virginia's "anti-miscgenation" laws. These are wonderful examples of how those checks and balances work.

Originally Posted by jBirch

I see your ad hominem attack and raise you a logical fallacy: because it has not been done in the past, does not mean that it will not be done in the future, nor does it mean that it is wrong. I'll even throw in a fact to counter your premise, just to sweeten the pot: the Buddhists (and Tibetans by proxy) select the Dalai Lama this way. It's worked quite well for them, wouldn't you say?

Ad hominem? Moi? I specifically said I imputed no racist motivation, but that it was an unintended consequence.

You certainly do have a logical fallacy here: you call a thriving form of government as "tried and failed", and refer to a "never worked ever, since classical times" as a superier alternative? For what the Tibetans (and not all Buddhists do, BTW), that's surely their business, but it's how they select the head of their religion.

Originally Posted by jBirch

So China isn't civilised, eh?

It's certainly not a democratic, elected republic. Now, there's your oligarchy! And, we know that there's a lot of desire there for democracy, but it's been bloodily suppressed.

Originally Posted by jBirch

At any rate, I think that we are on un-reconcilable sides of the fence on this one and that our discussion has taken on tones of religion and belief. Let's cut our loses and scat, eh? Before someone sics the political Inquisition on us? *grin*

Okay by me. It really does boggle my mind that I'm communicating with someone recommending a monarchy for the US, but, what the heck...

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Or worse - the political Inquartata!

Shush .. don't wake him!

[Artisan]

FYI

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by jeff

Since the concept of Philosopher King has been around for a few thousand years and has never been found in the wild, I would say that it's a dead idea, and to my mind, a fascist one. The idea of turning power over to royalty is implicitly racist, though I'm sure you don't intend it that way. How do you think it sounds to recommend putting such power in the sole hands of the limited ethnicity segment that is arbitrarily called "royal". Talk about disenfranchising other races and religions! The system you seem to recommend puts power in a central, unaccountable, authority figure who cannot be replaced.

The elected Republic is the dominant political system in the civilised portions of the world, with some variations in scheme, but all with the idea that power not only comes from the people, but that the individuals representing the people are directly accountable to the people's will.

Any libertarians want to chime in on this?

You seem to be doing fine in arguing against a monarchy I will say that eventually any form of hereditary government must produce a tyrant. That such a one's reign might be short, is irrelevant. The psycholgical harm from such a ruler, would cause such damage as to render the American People unrecognizable to their forefathers beacause of the base change in their system of values. (that's kinda' wordy, ain't it? )

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Cool off for a sec. Are you really telling me that a monarch derives their power from God? That if you don't do what the monarch says a bolt of lighting from the great beyond will strike you down? The *legitimacy* to rule may have been espoused as being from God, but the power was in actuality derived from the people's willingness to submit to that rule. All governments rely on the people's consent to be ruled. Whether that consent is gathered through fear or love or whatever, is besides the point. I suggest you study the nature of power for a while to understand it a bit better. Start with Machiavelli.

As a philosophical point one can say that the (majority of the) people get the government they deserve. As to a divine right, I think you overlook the problem(?) of faith. Even in this cynical time a charismatic figure could convince the people of his ascent to power as being the will of God, thereby justifying all manner of madness (i.e. Hitler).

Originally Posted by jBirch

My overall contention is that someone trained from birth to lead is going to do a better job then someone who can merely convince people that they are ok to lead, yet lack the training to do so. That this should be hereditary is where I agree with your argument: it should not.

Many of our politicians here were groomed from birth to be Presidents. Some have succeeded, some haven't. The problem with these to the manor born "leaders", is that many times they see themselves as caretakers; they must save the hoi-polloi from themselves. It is their duty, a noblese oblige. All well and good to hold that viewpoint, as much good can come from it; however, when in a position of leadership these types show a tendency to steamroll over others. My way or the highway. Fine in the private sector where the (free)marketplace rules, untenable in a free country.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by jeff

We're much more enlightened now.

... nahh, too easy.

[Epee_Pox]

If I got the chance to re-write the Constitution...

The President would still be elected by the states, but instead of a winner-take all approach I would break it down by congressional district. That way, geographically distinct populations within states would be more likely to have a voice.

Each state would get one Electoral vote per Congressional district.

The winner of the popular vote of each district would be that district's candidate.

The candidate who garnered the most districts nationwide would win the election.

Upside, if you are a Democrat in southern Texas, or a Republican in upstate New York, your vote will not be such a waste -- the other parts of your state that now make the state's vote a foregone conclusion would have no effect on your individual district.

This would make people who now are less likely to vote, because they don't see the point of voting Democrat in Texas or Republican in New York, more likely to make their voices heard.

(I'm always in favor of gaming the system so that people's voices are more likely to be heard. I am not, however, in favor of gaming the system to reflect what we think they would have said had they spoken up.)

[mrbiggs]

You've got to be ****ing kidding me.

I come in here and I see a thread titled "Electoral Colledge", and I open up the thread, fingers ready to lay a can of angry internet insults on whoever was stupid enough to not put enough effort into the thread to spell the title correctly, and I see that it was a 16 year old me.

The shame...the shame...