sometimes i am un-democratic. i dodge jury duty by going to school out-of-state and never coming home. i don't vote in local elections. i don't know who my senators are or my congressperson is. i don't even know if my town has a mayor or what form of government my town follows. in any case, i DID vote via absentee ballot in 2004 even though i know my vote wasn't necessarily needed in that typically democratic state.
one of my majors was public policy studies. we studied government, how it works, why it doesn't work, why it's inefficient, why it's still better than other systems, etc. etc. etc. we also studied economics and a lot of political theory. morality and ethics was a big part of this "what should we, as guardians of public civility and society, do for the betterment of the majority?" as was "how much do we sacrifice as a whole to cater to a specific minority who still count as part of our society?"
anyway, sometimes i am un-democratic because i think the delegates at the democrats' national convention (and republicans as well) should vote however they want. i also think the electoral college should be able to vote however they want. sometimes. i'm still undecided. i know, this is ridiculous. WHAT!?!?! OUR REPRESENTATIVES NOT VOTE THE WAY THE PEOPLE THEY'RE REPRESENTING WANT?!?!?!
but, for anyone not versed in us political history or whatnot, the whole electoral college thing totally confounded me in high school. why would the delegate count and the popular vote differ? how was that possible? how could such an undemocratic thing happen that if more people voted for Gore he still couldn't be president?
well, the electoral college delegates were originally chosen to vote the way they saw fit and NOT just as their constituencies wanted. when we (the US of A) were founded, the founding fathers deemed it necessary to safeguard election. votes for all, but some votes count more than others (reminiscent of super-delegates much?). the electoral college was put in place to guard against uneducated farmers' votes electing someone who might've been less than optimal for the position of commander-in-chief. because clearly educated electoral college members knew better than the average joe who would be best at being president of our grand ol' nation.
anyway, back to my undemocratic-ness. this whole superdelegate this can seem ridiculous bc how democratic is "my vote is bigger than your vote"? nonetheless, sometimes i think it's ok. SOMETIMES. like when idiotic people/states in the south/midwest all vote for the man who says things like,"
To those of you who received honors, awards and distinctions, I say, well done.
And to the C students, I say, you too can be president of the United States."-to Yale University graduates on Monday, May 21 2001.
"Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" —Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000.especially after reading, "What's the Matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank, i felt like, GAHHHHH AMERICA IS FULL OF IDIOTS WHO CHOOSE THEIR BEST FRIEND AS PRESIDENT INSTEAD OF THE SMARTEST/BEST FOR THE JOB!!!! it's like high school all over again. picking the popular kid instead of the smart, dedicated one. (except for when i was student council president in middle school - i was both popular AND smart haha).
anyway, i know the unelectability that accompanies apparent "elitism" (i.e. doukakis, gore, kerry) is inevitable in a country as retarded as ours. especially with states as big as texas with all their votes and backwards texans. re: map below. all the states with a sizable college-educated population votes BLUE=democrat (2004 election). and it looks like more states voted red but for a population breakdown check out this site and this one.
and as much as i would probably easily be labeled a "latte liberal" i'm much more for hillary than obama. his elitism (i.e. recent use of calling pennsylvanians "bitter) is showing a little too much. i also believe he's a little TOO cerebral for the job. a little too much ivory tower and not enough blue-collar. i can totally see him as an amaaaazing college professor but president, not so much. he's too skinny (to be president) but has the right build for nerdy professor.
anyway, i guess the main point (that i've definitely lost a grip on), is that i kindof think superdelegates SHOULD be allowed to vote independently of their constituency's wishes and shouldn't be penalized for it (voted out next term). (keep them anonymous? but that begs the question of accountability). anyway, since the original intention of the electoral college was to protect the uneducated farmers of the USA from their own uneducated vote, perhaps superdelegates (1 vote = 10,000 regular votes by recent estimates) should also be allowed to just vote independently in keeping with the founding fathers' original intent of our voting system. and yea it's not exactly the most democratic thing, but then again, recently, neither is our country as a whole.
Bushisms 1
Bushisms 2
Bushisms 3
2 comments:
"Their" uneducated vote? From the person who says Obama's "too skinny (to be president)." An "original intent" argument from a "latte liberal"? =P
BTW, if it was up to me, I'd go one step further and get rid of elections altogether. I kid you not. I blogged about it here.
No, Bush isn't the most qualified. So I assume you were a huge Romney supporter? You see that guy's resume? He looks and sounds absolutely presidential too.
Is voting against someone because of his public speaking gaffs that much worse than voting against someone because he looks like an ass in a tank? Both are supposed to imply that they're unfit to be commander-in-chief, right?
And why are fly-over state Bible-thumping gun-toting trailer-trash who vote for Bush considered "idiots" while the urban welfare-collecting weed-smoking Section-8 dwellers who vote for Kerry considered so smart? The polls tell us that high-school dropouts tend to vote Democrat while college grads tend to vote Republican. Those with MBA's tend to vote Republican while those with PhD's tend to vote Democrat. There's no all-encompassing reason why people vote the way they do, despite what political polemists like Thomas Frank would like us to believe.
You really are like those organic-food-eating going-abroad-to-teach-English Free-Tibet-protesters who can't stand the uncivilized masses but nevertheless the need to get those common folk universal health care is what you chat about with your gay friend while you sip on your latte on the way to yoga class. Nothing wrong with that. But you aren't supposed to admit it! You're exposing our deepest darkest secrets!
Post a Comment