02-19-2004, 02:02 AM
Hi,
Keep in mind that the USA is a republic, not a democracy. So, "one man, one vote" doesn't work in any sense. Consider an extreme case. Say that 51% of the population is Republican. Further, say that that split goes down through all levels and that there are no independent voters and that everyone votes the party line. Then 100% of the elected officials would be from the 51% of the population and the other 49% have no representation. While that example is extreme, the reality is fairly close to that. For instance, about 5% of the population is Libertarian which means that there should be about 25 members of congress from that party if congress indeed represented *all* the people. I believe that there is 1 Libertarian in congress. Other groups are even more lacking in representation.
The fundamental problem is that the founders did not anticipate the two party system. Many better systems than that of the USA could be devised. Fixing the electoral college would be but an insignificant step (how often has the electoral and popular vote gone in opposite directions, three time?) What needs to be fixed is the whole concept of this country, starting with the admission that the states are not States, but simply provinces. A form of government more representative of the actual distribution of the population and of their political beliefs would require a great restructuring of the nation, and those with the power to initiate the restructuring would be those in most danger of losing their job. There *might* be one congresscriter who would put the good of the nation ahead of his and his party's good. That hypothetical "good" congresscriter would, by embracing the reform, be committing political suicide.
Frankly, I think we're stuck with this system until its inequities brings the whole structure down. But that is often the only way that political change comes about.
--Pete
Keep in mind that the USA is a republic, not a democracy. So, "one man, one vote" doesn't work in any sense. Consider an extreme case. Say that 51% of the population is Republican. Further, say that that split goes down through all levels and that there are no independent voters and that everyone votes the party line. Then 100% of the elected officials would be from the 51% of the population and the other 49% have no representation. While that example is extreme, the reality is fairly close to that. For instance, about 5% of the population is Libertarian which means that there should be about 25 members of congress from that party if congress indeed represented *all* the people. I believe that there is 1 Libertarian in congress. Other groups are even more lacking in representation.
The fundamental problem is that the founders did not anticipate the two party system. Many better systems than that of the USA could be devised. Fixing the electoral college would be but an insignificant step (how often has the electoral and popular vote gone in opposite directions, three time?) What needs to be fixed is the whole concept of this country, starting with the admission that the states are not States, but simply provinces. A form of government more representative of the actual distribution of the population and of their political beliefs would require a great restructuring of the nation, and those with the power to initiate the restructuring would be those in most danger of losing their job. There *might* be one congresscriter who would put the good of the nation ahead of his and his party's good. That hypothetical "good" congresscriter would, by embracing the reform, be committing political suicide.
Frankly, I think we're stuck with this system until its inequities brings the whole structure down. But that is often the only way that political change comes about.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?