Bugsby wrote:The interests of urban people ARE more important than those of rural people. Why? Guess what? Because there are a shitload more of the former.
They are more important because there are more of them? Right. That makes sense. The amount of people that support a claim has nothing to do with the validity of that claim. So just because there are more people interested in urban affairs, does that mean that rural affairs deserve no attention on the national level? No. And under a popular vote, that is exactly what would happen.
You do know what a federal government is, right? That means that the states have power as well. The nation is not run by the national government. Even allowing for a broad interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause, most of the power in this country is weilded by the states, not by the national government. Why does this matter? Because the states have rights, too. That's right. States rights do exist outside the context of 1850s politics. They have a right to fair representation. Just like in congress, the senate is designed to give states power not based on population, but based on their status as states. The EC is an extension of this, whereby rural states, like Montana, are entitled to their fair share of representation in national elections.
This also goes towards preventing a tyrrany of the majority. By making these smaller states have at least marginal clout (and lets face it... 3 electoral votes is peanuts) in national elections, is allows rural concerns to be expressed on a national level.
You could argue that all that matters is number of people one way vs number of people the other. That sounds like a nice system. But that's not how it works in America. The American system is created to preserve states' rights; to give a substantial amount of power to the state because it is a state. Statehood means more than lines on a map. Its an entire system of government functioning within the confines of the larger national government. The entire US system is created to recognize and respect that relationship between state and national. If I wanted to, I could say that not supporting the EC is un-American. But we've heard enough of that, now, haven't we?[/quote]
I say again:
WHAT THE FUCK DOES IT MATTER WHAT IS HISTORICALLY "AMERICAN"?
We are not a board full of flag-waving groupthinkers, are we? Yet none of you morons came crawling out from under a rock to state legal precedents when there were debates over whether universal sufferage is ideal.
All the ECers have are Appeals to Tradition is citing the past in a non-legal debate, and the Appeal to Popularity by saying "Well we wanna be with the kewl countries who don't use ze populah vut!"
Who the fuck cares?
Stop stating your conclusions as
a priori truths. They obviously are not.
And you guys are morons by treating the seperations of powers as somesort of ideological imperative; like an Eleventh Commandment lowered down onto Sinai. First of all, the Consitutional thing which is important here is the Great Compromise. That's what gives small states intrinsic power for merely being states; it is the fusion of the House and the Senate votes which create the electoral sum. That Compromise was a compromise; it was not somesort of ideological maxim to be followed at all costs. It was a necessary concession to form the union in the first place. That does not mean it is the fairest and most effective means to run a country.
In a representative democracy I believe the leadership should proportionally represent their citizenry. We should not trying to level the playing field; you are arguing the government MUST give some extra points to hicks just because. I argue there's no compelling reason to do that anymore.
To bring up the other features of Federalism is a red herring. I in no way am talking about the other facets of our system of government, and it is a slippery slope to argue changing the method of election our executive must compromise these other organs of government.,
