[Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy
Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.
ljohnson at solution-consulting.com
Thu Nov 11 01:33:04 UTC 2004
RE: elec college, a good point. What good is it? The founding fathers
distrusted two things:
- government (jefferson)
- democracy (hamilton)
So the checks and balances are designed to prevent government from
getting strong and democracy from disenfranchising the minorities. When
people throw those aside, tragedy often results.
So the main advantage of the electoral college was to protect small
states. Shifts in the reality may have made those moot. But a change
requires a constitutional amendment, a nortoriously hard process.
Geraldine Reinhardt wrote:
> Re-electing "everyone" at a date no later than 2006 is a dangerous
> proposition especially if our country turns into one huge red zone
> with only tiny pockets for blues.
> I think the reason provisional votes were not counted was because Bush
> received the number of Electoral College votes he needed to win. If
> reform is needed, we should begin with a critical review of benefits
> from the Electoral College. From where I stand, I can't see any.
> Gerry Reinhart-Waller
> Independent Scholar
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Hovland"
> <shovland at mindspring.com>
> To: "'Geraldine Reinhardt'" <waluk at earthlink.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 9:54 AM
> Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy
>> The justification given for not doing a paper trail now was
>> that there wasn't time. As a working computer jock, I
>> don't buy that. This problem was spotted many months
>> before the election. Practical solutions were demonstrated
>> and rejected.
>> I think everyone who was on the ballot, both Democrat and
>> Republican, is there by fraud and that they should all be
>> required to stand again no later than 2006, this time with
>> hardened voting systems.
>> The other part of getting everyone to vote is that every vote must
>> be counted. As I recall the election was considered to be
>> settled even though many provisional votes weren't counted.
>> The excuse was that those votes probably wouldn't have
>> changed the outcome. That might have been true, but it is
>> also true that for people to believe in the system, no decision
>> should be finalized until all legitimate votes have been counted
>> and all possibility of fraud has been ruled out.
>> Steve Hovland
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Geraldine Reinhardt [SMTP:waluk at earthlink.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 8:59 AM
>> To: Steve Hovland
>> Cc: paleopsych at paleopsych.org
>> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] The prefection of democracy
>> I think most Americans, especially those who don't use computers on a
>> basis or who don't own one, like the idea of being "up to date".
>> They feel
>> a sense of pride and accomplishment when they complete their ballot via
>> machine and smug when they view another voter experiencing some
>> with the "new" technology.
>> A paper trail, similar to a readout tape on an adding machine,
>> sounded good
>> in theory but too costly to implement especially when less than 2% of
>> voting public actually used a paper ballot . As I mentioned
>> previously, in
>> my precinct, only 5 people had requested a paper ballot. This proved
>> to be
>> a bit annoying for me since there were 5 voting machines for the
>> majority of
>> voters, and 1 voting booth for those wishing a paper ballot. That could
>> have been one reason why the voting lines were so long.
>> It's humorous that you claim the majority in Congress were put there by
>> voting fraud. I wonder if they know who they are?
>> If the purpose of a democracy is to allow everyone, regardless of
>> race and
>> sex, the right to vote, then we may have achieved our goal, perfect
>> or not.
>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller
>> Independent Scholar
> paleopsych mailing list
> paleopsych at paleopsych.org
More information about the paleopsych