Gunco Forums banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Friend of MCMXI
Joined
·
8,717 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul226.html

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Hands Off the Electoral College[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]by Rep. Ron Paul, MD[/font][font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][/font][font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/font]by Rep. Ron Paul, MD</FONT>
</FONT>

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The intense media focus on the divide between ?red? and ?blue? states in the wake of the presidential election has raised new questions regarding our federal voting system. One U.S. Senator has promised to introduce legislation to abolish the Electoral College, claiming it is an anachronism that serves no good purpose in modern politics. Her stated goal is ?simply to allow the popular will of the American people to be expressed every four years when we elect our president.? Many Americans agree, arguing that the man receiving the most votes should win; anything else would be unfair. In other words, they believe the American political system should operate as a direct democracy.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The problem, of course, is that our country is not a democracy. Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic, as any grammar school child knew just a few decades ago. Remember the Pledge of Allegiance: ?and to the Republic for which it stands?? The Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, not democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. On the contrary, Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: ?The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government? (emphasis added).[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or constitutional basis. Yet we have become obsessed with democracy, as though any government action would be permissible if a majority of voters simply approved of it. Democracy has become a sacred cow, a deity which no one dares question. Democracy, we are told, is always good. But the founders created a constitutionally limited republic precisely to protect fundamental liberties from the whims of the masses, to guard against the excesses of democracy. The Electoral College likewise was created in the Constitution to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The President was to be elected by the states rather than the citizenry as a whole, with votes apportioned to states according to their representation in Congress. The will of the people was to be tempered by the wisdom of the Electoral College.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]By contrast, election of the President by pure popular vote totals would damage statehood. Populated areas on both coasts would have increasing influence on national elections, to the detriment of less populated southern and western states. A candidate receiving a large percentage of the popular vote in California and New York could win a national election with very little support in dozens of other states! A popular vote system simply would intensify the populist pandering which already dominates national campaigns. [/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Not surprisingly, calls to abolish the Electoral College system are heard most loudly among left elites concentrated largely on the two coasts. Liberals favor a very strong centralized federal government, and have contempt for the concept of states' rights (a contempt now shared, unfortunately, by the Republican Party). They believe in federalizing virtually every area of law, leaving states powerless to challenge directives sent down from Washington. The Electoral College system threatens liberals because it allows states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Citizens in southern and western states in particular tend to value individual liberty, property rights, gun rights, and religious freedom, values which are abhorrent to the collectivist elites. The collectivists care about centralized power, not democracy. Their efforts to discredit the Electoral College system are an attempt to limit the voting power of pro-liberty states.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]December 28, 2004[/font]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
Hands off is right. They need to keep the election rules that have been in place in this country for years intack. Now what we have to work on is the popular vote counting process and to keep it honest and not controlled by NWO voting machines and have the true vote of the people counted honestly.Our government has been fixing elections in other countries of the world for years, do we really think they don't control ours????????? Ak'sr4me
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,362 Posts
Rep. Ron Paul is the one politician who speaks well for the people and the country. He is heads and shoulders above all others. He protects the rights of gun owners and stands up for the constitution and Bill Of Rights as it was written and for whom it was written. Ron Paul for President in 2008!
 

·
Friend of MCMXI
Joined
·
8,717 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Sounds like a pretty sharp cookie. Think he'll run?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
"The problem, of course, is that our country is not a democracy."

Can you say "Democratic republic"?

Apparently not.

A republic is a valid form of government, in my estimation, to the extent that it relies upon democracy to establish its representation. If you don't agree, you'll love the People's Republic of China. And, of course, der Fuhrer was the direct representative of das Volk's will.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
I've always like this when the issue of republican form of government comes up:


"It can be maintained that in setting aside every political writer from Plato to Montesquieu, Madison was, in these two essays, being more than a little presumptuous, even arrogant. But in truth, because the Framers had devised a 'novus ordo seclorum', they had rendered all previous political vocabulary obsolete as it pertained to the government of the United States. That government defied categorization by any existing nomenclature: it was not a monarchy, nor an aristocracy, nor a democracy, neither was it a mixed form of government, nor yet a confederated republic. It was what it was, and if Madison was presumptuous in appropriating the word 'republic' to describe it, he was also a prophet, for thenceforth 'republic' would mean precisely what Madison said it meant." Henry Steele Commager: "The United States Constitution is the greatest monument to political science in the history of literature."


Now, since about 1900, we have been backing away from it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Custer said:
...Now, since about 1900, we have been backing away from it.
Actually, I'd say since 1860.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
I think the so called reform movements such as referendums and recalls were at the turn of the century. So were more direct votes on taxes. IIRC, direct election of US Senators was about 1913 or so. Probably some other democratic examples if I put some thought into it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
Canadian conservatives want their country to adopt an electoral system, so less populated Provinces will have greater voice in elections.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top