Posted on 09/06/2004 2:44:52 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Note: This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley.
Retro, Metro. Retro, Metro.
If those words seem familiar, you may have seen an ad campaign talking about a great divide in America.
The themes of the campaign are echoed in a new book titled The Great Divide: Retro Versus Metro America. It is written by entrepreneur John Sperling. Sperling argues that America has effectively become two nations. One nation that he labels Retro is traditional, religious, Southern and rural, opposed to abortion, taxes, and welfare. By contrast, Metros tend to be urban, tolerant, and secular, committed to excellence in the arts and sciences. According to Sperling, Metro-Americans produce the majority of the countrys tax revenue. He laments, some $200 billion a year in taxes flow from Metro states to Retro states. If America is ever to be a true United States , he asserts, it must embrace these Metro values of inclusion and respect.
The Retro/Metro campaign exposes a great role reversal from the last fifty years of liberalism. Traditional liberalism said the wealthy should share their money with the poor. But the new liberal, represented by Sperling, resents poor, blue-collar Americans. And they resent the fact that so-called Retro states with their smaller populations enjoy the same number of senators as Metro states. And they resent their electoral votes.
In fact the Retro/Metro campaign appears to be a thinly veiled assault on the Electoral College. The danger of this trend is exposed by Newsweek columnist George Will. Will points to a proposal on the ballot in Colorado to change the current winner-take-all system of allocating electoral votes. Instead, the states electoral votes would be divided according to each candidates percentage of the popular vote.
This is a bad idea, Will says, not only because of its partisan aims, but because it ignores how the electoral vote system nurtures crucial political virtues.
As Will explains, Americas constitutional system aims not merely for majority rule but for rule by certain kinds of majorities. It aims for majorities suited to moderate, consensual governance of a heterogeneous . . . nation with myriad regional and other diversities. All 537 persons elected to national officethe president, senators, and representativesare chosen by majorities that reflect the nations federal nature. They are elected by majorities within states or within states congressional districts.
As political scientist Judith Best notes, the electoral-vote system, in combination with the winner-take-all allocation used by nearly every state, creates a distribution condition. Without it, politicians could win national office simply by obtaining the votes of Metro citizenspeople in states like New York and California. Citizens in smaller states would lose any chance of real representation.
While the liberal Retro/Metro campaign thinks this is a great idea, our founders did not. They wanted to prevent various factions from being able to unite their votes across state lines to create a tyranny of the majority. The Retro/Metro campaign is, in effect, a power grab, an effort to disenfranchise the poor and those of faith. We need to warn our neighbors and explain why abandoning the Electoral College is a dangerous ideaone we should reject.
I'm sure the "tolerant" Mr. Sperling is a big fan of Mama T, so I'm sure he won't mind if I, on behalf of the South and Midwest, tell him to shove it.
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
The Electoral College is a firebreak around states with high rates of vote fraud. Keep it.
Big cities would rule the roost. Another check on power would be lost. Bad idea.
C'mon...think, people...THINK.
Why?
The system isn't broke just because Democrats lose elections.
"The Electoral College is a firebreak around states with high rates of vote fraud. Keep it."
Let me hear an Amen! A Fuller appreciation of the wisdom of our Founding Fathers was the biggest lesson I drew from the battle of Florida. George F. Will uses too many 25-cent words stating his case but the truth is if it came down to a simple poplular majority deciding a presidential election New Hampshire and Iowa would never see another candidate. It would only be necessary to campaign on the two coasts and a few spots in the Mid-west and corrupt big-city machines would routinely decide elections.
As everyone knows, democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
The Electoral College will not be abolished. The states that gain the most from it will not ratify it. It only takes 13 state legislatures to block an amendment. In fact it is unlikely to get anywhere near the 2/3rds vote (67) in the Senate in order to be proposed. Remember the Senate is allocated on the basis of equal repesentation of states not population. I really seriously doubt an amendment abolishing Electoral would even get out of committee.
"The Electoral College is a firebreak around states with high rates of vote fraud. Keep it."
"Let me hear an Amen! "
AMEN!
And while some may like the congressional district apportionment in states idea, I'd just point out that that idea is incentive for further gerrymandering, so no dice on that either.
The founding fathers did it just right. It helps to prevent BLOCKS from ruling the election. 2000 was the perfect example of the wisdom of our founding fathers.
The forefathers ROCKED!
I'll give them the "arts" (as defined by them), but withhold ANY claim to excellence or interest in science. Just think about the interest in excellence (or science) by those on welfare or those who champion the cause of bigger gov't.
I daresay we certainly got a taste of their "tolerance" last week in Manhattan.
The Electoral college protects the smaller states and the middle class. Without the Electoral College the individuals who rely on largess would develop a Socialistic or Communistic form of government.
The Electoral College system protects from total redistribution of wealth.
The Electoral college protects the smaller states and the middle class. Without the Electoral College the individuals who rely on largess would develop a Socialistic or Communistic form of government.
The Electoral College system protects from total redistribution of wealth.
It's not going to happen. Period.
Since the States have to vote on any amendment, and an amendment requires 3/4 of all the States, it only takes 14 smaller States to kill the change.
If anything the electoral college is underpowered these days. New Hampshire and Iowa only see candidates because of tradition. There are a bunch of states with only 3 votes that never do see a candidate, because they're only worth 3 electoral votes.
I don't think most folks understand this, but even with a the electoral college, you can lose in 39 states and still become president with the remaining 11, provided you take the right 11 states.
Sure, sounds like a great way to start the revolution. The cities try to impose their will, and the farmers simply stop feeding them. Knock out a couple of water mains and most American cities would starve in months if not just weeks. What will they do, buy guns from Wal-Mart and put themselves up against guys that have been shooting for 20+ years? Sounds good to me, bring on the revolution and we can re-negotiate after the cities fall.
In one word..........NO !!!!!
If I knew how to make BIG graphics, I would be dangerous!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.