Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Billthedrill

“But selecting the President at the level of state government once more might serve to diffuse this accretion of power, hence it would likely be an existential threat to the current king-makers in the national party organizations and, especially lately, the media.”

You’re trying to make the argument that the state representatives are less corrupt and more wise than the people that vote for them. That is why it will never take. In SC, for instance, our state government is as bad (at least) as the Federal Government. California’s is certainly no better.

“A good deal of the current President’s adherents appear dissatisfied with him for not being able to wave his hand and have largesse fall from the sky into their waiting pockets. That is, after all, what they apparently voted for, which brings up a fair suspicion that perhaps they ought not to be voting at all if they don’t understand the actual issues and powers of the office for which they are voting.”

It goes further than that, I think. The informed and uninformed all voted for him. He embodied everything they looked for in a person to become president. He was very well educated, had an excellent temperament, was biracial, multinational, etc. etc. Poor people saw a black person who was the son of a single mother in several bad marriages and eventually raised by his grandparents. Academics saw the editor of the Harvard Law Review. Activists saw a community organizer. McCain saw someone who “wasn’t a threat.” Etc. etc. Now they all will have the opportunity to look at themselves. It will make them better voters and harder for them to make similar bad arguments in the future.


6 posted on 12/06/2010 10:19:01 PM PST by MontaniSemperLiberi (Moutaineers are Always Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: MontaniSemperLiberi
Oh, yes, certainly there is corruption in state government as well. Madison's view, if I understand it correctly, was that distributing the vote among a greater number of people served to protect against a single act of corruption, a single conspiracy, and not necessarily corruption altogether - the fellow couldn't possibly have been that naive. Publius - our Publius, the fellow above - touched on the reason this is a questionable approach - the advent of party politics has made such a broad conspiracy perfectly feasible if still more difficult. Before maybe 1800 a member from Virginia would have been relatively insulated against the dictates, say, of Governor Clinton's New York faction; these days, all may well be subsumed under an overall Democrat or Republican rubric.

We saw an example of that when the Massachusetts faction under Kennedy threw its weight toward the Chicago faction (0bama) and away from the New York faction (Hillary) in 2008, with respect to their party's Presidential candidacy. That would have had to happen inside the legislative chambers or even the Electoral College prior to the advent of party politics. There was a case we mentioned last week where it did - within the Democratic-Republican party the 1800 Presidential candidacy wasn't decided until it actually hit the Electoral College, to Jefferson's benefit and away from Burr's.

But more broadly speaking, there is no real guard against corruption at any level except the integrity of the individuals involved. Truly, a republican form of government does depend on the virtue of elected and elector. Where that fails, as I believe it has, no plan, however air-tight, can prevent corruption.

11 posted on 12/07/2010 11:38:24 AM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: MontaniSemperLiberi

I will take issue with the last portion of your commentary.
“Now they all will have the opportunity to look at themselves. It will make them better voters and harder for them to make similar bad arguments in the future”. I am not sure why you would conclude that just because the candidate they voted for turned out to be less than they expected that that in any way would make them a better voter, at least as it applies to the uninformed voter. There are way too many ignorant voters that should not have the right to vote, but since we will never see a return to the Hamiltonian approach to electing the president it seems that there is a greater need to educate all people on the concepts and ideals of Republicanism as well as the Free Market System. Social welfare and Progressivism needs to be dealt a death blow in this country. People need to know that you cannot just sit on your ass and expect a hand out.
So, no it does not make them a better voter. It may make them a more shrewd voter in the future unless they become more properly politically and economically educated. Why were we so surprised at Obama? He made it very clear that he is a Marxist-Socialist. The only part missing is that the left wing news media refused to expose this and most American voters were in blissful ignorance of this guys agenda. He was a corrupt community organizer in the corrupt Chicago political system. The same system known for losing some key votes in the Nixon-Kennedy race in Cook County. Obama stinks and his legacy should be thrown in the trash heap of historical events that need to be forgotten, but remembered only for the Draconoian damage rendered to this country and its lasting values.


13 posted on 12/09/2010 3:25:36 PM PST by lnsguy54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson