>(3.) Our Constitution details the procedures associated with the
> Electoral College System for APPROXIMATING the democratic votes of the
> People. In pioneer times, the Electoral College was the only workable
> way to get the votes relayed to Washington. Before there was such
> thing as even a telegraph, it was electors on horseback, or nothing.
> But the SPIRIT of the Constitution demands that when technology—such
> as we have, now—enables the accurate counting of the votes of the
> People in a single day, that both the People AND democracy are best
> served by letting the popular votes decide elections! Any President
> who takes an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution",
> must preserve, protect, and defend the OBJECTIVES of the Constitution,
> NOT just the horse and buggy era… 'traditions' which are no longer
> serving the best interests of the People!
> There is no such thing as an 'Electoral College'. The DESIGN was for
> these various State Electors to NEVER come to a consensus, but instead
> to serve as a 'search committee' of sorts. The House of Representatives
> would then choose the president. This did not occur in practice (except
> once).
[D] Ditto the pedantry part in [C].
You are obviously confused.
Regard$,
--MJ
The art of politics, under democracy, is simply the art of ringing it. Two branches reveal themselves. There is the art of the demagogue, and there is the art of what may be called, by a shot-gun marriage of Latin and Greek, the demaslave. They are complementary, and both of them are degrading to their practitioners. The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots. The demaslave is one who listens to what these idiots have to say and then pretends that he believes it himself. -- H.L. Mencken
No comments:
Post a Comment