Mark Zenier wrote:
Because House leader Hasturt is setting up the rules so that
the only laws the House will consider are those that are approved
by a majority of the House Republicans. Not those that are supported
by a majority of the House, should the Democrats find enough support
on the Republican side, only those that The Party approves of.

Let's see how life on the other side is. Republicans were squelched
just that way since about 1962. But to all appearances, the Repubs
aren't doing it as effectively.

Ever hear the phrase "No Taxation without Representation?".**If*my*
congressman has no possible voice in government, the government
isn't legitimate.

Welcome to my life. The only representation I ever had in the Senate
just left, knowing the folly of being a Republican in a Daley-owned
state. Although I finally have a reasonable rep in the House now...

--
Britney Spears' Guide to Semiconductor Physics
http://britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm

"m II" wrote in message
news:bzdrd.15127$cE3.9140@clgrps12...
-=jd=- wrote:

Ever hear the
phrase "The majority rules"? x

The Electoral College was installed to prevent just that from
happening. In that way, New York can't push North Dakota around.

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution were written in such a way as
to protect the minority from the abuse of the majority.

It's not working.

Like the man said:

Real Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.


Added to by Edward R. Murrow:

A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.





mike

m II wrote in message news:bzdrd.15127$cE3.9140@clgrps12...
-=jd=- wrote:

Ever hear the
phrase "The majority rules"? x

The Electoral College was installed to prevent just that from
happening. In that way, New York can't push North Dakota around.

Actually, there were two primary reasons for the electoral college.
One was similar to your argument, to ensure that populous states could
not automatically dictate to the less populous states what the federal
government would look like in the executive branch. This, back when
individual states were a lot more likely to reflect autonomous
patterns of government. Nowadays, things like slavery, which really
set apart states one from another, are much less common, and
homogeneity means that, except for patterns of industry, most states
are becoming more or less alike (if not there yet).

The other is that, back then, communication between states and the
federal government was slow, and persons from one area might not be
familiar with the candidates from another area. The electoral college
idea was thought to be a way of softening the effects of slow
communications and provinciality (I'm sorry, I am not able to explain
this well without a review in front of me), but in the 21st century,
with mass media controlling everything and information at most
everyone's fingertips (something the founding fathers could not
envision), this has become something of an anachronistic rule as well.

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution were written in such a way as
to protect the minority from the abuse of the majority.

....true, but noting always that the majority still decides the overall
course of action. Ultimately, majority does (in most cases) rule,
with concessions to the minority. Frankly, this is sensible - it
attempts to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number, without
walloping those who may otherwise be on the short end of the stick.

Whether the electoral college is still necessary to ensure this is
debatable.

Like the man said:
Real Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
Added to by Edward R. Murrow:
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.

Both rather cynical, but then these are cynical times in which we
live.

Bruce Jensen


mike