Arguments Against It: Crap. Seriously. Crap.

10/28/04 - Amendment 36 is on Colorado's ballot for next week. It looks like it won't go through, but at least it's there. Colorado might follow Maine and Nebraska (not too big on the Electoral points, but somebody has to set a precedent) in splitting its EC votes proportionally between candidates according to whom its citizens actually vote for.
I read the absolutely bollocks argument of Rowland Nethaway in The Waco Tribune the other week which he appeared to have directly lifted from the scary but hilarious site www.probush.com. The argument Nethaway adapted slightly is that Bush actually won the popular vote in 2000.

Ah, hem. Sorry. My throat got clogged by the bullshit. This argument is on the basis that if you look at a map of the US split into voting districts, you see only dots of Democratic blue majorities in a sea of Republican red. I guess I can understand how this might seem like an intelligent point, but I hope most folks would rebute with what should be the obvious: SO WHAT! BIG DEAL! CAN ANYONE SAY, "GERRYMANDERING"?

I'm dumbfounded by this type of noisey garbage. My fellow Texans hopefully recall the Republicans in the Texas Congress trying to redistrict last year in order to give the Republican Party more power in the state. Several Democrats kept leaving the state during the vote to prevent the legislature from voting on it because it was an ugly power grab by a group that is already in power in Texas.

Until this year, I have always voted for 3rd-party candidates for president. Why? Because it doesn't matter who I vote for. If you're a Texan and you're not a Republican supporter, then you are literally disenfranchised. Texas always goes Republican in the Electoral College.
"The Electoral College gives smaller states a bigger vote." What? Aside from the fact that the EC makes it not matter if I vote or not, how does this argument work when the fact of the matter is the presidential election puts in power the head of the Federal Executive branch who sits in power over all US citizens?

The most overt reason I could see for the EC existing was to give more power to aristocrats during slavery because slaves counted as 3/5ths of a person when the population was counted to decide how many EC points Mississippi or any other of the slave states got. Only now the aristocrats in power can't count their slaves but the EC still works for them.

BIG DEAL if the majority of voting districts had a majority of voters voting Republican. That only illustrates how this method of voting created by European nobility is even more corruptive of democracy than it appears on the surface. How can someone supportive of democracy defend a system permitting the Supreme Court to decide who sits in the White House while the reality that 543,895 more people voted for the Democratic candidate in 2000 makes no difference whatsoever?

Fuck the Electoral College. I'd like my vote to be counted thank you.


     [ Home ] [ Records ] [ Shows ] [ Ranting ] [ Films ]
[ Booking ] [ Contact/Purchase ] [ Links ]