My My This Here Evan Bayh

Alrighty then, now this post is going to sound snippy and trite and perhaps even a bit arrogant so be warned. I don't mean to offend, but if I do I apologize well in advance. if you are thin skinned or cling to conventional wisdom like a man/woman overboard to a life raft or floating piece of debris, then you should run away right now. However, if you are willing to accept that reality may be different than you have been told, instructed/inculcated then what comes next is for you. I promise this to be a truly educational post.



After the jump.....


ok first some definitions because words have meanings and I want everyone to be on the same page.

taken from Dictionary.com:

Democracy:

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Republic:

1. 1. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
   2. A nation that has such a political order.
2. 1. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
   2. A nation that has such a political order.
3. often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.
4. An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.
5. A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters.

However I am going to revise the democracy definitions by getting rid of the "republic parts" of it

REVISED:

1. Government by the people, exercised directly
   
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.

Thats better and far more accurate especially when you study the root greek and latin words from which the two concepts are divided

Republic: "res publica" = The people's things
Democracy: "demos kratein" = The people rule
Thanks to David N. Mayer for the translations

Now that we have a specific set of definitions that do not cross over eachother, and we have the root words defined for us we can actually begin a rational argument based on evidence.








Ok here we go... the website "News & Observer.com" (linked HERE) has an interview with Senator Evan Bayh (D-Indiana). Most of the interview is rather innocuous and what one would expect from a media organization craving access to politicians on friendly terms. However, the third question asked of the Senator was very interesting.

"Q: Why do you think we should abolish the Electoral College?"

Now I had no idea that there was even a movement for this kind of action, much less members of our government suporting this kind of radical change. On the other hand, given who it is being asked of, it does make some sense.

His answer to the question (for those that didn't RTFA) was:

'A: "I think our president should be chosen by the majority of the American people. That is ordinarily the case. But in 2000, as we all recall, we elected this president with fewer votes than the other candidate got. I just don't think in the modern era that is appropriate."'

Hardly a comprehensive argument for throwing out the baby with the bath water. Mr. Evan Bayh needs a slight education on the % of votes that past U.S. Presidents have won the elctoral college with. Bill Clinton won re-election with only 43% of the popular vote, but a majority of the Electoral College, and a total of fifteen other U.S. Presidents have won office in plurality situations.

Close elections are nothing new in United States history, so saying that becuase we had a close elction we need to abandon a stable and proven system is either ignorant, or clever and I'm not sure which.

One thing that must be examined is how we got to the point where this is actually considered seriously rather than mocked by people who know about the system we use and why it was chosen. The journalist in this article doesn't ask a follow up and pretty much gives the Senator a pass. So..clever or arrogant? I can't say yet.

However I have found others have touched on this subject far more concisely and completely and yes eloquently than I could without massive digressions...

SO I will provide this excellent link to another Blog for any readers to peruse HERE. This article by David N. Mayer is a great place to start.


Now I will just add to what he has said and researched.


Senator Bayh had better do his homework rather than pandering to his constituents. I for one do not want to live in a democracy becuase sooner or later my rights as an individual will be suborned to that of the collective majority. Democracy is but a stone's throw from a tyranny, and if readers don't believe me all they have to do is look at the greek attempt at it, resulting in the tyranical system of government, and also in Germany's election of Hitler and his ascendency to power as the fascist dictator of the Third Reich.

Human nature does not permit the use of Democracy as a form of government that is stable and less evil; for a democractic governemnt must continually get more and more involved in a person's life to remain relevent.

I do worry for our nation should bpeople not begin to wake up and see what has become and what is becoming of their government every day.

Long live the republic