Once more on you know what...

Lou Paulsen wwchi at SPAMenteract.com
Fri Dec 15 07:28:11 MST 2000

-----Original Message-----
From: Henry C.K. Liu <hliu at mindspring.com>

>The US electoral college has been designed to safeguard state rights. As it
>out, it also protects minority rights and gives the states with large urban
>populations where minorities are concentrated more of a chance of beiing
>by minority swing votes.  One man one vote direct election would dilute the
>political power of minority group politics.

I'm sorry, Henry, but I can't agree with this.  For one thing, it also means
that large urban populations in states which are nevertheless in the control
of the Republicans have NO voice in the selection of the president.  How
much voice did the urban populations of Texas, Louisiana, Colorado,
Missouri, and all the other Bush states get?  [Leaving aside the issue of
whether "electoral votes for Gore" constitute "political power"!]
Furthermore, wouldn't the minority populations have more power under a
proportional representation system in which minority parties' votes get
counted?  Two percent voted for Nader; that would be 11 electoral votes if
he had his fair share.

I am afraid Henry has, on THIS issue, done something which he probably does
only about once every ten years - that is, he has listened to bourgeois
propaganda.  Don't feel bad, Henry, it happens to us all once in a while.

This relates to Nestor's question, too.  Why do we still have the archaic,
undemocratic electoral college?  Well, why don't we have the ability to
depose Supreme Court justices?  Why do we still have a Senate with two votes
from each state, where a rancher in Wyoming outvotes 40 Californians?  Why
don't we have a parliamentary system?  It's because of the "civil religion"
in the United States.  We are INDOCTRINATED.  From the day of our birth we
are inundated in propaganda explaining to us that the US system is "the best
system in the world," and that the constitution is like holy scripture, and
that the system of "checks and balances" has wonderful, marvelous effects,
and must be accorded the same kind of reverence that religious people accord
to holy relics.  Talking about abolishing the electoral college is like
talking about abolishing the monarchy in England.  It's like talking about
annexing the Vatican and putting it under civil rule in Italy.  It's like
talking about establishing pig farms in Pakistan.  It is DIFFICULT.

Even now, even with the horrible problems of this year's election in sight,
the commentators of the right AND of the bourgeois-left have flooded us with
"proofs" that the electoral college has some noble purpose and must not be
disturbed.  If even Henry succumbs to this, you can imagine what it does to
ordinary people!  :-)

I think the feeling among most left forces has been that it will probably
take less work to organize a mass socialist party than to organize a mass
movement to abolish the electoral college or otherwise significantly alter
the constitutional framework.

Lou Paulsen

More information about the Marxism mailing list