This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
Electoral Reforms are urgently needed in the U S A
Published on October 25, 2004 By Bahu Virupaksha In Politics
When the American Constitution was framed in the eighteenth century, after the Continental Congress decided to form a federal republic the U S was certainly the mostmdemocratic nation in a world where kings and queens still reigned. Madison in the Fedaralist argued for a Republic. The great historian fron John Hopkins University J G A Pocock in his books has stated that the concept of Republic that the founding fathers had was based on the model provided by classical Rome before it turned into an Empire. In fact the architecture both civic and political in Washington D C closely parallels that of Republican Rome. Captol Hill and Senate are just the examples that come to mind.
More important, is the republic even democratic. It is possible for a candidate to get the majority of the popular vote as did Al Gore in 2000 and the defeated candidate be declared President. This is because the antiquated Electoral College System that prevails in the USA by which the winner takes all the college votes. The rule must be ammended in order to provide for propotional representation. 17 times in US history a defeated candidte has been declared elected because of the electoral college system. The framers of the constitution had 18th century politics in mind when they divided the voted according to

the states constituting the Federation. They were mortally afraid of apopilar king like Bonaparte in France. Now with the USA

having more that 250 years of a continous democrttic tradition, there is no need for this undemocratic provision. Grass root politic
workers must organize and educate the people about his antiquated provision.
If this is not done the whole country will end up like Florida in 2000 when the Bushmen stole the election and imposed an illegal]
war on the people with untold misery both for the Americans and more so for the Iraqis.


Comments
on Oct 25, 2004

Will the November Polls go the Florida Way

By: Bahu Virupaksha
Posted: Monday, October 25, 2004 on Discussion on History and Politics
Message Board: Politics
If this is not done the whole country will end up like Florida in 2000 when the Bushmen stole the election and imposed an illegal]

This has got to be one of the *biggest* falsehoods ever uttered! Bush stole nothing! Electoral college says he won. So that being that just how did Bush steal the election?
And BTW for your information Bush actually won Florida by a little over 500 votes! It wouldn't matter if it was only 2 votes. He still won Florida!
on Oct 25, 2004
Will the November Polls go the Florida Way

By: Bahu Virupaksha
Posted: Monday, October 25, 2004 on Discussion on History and Politics
Message Board: Politics
When the American Constitution was framed in the eighteenth century, after the Continental Congress decided to form a federal republic the U S was certainly the mostmdemocratic nation in a world where kings and queens still reigned. Madison in the Fedaralist argued for a Republic. The great historian fron John Hopkins University J G A Pocock in his books has stated that the concept of Republic that the founding fathers had was based on the model provided by classical Rome before it turned into an Empire. In fact the architecture both civic and political in Washington D C closely parallels that of Republican Rome. Captol Hill and Senate are just the examples that come to mind.
More important, is the republic even democratic. It is possible for a candidate to get the majority of the popular vote as did Al Gore in 2000 and the defeated candidate be declared President. This is because the antiquated Electoral College System that prevails in the USA by which the winner takes all the college votes. The rule must be ammended in order to provide for propotional representation. 17 times in US history a defeated candidte has been declared elected because of the electoral college system. The framers of the constitution had 18th century politics in mind when they divided the voted according to


the states constituting the Federation.


Sorry but this is part of the constitution. It ain't changing! At best all they can do is divy up the electoral vote.
on Oct 25, 2004
The US idea of democray has been changing and so has the constitution. In the present system there is political space only for two large parties who like tweedledum and tweldedee or vitually clones of each other.I may point out that the USA did not have an electoral college system of voting in the beginning of its history. It is the Twelfth Ammendment that introducdeed it. While simpleminded majoritarianism is not being advocated by me,I do feel that in the winners take all system, the large state today dubbed the battlegroung state virtualluy dicide the outcome. Now with the Republicans mobilizing lawers in large numbers we can expect lots of fireworks on the electoral front that can be avoided if there is a propotional representAation.
on Oct 25, 2004

Reply #3 By: Bahu Virupaksha - 10/25/2004 3:20:56 AM
The US idea of democray has been changing and so has the constitution. In the present system there is political space only for two large parties who like tweedledum and tweldedee or vitually clones of each other.I may point out that the USA did not have an electoral college system of voting in the beginning of its history. It is the Twelfth Ammendment that introducdeed it. While simpleminded majoritarianism is not being advocated by me,I do feel that in the winners take all system, the large state today dubbed the battlegroung state virtualluy dicide the outcome. Now with the Republicans mobilizing lawers in large numbers we can expect lots of fireworks on the electoral front that can be avoided if there is a propotional representAation.


Your right the constitution has changed. But this part never will. Period. End of sentence. And why is that? Because politicians are the ones who will *have* to change it. Do you honestly think that they will do something like that? It would wreck their little house of cards. So my previous post still stands!
on Oct 25, 2004
Reply #3 By: Bahu Virupaksha - 10/25/2004 3:20:56 AM
The US idea of democray has been changing and so has the constitution. In the present system there is political space only for two large parties


This is an *untrue* statement. We have more than 2 parties in our system. The *reason* the other parties are not major players in the field is they don't have the public support needed. You site the 12th amendment as being the one responsible for the electoral college. Do you have *any* idea when it was witten?1803 Ratified? 1804 And since the constitution was written in 1787 the 12th amendment was ratified in less than 20 years after the constiution was written. So it's not like the electoral college is a late comer to the field! And BTW it NOT the republicans who are mustering the layers, it's the Democrats! Check here:

Link

and here:

Link

on Oct 26, 2004
The point is the unfairness of the electoral process which foregrounds two lare parties with little to differentiate between them. Money Bags, Haliburton fat cats and corrupt corporate types are on one side the other side all these plus the common Joe. That is why these elections are so important. This morning I saw the CNN report on thwe voting decision of the 2 million Arab- American. They are going the Kerry way. On top of this, as I stated in my earlier Blog, nearly 346 tnoonnes of nulear material has disappeared afte Bush sent his troops there, and who is responsible for making a mess of everything. Iraq is being turned into what Rambo called a"parking Lot" and no civilized state can do such a horrible thing. Further, civillian caualities are monting by the day.
on Oct 26, 2004

Reply #6 By: Bahu Virupaksha - 10/26/2004 12:06:10 AM
On top of this, as I stated in my earlier Blog, nearly 346 tnoonnes of nulear material has disappeared


This is a false statement. It was explosive material, yes. But in noway was it nuclear material.



Reply #6 By: Bahu Virupaksha - 10/26/2004 12:06:10 AM
The point is the unfairness of the electoral process which foregrounds two lare parties with little to differentiate between them. Money Bags, Haliburton fat cats and corrupt corporate types are on one side the other side all these plus the common Joe.


You still don't quite grasp this. We have more than 2 parties. The rest to not get the same kind of public support that the big 2 enjoy. Just look at Ralph Nader's attempt to get on the PA ballot. It isn't going to happen. You know why? He didn't get enough signatures to get on the ballot. Now just how is that the fault of the electoral system? And don't give me that junk about money bags. You think Bush's or Kerry's campaign are funded entirely from public funds? Nope! It takes money to start the campaign and that is something the rest just don't have
on Oct 30, 2004
It isn't going to happen. You know why? He didn't get enough signatures to get on the ballot. Now just how is that the fault of the e


Ralh Nader was completely ignored by the Media. Why was he not given a place at the high table of Presidential debates. Just because he represents a libertarian strand in American politics there is no space for him. He does not have the money to launch the sort of campaign that Bush can.
on Oct 30, 2004

Reply #8 By: Bahu Virupaksha - 10/30/2004 8:26:48 AM
It isn't going to happen. You know why? He didn't get enough signatures to get on the ballot. Now just how is that the fault of the e


Ralh Nader was completely ignored by the Media. Why was he not given a place at the high table of Presidential debates. Just because he represents a libertarian strand in American politics there is no space for him. He does not have the money to launch the sort of campaign that Bush can


You need to come to grips with something. Just because he's a libretarian does NOT mean he could not be at the debate table. He didn't have enough public support to put him there. He's going to be lucky to get 2% of the vote. That is also why the media ignored him. They knew he wouldn't get enough support to make it on half the ballots by the 2nd. As to him having funds. What does the lack of him having money to do with Bush or for that matter Kerry? If he knows he doesn't have the funds to do it right then he shouldn't start on the trail.