On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 11:14:24AM +0800, Katipo wrote: > Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > > ><big snip> > > It would be better if all states did that, if only > >because it provides a more accurate reflection of what the people want > >without allowing sudden changes in the public mood to unduly affect > >election results. > > > Any government, that usurps the right of an individual to: make his/er own > decision on his own personal existence; to make the wrong decision; and to > suffer by it, is not a democratic institution, and fails in its function > immediately. First off, it would be nice if more people held that view. Maybe then we would not be suffering at the hands of liberals and neo-cons that think that the only way to accomplish anything is with a bigger government that dictates people's personal lives to them. That said, the issue is not the usurpation of the individual's right to decide. The electoral process provides a moderating effect. Please examine what happened in Spain after their 3/11 bombing. All it took was a small minority of people shifting to completely change their election results. Note, I am not saying that simply because the results did not meet expectations they should be suspect. However, the issue has been the subject of some study and the generally accepted concensus is that a relatively small number of voters caused a nationwide change. Can this still happen in the U.S.? Absolutely. Is it nearly as simple? No way. You would need a consiberably larger number of people placed in a number of key districts and states to make it happen. The point is that what happened to the Spanish elections resulted from people making rash emotionally charged decisions, which is something you don't want. As much as politicians and campaign managers want to emotionally charge the issues, the best thing is have people carefully consider and think through the issues. -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto
Attachment:
pgpeAegDcyzIn.pgp
Description: PGP signature