Katipo wrote:
> David Jardine wrote:
>> I still don't see the difference between "mob rule" (as used here) and
>> democracy - and how electoral colleges produce the latter rather than
>> the former.
> That's what I said.
Because the original intent of the Electoral College was for the people to
elect representatives who would then look into and considered all candidates
for the Presidency and cast votes in accordance with whom they felt was the
best person for the job. This was in the time when mass media didn't exist
and it was felt that the general population couldn't really gather enough
information on any candidates outside a small radius of where they lived
geographically. They could, however, learn about the people they were to
elect to the EC. This would alleviate the rule of mob because, in the end,
the mob had no say in who the President was. None. They had a say in who
elected the President but said electorate could vote in any matter of their
own chosing after considering all the facts. This includes voting against any
candidate the mob may wish to see in office.
Of course today's mass media makes some of the points moot. However,
given the abysmal interest many people take in their own governance outside of
what handouts they can receive from whom I think the points are still valid,
just not for the same reasons. ;)
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature