The Vote Heard 'Round the World
I voted today from Argentina. My parents sent me the ballot, I completed it, and dropped it off in the US embassy. Before going to the embassy I assumed it would be a little oasis of America but no. I had to speak Spanish to get into the place and I had to go through a security check point. Anyway, I am proud to say that I have voted, although being from Washington and with our beloved electorate college my vote doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of difference. Why the hell do we still have it? It makes the entire election become the decision of a dozen or so "battle ground" states. Just think, if we hadn't had it in 2000 we would have avoided the worst president in the history of the United States, according to some, George W. Bush. L.B. Johnson was pretty bad as well. So I handed the sealed envelope to the employee in the embassy and he said everything was good. But think, the employee could easily shred my envelope after I had left, or he could put it in a larger envelope and shred that envelope and I would never find out. Anway, that's all I've got. I just wanted to inform everyone of my commitment to freedom and liberty.
(I accidentally embedded the video twice and i was going to correct it, but then I played both simultaneously with a one second lag and it was too awesome for me to take it out.)
(I accidentally embedded the video twice and i was going to correct it, but then I played both simultaneously with a one second lag and it was too awesome for me to take it out.)
Comments
The one major reason we still have the electoral college is so that the inordinate sums of time and money that the candidates spend already in campaigning do not become even more inordinate; for example, neither McCain or Obama will have to bother campaigning in Texas (which is staunchly republican) or California (which is staunchly democrat). Otherwise, the candidates would focus all their limited time and energy on California, Texas, New York, and Pennsylvania and not give the slightest shit about such small "battleground" states as New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado, or Iowa.
Spending can't be capped... who would be responsible for it, and how would it be enforced? This is no military dictatorship! And anyway, isn't the point to get as many people as possible all over the US to believe in a candidate's message as much as possible?
Yes, the Electoral College does have its blips, as we all got to witness firsthand in 2000 when Bush lost the popular vote yet still won the election. But here's the upshot: if there were a better system, it'd already be in place.
In terms of the domino effect, yes you could argue that Vietnam was a logical progression of the policy of Containment, but Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara proposed a comprehensive strategy for withdrawal early in the campaign and he was ignored by LBJ. Likewise, Kennedy was working towards a deescalation when he was assassinated, had he lived it is likely we would have never been entangled in Vietnam.
Mike you study economics right? If you have to do a research project/paper in the future, you could look at the role petro dollars played in the US housing market bubble.
And it’s not ordinary people who decide what system we have; it’s those in Congress and the Senate. You could probably say a lot of really clever things about the constituency of those two bodies as well, but I certainly trust them to represent us better than the average citizen could.
I don’t really have much to say about that since you obviously have much more information about it than I do, but I don’t think we disagree about “containment” being the prominent theory at the time.
Hey man, econ is more quantitative and less qualitative than you think! It’s not history; we don’t do papers!