Comments Posted By Peter Swiderski
Displaying 1 To 2 Of 2 Comments
Your argument, philosophically, is not tremendously sound. What you are saying is simply that rural votes are somehow more special than urban votes (mostly because they elect Republicans more often these days). However, if we are indeed a urban/suburban population largely concentrated on the postecoasts, then why shouldn't the Presidency reflect those perspectives? One of your posters put it well - why is democracy under assault if one person equals one vote? The complete over-representation of the votes of people from small states doesn't seem hugely democratic, does it?
As for the poster asking why this matters, if all states pass the law that California did, the electoral college is overturned. Right now, their law does NOT favor Democrats. It could just as readily elect a Republican president "just because" he won the popular vote but not the electoral vote. A simply shift of 70,000 votes in Ohio would have yielded a Democratic president even though the popular vote went for Bush in this last election. Under California's new law, the electoral college votes would have been cast for Bush, DECISIVELY handing him the election regardless of how Ohio went. What California has unilaterally done is actually hand Republicans a huge advantage. They can afford to ignore California since it votes Democrat, but make sure they rack up enough votes elsewhere to win the popular vote.
Interesting, no? California has actually tilted the field in favor of Republicans.
Comment Posted By Peter Swiderski On 29.08.2006 @ 10:42
Rick -
A thoughtful, clearly difficult post for you to write. It echoes my own evolution on this conflict, except perhaps lagging me by a year. I am a committed Democrat, one of many who may not have gone to war as quickly as we did, but once we did, thought it might be an opportunity to get something right in the Mideast.
I am heartbroken at the outcome. Unlike you, I don't think we have the political will (Republican included) to deploy the resources to fix this problem. It would take a commitment substantially greater than 50,000 more troops and another $200 billion. It has now spiraled to the point that we have lost a war we should not and can't afford to lose. But we did. And we're beginning to lose the one in Afghanistan.
What we did in Iraq did not work. What we did in Afghanistan is beginning to fail. You're absolutely right: it is time for some humble reassessment of our current approach and a new course. You respect this president: I do not. But perhaps you will understand the roots of my skepticism that there is anything in this Administrations' character that would allow for this sort of reassessment (humble or otherwise). There isn't. And because of that, our loss will not just be bad. It will be catastrophic as we do more and more to hurt our long-term interests.
I applaud you for your courage. And I applaud other conservatives who have come to your conclusion. It takes courage to break with a President you adore. But you have the evidence of your eyes and the basis of your intelligence to understand what is going on. Forget what the left, or Democrats like me think. Work on getting your fellow Republicans to realize the desperate nature of our state and pressure their legislators to begin the work that needs to happen to salvage this terrible situation.
Comment Posted By Peter Swiderski On 21.08.2006 @ 15:59
