« Air America Radio: Unfiltered |
Posted at 05:10 PM in Bio | Permalink
Response to MJM:
What you are advocating is political inequality. I want to ask you a, but first I have to talk a little bit about equality in general. In the modern conception equality can be broken down into four types:
#1 Moral Equality. This is the belief that on some fundamental level, each human life is "equally" sacred and gives right to the category of believes which comprise the "Titanic Survivor" morality. This moral theory says that on a sinking ship where not everyone can be saved, it is not morally correct to choose who to save based on some principle of merit, such as class, wealth, intellect, etc.
#2 Legal equality. This is equality under the law, meaning the same laws apply to everyone in a nation, and the same legal protections apply to everyone in a nation. An example of legal inequality would be the old Southern tradition of not giving black men and women the protection of a trial by his/her peers.
#3 Political equality. This equality pertains to theories of goverment. Although it has not always been the case, most theorists today advocate political equality. This is because today governments are seen as a mutual social contract between members of a nation, as opposed to older theories such as divine right. In fact, our founding fathers were staunch advocates of this view, and the first to put it into action.
#4 Social equality - I don't want to talk about this here, but social equality is the belief that humans, by virtue of their humanity, all have an equal right to the benefits of society, such as medicine, education, and wealth.
Most people today assume as a given that 1, 2, and 3, are obviously correct, so there is rarely discourse about them except in a historical context. My question to you is, why do you believe that some people are more entitled to political representation, or entitled to more political representation, and why do you believe that the inhabitants of the specific states above the median line are entitled to more political representation?
Elliot Kramer |
Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 08:47 PM
Candidly, there is a wisdom and a purpose for the electoral college. Personally, I don't want the major population centers having the only voice in our republic.
Monday, October 11, 2004 at 08:21 PM
Thank you for bringing this up. I've long had a problem with the electoral college.
Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 10:22 AM
Good for you. The electoral college has got to go (and I say so on my website www.nationalview.org).
The electoral college does away with the idea of one man (or 0ne woman), one vote.
Let Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanon or Ross Perot or John Anderson start their own political parties if they don't like the current system.
Noah Greenberg |
Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 10:11 AM
Important idea--glad someone is doing this. You should consider adding a function that would allow signers to automatically send a note with a link to the petition to their friends, family and associates.
Terry Jones |
Thursday, October 07, 2004 at 10:06 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.