full-disclosure - OT: U.S. 2004 Election Fraud.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: pauls at utdallas.edu (Paul Schmehl)
Subject: OT: U.S. 2004 Election Fraud.

--On Monday, November 15, 2004 01:15:23 PM -0600 "Banta, Will" 
<Will.Banta@...adwing.com> wrote:
>
> Tell me you feel the same about the EC after reading
> http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/10/10_202.html. Of
> course Mother Jones is part of the mythical "liberal press" so you can
> simply dismiss this article as liberal hokum.....
>
I feel the same after reading it as I did before.  I have no idea if the 
site is "liberal" (or whatever other label you want to put on it), but the 
logic is certainly flawed.

Look at it this way.  *If* the arguments put forth on that site are 
persuasive, then consistency would demand that you get rid of the Senate as 
well.  After all, the main thrust of the argument is that "it's the people 
who should decide".  Well, "the people" *don't* decide in the Senate, 
because the smaller population states are disproportionately represented.

There are sound *reasons* why America is a republic.  Our founding father 
*rejected* democracy and explained *precisely* why they rejected it in the 
Federalist Papers.  If you fully understand their arguments yet disagree, 
then more power to you.  Most people have no clue.

It was to avoid the passions of democracy that our system was designed the 
way that it was.  Were we to go to a popular vote for President, then the 
smaller states would have ample reason to secede because their input would 
be meaningless.  It is precisely *because* we have the electoral college 
*and* the Senate **both of which are "unfair" (to use the popular argument 
today) that our nation has lasted as long as it has.

In the election of 1860, Stephen Douglas won *one* state - Missouri.  Yet, 
due to its population, he came in second in the popular vote.  It's 
entirely possible for a popular vote to reflect the desires of a small 
handful of states, simply because their populations are so dense, and to 
completely ignore the desires of the rest of the country.

That is a recipe for revolt.  Our forefathers realized that possibility and 
rejected it.  Now people who purport to be "smarter" than the men who 
founded our nation want to change that system and eliminate the safeguards 
that have held the nation together for so long.

I *reject* that "wisdom".

Paul Schmehl (pauls@...allas.edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.utdallas.edu