Need Help?
We hope your visit has been a productive one. If you're having any problems, or would like to give some feedback, we'd love to hear from you.
For general help, questions, and suggestions, try our dedicated support forums.
If you need to contact the Course-Notes.Org web experience team, please use our contact form.
Need Notes?
While we strive to provide the most comprehensive notes for as many high school textbooks as possible, there are certainly going to be some that we miss. Drop us a note and let us know which textbooks you need. Be sure to include which edition of the textbook you are using! If we see enough demand, we'll do whatever we can to get those notes up on the site for you!
We should additionally note that agriculture subsidies tend not to go to "the farmers" anyway, but rather to large corporations, and so "the farmers" are only benefiting indirectly, as these corporations benefit.
Furthermore, agricultural subsidies are shielding our market from foreign competition, which doesn't make us particularly competitive and results in other trade barriers which reduce the amount of capital creation in the world, which isn't really good for anyone.
"Second, I think that parties should not be funded by individuals or corperations. There needs to be some sort of buffer or cap to what all a person or corperation can give a politician for his cause and for his "campaining""
The senate passed a bill last December limiting amound of monetary gifts corperations may pass along to politicians, as well as their use of private planes.
to see or not to see, your emotional distortion?
Zasch wrote:Excuse me? The United States is not in any way based on agriculture, but rather on services and technology.
I am sure that is exaclty the reason American corperations are outsourcing our jobs in technology production to individuals in India, China and Japan who have a better education in the fields required for those areas, than most Americans do.
This isn't likely, considering that the way the US House and Senate are structured still favours agriculture, hence why the US continues its agricultural subsidies (even with a Democratic congress).
I watch CSPAN on a decently regular basis, and never once have I seen a bill passed that positively effected the Agriculteral industry.
A great deal of people everywhere ar eunhappy with local and federal groups.
That doesn't decrease the relivancy of my comment.
False dichotomy: It isn't the case that EITHER we give farmers a disproportionate voice (more equal than everyone else) OR we eat lead eggs from China.
No, you misunderstood my argument. I was saying that the electoral system has it's place in the American political system, without it could lead to serious consequences.
to see or not to see, your emotional distortion?
Quote:I am sure that is exaclty the reason American corperations are outsourcing our jobs in technology production to individuals in India, China and Japan who have a better education in the fields required for those areas, than most Americans do.
Except those jobs are manufacturing jobs by and large, with limited low-skill service-related jobs going to India. The United States is a very high tech economy, something that can't quite be outsourced just yet, because our postsecondary education system is the envy of the whole world.
But that doesn't address my comment at all: The US is not at all based on agriculture. Agriculture employs about 2.5% of the workforce and gives less than 1% of our GDP.
Quote:I watch CSPAN on a decently regular basis, and never once have I seen a bill passed that positively effected the Agriculteral industry.
You apparently don't watch it enough then. Hell, the Democratic congress was going to increase subsidies, which Bush has threatened to veto.
Quote:That doesn't decrease the relivancy of my comment.
If your argument follows the form "Because people are upset with local and federal programs, therefore they should be given a stronger voice", then (because the set "Upset People" includes the whole population), everyone then gets to have a stronger voice, which would be actualised by a national popular vote.
Quote:No, you misunderstood my argument. I was saying that the electoral system has it's place in the American political system, without it could lead to serious consequences.
Except that your argument rested upon a false dichotomy, and thus the "serious consequence" won't manifest unless that dichotomy is true, which it isn't.
The whole "AGRICULTURE WILL COLLAPSE!!1" line of argument is awful because that is within the purview of the Congress, not of the Executive Branch. It has basically nothing to do with the electoral college at all.
I apologise for not taking so long to reply, I have only just had enough time to sit down and read your rebutle.
What I am begining to understand, is that you are looking at my argument, and labeling it with your dichotomy, that is a bit of a stretch of what I am really trying to articulate. I know, this is how a debate works, but I am a stickler for more logical discussions, and at times disagree with the fundamentals of debate as a whole. On to topic, what I was attempting to elaborate on is that I believe the electoral vote was instated for a purpose, that is still withstanding today. True, circumstances have changed, but think about it our government has been in function (I use that term loosely) for just over 200 years, reform at this point would be overly complex as we are still working out the aspects a Democracy. I am not convinced that the electoral vote has become obsolete, infact I repeate myself, hypotheticaly without it there could be negative effects to reforming the voting system.
to see or not to see, your emotional distortion?
Quote:On to topic, what I was attempting to elaborate on is that I believe the electoral vote was instated for a purpose, that is still withstanding today.
The problem is that, thus far, you have merely *asserted* that these factors are still withstanding: You have not demonstrated it, nor have you put up a successful defence on my attack which says that those factors are no longer relevant.
Quote:reform at this point would be overly complex as we are still working out the aspects a Democracy
How can we "work out aspects of democracy" if we refuse to modify any aspect of our system out of fear that somehow, magically, our nation will collapse if we attempt such reform? To say "we are still working things out, so don't reform anything!" is a statement that self-destructs: If we don't reform anything, then we arn't actually working anything out.
The United States has reformed the way it functions many times, and has typically come off better for it. I don't see how the electoral vote is any different and, again, you have not actually *demonstrated* why anything bad would occur - merely asserted it.
Quote:hypotheticaly without it there could be negative effects to reforming the voting system.
Hypothetically a big dragon could pop out of the ground and give me a pot of gold: Hypotheticals are entirely meaningless in the context of a debate without more analysis to back them up.
Pages