Many people in the United States today are dissatisfied with the results of the 2000 Presidential election between Al Gore and George W. Bush. One of the chief complaints is that Bush "stole" the election because Gore won the popular vote. [There are other reasons why people believe Bush "stole" the election, but we ignore them in this post.] Despite losing the popular vote however, Bush won the electoral college, and consequently, the Presidency. Those dissatisfied with the results and subscribe this complain often question the need for the electoral college, especially in the 21st century. We argue here that a republic is necessary now more than ever, that it provides stability to a volatile system, and present two writings which support our claim.
Many people today believe that a government exists to serve the populace, forgotten that first and foremost, that a government serves to protect individuals and their liberties. Federalist Paper 10, authored by James Madison, argues that a republic is necessary for the protection of individual liberties, and that as a society grows, a republic reduces the effects of populist movements.
Recently, a paper from HP Labs address the complex system, based upon 10 rounds of selecting electors, for the election of the Doge of Venice. The paper provides an in-depth technical analysis for the stability such a system provided to the Venetians. This system sustained a remarkable stable society for over 500 years.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Thursday, December 6, 2007
mortgage bailout (update)
It's happened.
see bloomberg for more details.
Because the current administration is Republican, the scope of the bailout is much more limited in scope. Democrats are already criticizing the proposal.
People who have sat on the sidelines for years, responsibly saving up their money, are getting the short end of the deal. Not only are they going to have to wait even longer, due to the ever shrinking availability of credit, their taxes are now going to pay for those who were irresponsible.
What I'd like to know is, why is no one asking the one fundamental question? That is, why should the government bail out those who committed fraud, instead of persecuting them? Yes, applying for loans by inflating information on financial assets (including salary) is fraud.
see bloomberg for more details.
Because the current administration is Republican, the scope of the bailout is much more limited in scope. Democrats are already criticizing the proposal.
People who have sat on the sidelines for years, responsibly saving up their money, are getting the short end of the deal. Not only are they going to have to wait even longer, due to the ever shrinking availability of credit, their taxes are now going to pay for those who were irresponsible.
What I'd like to know is, why is no one asking the one fundamental question? That is, why should the government bail out those who committed fraud, instead of persecuting them? Yes, applying for loans by inflating information on financial assets (including salary) is fraud.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)