Skip to content

Stupid Shit a Parliamentary Dum-dum Says

October 23, 2012
America's first intellectual giants.

America’s first intellectual giants.

  • Note: I first posted this as a Facebook note.

Back to the issue of presidentialism vs. parliamentarism.

Mr. Orion Dumdum, owner of an absurd Facebook group that advocates parliamentary system in the Philippines, made the following ill-informed, knee-jerk, ignorant rant about the concept of ‘electoral college’:

“1) The USA is the only Presidential System among the entire group of all Presidential Systems to have never experienced a disruption that toppled/destabilized it.

“2) The reason why the USA has endured and avoided the same disruptions that the others experienced is because among all the other Presidential Systems in the world, the USA does not elect their president through direct voting, but instead uses the Electoral College.

“3) The Electoral College acts like a parallel Parliament whose sole duty is to elect the President and Vice President.”

I’m sorry… He’s not just an ignoramus; he’s a dishonest IDIOT as well. Observe Orion’s attempt to blindly glorify parliamentarism by dishonestly, shamelessly robbing presidential system of its classical features or attributes. In fact, Orion’s comment shows the utter weakness and many contradictions in his ‘anti-presidential’ arguments. It shows that he’s merely attacking a ‘presidential’ straw man whenever he attacks presidential system. What exactly is that “presidential system” he’s trying to attack? Well, based on his online rants, it’s America’s presidential system, which he described as the “most dangerous import” of USA. Still, Orion doesn’t have enough brain cells to understand that USA’s presidential system is utterly different from ours. That a FORM of government cannot be compared with a computer OS.

I offer the following analogy:

  • Computer OS = POLITICAL/ECONOMIC SYSTEM, such as capitalism, socialism, mixed economy, etc.
  • APP software = FORM OF GOVERNMENT, such as presidential system, parliamentary system, variants of the two, etc.

A political system is embodied in a nation’s constitution or charter. It defines the relationship between the individual and the state. You can know a nation’s political/economic system by simply looking at the charter’s general principles, bill of rights (which may not exist in socialist charters), national economy and patrimony, etc.

A form of government, on the other hand, refers to the structure of government, political offices, the manner by which the people elect their leaders, functions of public officials, etc. It’s just an add-on. It can be modified, changed, or improved in accordance with the political system or aspirations a nation/country adopts.

Observe that any country that applies presidential or parliamentary form of government can have either capitalistic or socialistic policies. But most countries today are mixed economies (a combination of capitalism and socialism, or freedom and state control).

As to Orion’s hilarious post, here’s his utterly dishonest style: He begins with the admission that USA is doing well, or that its presidential system is not that problematic, and then claims that all of this is due to the country’s electoral college. However, he ends with the propaganda-argument that USA’s electoral college “acts like a parallel Parliament”, thereby solidifying his hilarious claim that parliamentarism is superior to presidentialism.

As expected, his sheep loved his post.

Here’s why Orion is utterly ill-informed and politically clueless.

FIRST. The electoral college is not, strictly speaking, a feature of America’s presidential system. It’s actually a distinguishing feature of USA’s federalism. This is why Orion needs to properly understand the concepts, differences and relationships of the following terms: presidentialism, federalism and republicanism.

SECOND. The electoral college was first applied in USA and invented by the founding fathers to support their federalist system. Federalism is simply a political implementation of the concepts of LIMITED GOVERNMENT and CLASSICAL REPUBLICANISM. Orion and his sheep should read the Federalist Papers to properly educate themselves. They should start with Federalist Papers 10 and 39. Federalism opposes the idea of national government. It simply means that the States CREATED the Federal Government, not the other way around.

Federalism supports the principle of LIMITED GOVERNMENT, because according to Madison, “the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.” It also supports REPUBLICANISM because, again, according to Madison: a Republic is “a government in which the scheme of representation takes place”.

THIRD. Orion and his sheep should read Hamilton’s Federalist Paper 68, wherein he outlined the concept and purpose of the Electoral College, which pertains to the mode of selecting the US President and Vice President. Remember that there are three branches of a Republican government: the executive, legislative, and judiciary. The legislative branch is essentially composed of STATE representatives and senators. Since States have authority and “rights” of their own and are independent of the Federal government, the executive branch must therefore be properly represented by the States (which created the Federal government) through an indirect election. This doctrine of State independence was reiterated in the landmark case National Federation v. Sebelius, which quotes Madison’s Federalist Paper No. 45– “The independent power of the States also serves as a check on the power of the Federal Government: “By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power.”

In Federal Paper No. 68, Hamilton argued: “The process of election [electoral college] affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.”

The problem is, many Americans still don’t understand the raison d’être or rationale behind the adoption of electoral college. As already explained, the main reason is America was conceived as a Republican government, not a Democratic one. Like Hamilton, Madison feared the ‘tyranny of majority’, which is what the concept of democracy is all about. He was worried of what he called “factions”, which he defined as “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community”.

Wait! Was Madison presciently describing the features of our Party-List System, which was conceived to serve the interests of diverse social groups?

This establishes the very simple fact that the concept of electoral college, which a few knee-jerk, clueless Filipino parliamentarists dishonestly try to associate with parliamentarism, is fundamentally, historically presidential.

Now, I’d like to offer a word of caution to critics of the American system.

America’s founding fathers, who were all intellectual giants during the Age of Enlightenment, codified or built the entire American political system just like the way great computer programmers codify computing programs. The system they conceived is so complex that it might be loosely compared to a computer OS (e.g., Mac OS or Microsoft OS), with its tens of millions lines of code. As with an OS, all it takes to destroy everything is one wrong bit (misinterpretation).

One bit of misunderstanding of America’s political system could cause someone to make tons and tons of fallacious statements or arguments.

One needs to understand the philosophical basis of the entire American system. It was based on Individualism or Individual Rights.

The founding fathers asked: Why should we form a government?

Answer: To protect man’s rights. [Read the Declaration of Independence by Jefferson].

They asked: But how can we protect rights?

Answer: Limited Government. [Read the Federalist Papers].

They asked: How do we limit the national government?

Answer: Federalism and Republicanism.

The conclusion is, Orion doesn’t know the facts and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

But let me get things straight…

If America’s presidential system is OK due to its electoral college, which, according to Orion, “acts like a parallel Parliament”, then what’s the purpose of attacking the Philippine’s presidential system, which is not even a ‘carbon copy’ of USA’s form of government?

The answer: PROPAGANDA.

Do these flips even understand the sheer contradictions in their failed, stupid arguments? There’s a term for this ‘intellectual’ madness. It’s MEDIOCRITY and INTELLECTUAL BANKRUPTCY.

RELATED BLOG ARTICLES:

Welfare State and Parliamentarism

A Critique of Riggsian Anti-Presidentialism Gibberish

On America’s Federalism and its Conformity to Republican Principles

An Unsolicited Advice to People Hoodwinked By a Pro-Parliamentarism Cult

Blame the Constitution, Not Presidential System, for Our Protectionism and Poverty!

Competition is Good; Regulation is Evil!

Exposing a Statist’s Parliamentary Megalomania

It’s the Political System, Stupid!

Basic Principles for Presidential Type of Government

Fareed Zakaria’s Parliamentary Drivel

Presidential System Over Parliamentary System

The Origin of ‘Cult of Personality’

The Moral Base of the Filipino Nation and Philippine’s Intellectual Bankruptcy

Uncle Sam to Pinas: ‘Scrap Protectionism!’

20 Comments leave one →
  1. PHguy permalink
    October 24, 2012 3:38

    Hi, man! I’ve perused a few of your provocative posts in the past yet it’s only now that I have the time to read them in-depth. You are among the few local intellectual figures over the cyberspace that I can honestly say am greatly indebted for neutralizing — and rationally defying — propaganda and other critical philosophies and alignments I casually read online (I’ve long disregarded a huge amount of television and print discourse as they are miserably worse in content and ideology). As long as your posts are accessible, your ideas will be indelible shakers of thought for many.

    I’ve only started to have a clearer idea of what Rand has espoused and am very much interested to read more on her and on Objectivism in the future.

    On the other hand, I am currently a strong supporter of linguistic and cultural preservation which many existing sovereignties are suppressing at some point with varying degrees of enforcement with the Philippines being one of the best examples. As a staunch Objectivist, what is your take on this issue?

    If by argument of objectivism and inalienable rights of all human beings we say that nationalism is nothing but an abstract thought of altruistic delusion, should seeing individual identity (or human identity as a whole) based on an ethnic, cultural or linguistic paradigm be considered as moot as political nationalism or any ethnocultural-laden political movement? (e.g. Autonomy or secession for linguistic and cultural preservation / intactness)

    The Philippines for one, as what you also say, is a historical accident. Our political cohesiveness is only held by vague and hypocrite arguments of colonial heritage. As such, typical proposition by ‘mainstream’-informed Filipinos is that we exist because of the Philippine/Filipinas government (cf. Malolos Constitution) that “solidified” our modern identity out of the ethnocultural nebula that they think we used to be. This likewise, validates that any other ethnic group that would try to secede or clamor for recognition is easily downplayed and ridiculed as they see it vulnerable to potential decline and how “seditious” such proposition or action is. Since this is heavily fallacious, how should language policy be done in the Philippines, any hypothetical offshoot poltiical entity or any other existing region or sovereignty?

    If we see it in a utilitarian sense, language is used for communication purposes–plainly to convey thoughts, expressions, information and emotions–and the emotional veil of culture, assimilation and heritage are nothing but consequences of experiencing this reality. By such, should we still have a common consensus for language beyond casual interaction that is in transactions and information dissemination?

    I hope you could respond to these inquiries. Thanks!

  2. October 24, 2012 3:38

    Hi PHguy,

    Thank you for your generous compliment. I am glad if some, or a few, of my blog posts somehow made a dent in your belief system or understanding of things.

    You asked me to comment on this: “I am currently a strong supporter of linguistic and cultural preservation which many existing sovereignties are suppressing at some point with varying degrees of enforcement with the Philippines being one of the best examples. As a staunch Objectivist, what is your take on this issue?”

    First off, I actually don’t buy the idea that language, or cultural language, should be enforced by institutions for its maintenance or preservation. My understanding of language is that it’s merely a product of man’s use and acquisition of knowledge, of culture, and of civilization. Of course, every locality, cultural group, nation, or civilization has its own distinct language. That’s given. But as human civilization progressed- as it gradually evolved with/over time- man achieved a new level of greatness or success.

    A few thousands of years ago there were tens of thousands, or even millions, of diverse social/cultural groups, tribes, territories, kingdoms, etc. possessed with their own language or dialects. This global ‘linguistic diversification’ was actually due to the state of primitiveness or lack of technology, which was a reality in the past. But as a number of societies or civilizations progressed in terms of discovering knowledge and concepts, of creating new inventions, and of preserving valuable cultures and traditions, language also evolved and men were able to discover new cultures, languages and knowledge. History has it that many weak, non-competitive languages and cultures that failed to withstand the test of time PERISHED. This is what happened to the Sumerian empire and their language and culture.

    After the fall of Greece Rome took the world stage with its own language and culture. But Rome embraced most of Greek cultures instead of rejecting them. The Romans knew and understood that the Greek culture was worth-preserving. They were not close-minded and ethnocentric. This somehow shows that the Romans implicitly believed that culture and language are “universal”; that there can’t be specific language or culture that should be or ought to be adopted by a specific society or tribe or social group.

    The fall of Rome led to a new form of civilization in Europe. There were scientific discoveries; there were those who propagated what the Vatican City called “heretic knowledge”. Latin was the dominant language of the period. As the early scientists or knowledge-discoverers unearthed new knowledge, again, language and culture evolved. This development can be loosely compared to what we now call “improvement patents”. Men improved on the new discoveries and knowledge or inventions created and/or discovered by their predecessors. Those early knowledge or discoveries served as the BASE of new or later discoveries or innovations. This principle also applies to linguistics.

    Then there was the New World. The fall of Britain and other European empires gave way to a “new world order” of Americanism. Yes, the Americans created a “new world order” founded on the principle of individualism or individual freedom.

    First, there was the intellectual revolution that paved the way for the discovery of new concepts and application of the already discovered concepts (from the Greeks). Many historians and philosophers believed that America was founded on the philosophy of Aristotle, who first laid down the founding principles of individualism through his great, timeless philosophical works. Aristotle’s theory of universals defied that of his mentor Plato. While Plato advocated a communistic politics or principles, Aristotle believed in a society that respects or preserves individuality or individual rights.

    John Locke, Thomas Paine, and the America’s founding fathers worked, or even improved, on the philosophy of Aristotle. The founding fathers concretized Aristotle’s political vision by founding the United States of America.

    Second, there was the scientific revolution. There cannot be scientific progress without intellectual progress. This was the age of Newton, Alexander Graham Bell, Benjamin Franklin and many other scientists of the age of enlightenment. The establishment of a society that respects individual rights (including property rights) provided a strong political and social support to the early scientific movement. For example, the political institution of Intellectual Property Rights encouraged– and protected– new scientific discoveries and inventions. My theory is that scientists from different parts of the world migrated to the United States because it was the only free country that respected property rights and IP rights. It was the only country that time that guaranteed man’s right to the fruits of his products and to his pursuit of happiness. The rest of Europe was excessively socialistic or statist. Great scientists are extremely individualistic; most of them are extremely selfish. Even Tesla, who described himself as a “humanitarian”, sued Marconi for stealing his radio patents. He was selfish for protecting his patent rights.

    Third, there was the industrial revolution that paved the way for the actual, practical application of scientific knowledge discovered during the scientific revolution. Observe that industrial progress took place in countries that protected property and IP rights: USA and Britain.

    Now, how is this related to language? The dominant language is actually defined or dictated to by the dominant culture and society. That’s the reality on earth. The lingua franca on planet earth is English because America dominates intellectual, scientific and industrial progress. English is the language of the Western Civilization. The English language is universally applied or used in every field or sector: the Internet, Aviation, academic, engineering, architecture, business, media, etc. So, America earned it. Let’s give it to them.

    America won the “LINGUISTIC COMPETITION”. English is widely used not because laws or political decrees say so; it’s because it’s now becoming part of human survival. Nations are now forced to adopt or encourage the proliferation of English to gain global competitiveness. Schools and industries encourage the use of English because it is the lingua franca in the corporate world.

    Language evolves with scientific and industrial developments. The society that dominates scientific and industry development has the power to enforce its own language. We need to adapt to global linguistic trends or perish. He who dominates science and technology dominates the world.

    Here’s a related blog: https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/08/27/is-filipino-language-our-identity-to-hell-with-it/

    and this Capitalism Rocks!

    You said: “If by argument of objectivism and inalienable rights of all human beings we say that nationalism is nothing but an abstract thought of altruistic delusion, should seeing individual identity (or human identity as a whole) based on an ethnic, cultural or linguistic paradigm be considered as moot as political nationalism or any ethnocultural-laden political movement? (e.g. Autonomy or secession for linguistic and cultural preservation / intactness).”

    Nationalism should mean conscious, non-blind, intellectual understanding of one’s national identity. Blind nationalism is not just bad; it is evil. It is based on emotionalism and/or primitivism. One political theorist once said that “nationalism is a European invention”. The problem with that statement is that it was based on a GLOBALIST perspective. That man wanted to destroy the concept of nationalism to support his ‘globalist’ or expansionist theory and agenda. That man, a Muslim Arab, lamented the fall and quartering of the defunct Ottoman empire. He envisioned a single, powerful Islamic Caliphate not divided by any cultural or political barrier. Perhaps that man wanted a single-world Islamic dictatorship.

    But conscious nationalism should mean you consciously admire the qualities and attributes of your nation because of its rational, practical, pro-man founding principles. Nationalism should not mean ethnocentrism or close-mindedness. Like the Romans, societies need to embrace the rational, practical principles or thoughts discovered by other societies if they’re to survive and to serve their members’ self-interest and welfare. That’s a rational thing to do.

    Nationalism does not mean you need to adopt protectionist policies that would bar the entry or flow of foreign goods, services, talents, and ideas. This is a form of evil nationalism that can and will never support the interests of the people in the long run. In politics, close-minded, ethnocentric nationalism is actually SUICIDAL. One needs to ask: WILL IT SUPPORT OR SERVE MY INTERESTS IN THE LONG RUN?

    Preference or choice is inherently part of man’s free will. We choose friends. We join organizations or groups that share our views or beliefs. Many people join or change religion. Why can’t we have our own nation? Many people migrate to other countries due to different reasons. According to recent surveys, many Chinese millionaires want to migrate to USA and Canada. Perhaps these wealthy Chinese admire the national qualities of Canada and USA. We ONLY LIVE ONCE. Our freedom of choice must be unabridged. If one wants to preserve and promote his national culture and language, then GO FOR IT. Promote it. But one does not have the right to force other people to agree with him or to help promote his views. That’s what individual freedom is all about.

    I stated in a previous blog:

    “But what is culture in the first place? Some clueless people say it’s part of our national identity, humanity, or personal attributes. This suggests that wherever we are and whatever our beliefs and convictions in life, we are forever attached, by law or social mandate, to our social culture. There’s no escape, they say. Once a Filipino, always a Filipino. Thus, you must blindly or consciously accept your national culture. Your personal convictions and beliefs no longer matter. They are immaterial. Your genes, your glands, your organs, your entire person and life are, whether you like it or not, part of our national culture, of social norms and traditions, and of the state. Why don’t these government-funded intellectual elites simply admit: “You are a property of the State.””

    Here’s my view of LANGUAGE: Language as Tool of Destruction

    You said: “Our political cohesiveness is only held by vague and hypocrite arguments of colonial heritage.”

    I somehow discussed that issue here:

    Philippine’s “Prophet of Disaster”: Salvador Araneta

    Why the Philippines Doesn’t Need Edsa

    As to CULTURE and TRADITIONS:

    Capitalism and its Individualist Culture

    Absolutism Versus Relativism

    My socio-political views:

    “Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex” is an Evil Concept

    Destroying the ‘Filipino First’ Mindset

    • October 25, 2012 3:38

      My philosophy is that all members of a group that speaks a language must have the freedom to choose whether they would dispose of their language or choose to preserve it. Forcing everyone to uphold or drop it is against their fundamental rights as persons. It always has to be the decision for the self. I do hope I am also getting the same angle as yours.

      Choosing which language to learn and use depends upon the rationale of how beneficial it is for the survival of the self. Politics and economics indeed anchor language. Losing languages may be saddening because another product of human ingenuity may forever be lost. However, it will be left unmourned and the universe will moves on.

      I think language, through the lens of Structuralism, is nothing but any political or economic system. It’s just a complex mix-match of langue and parole merely used to convey concepts and information. People are inclined change from one to another as the need arises (e.g. another language gives them more economic opportunities). Money and technology give the money and the vitality–speaking a language doesn’t make you shit gold or turn you immortal. It’s just a means to an end.

      May I digress. What are the possibilities for language if this certain “Age of Abundance” people are proposing by drastically altering the world economic system? Given the scenario that people do not need to rely on another who speak another language for their survival, would the rate of linguistic diversity be normalized or even accentuated?

      Also, there are new technologies (albeit still imperfect ones) that do not require a person to learn another language to interact smoothly. Could this also affect the linguistic identity of the world?

  3. October 25, 2012 3:38

    I would have enjoyed this article more if it did not resort to gratuitous personal attacks. You make a lot of sense in all your arguments, and it’s all beautifully structured and written, but the one thing that does not really belong in this otherwise logically cohesive article is the personal attacks. I teach my kids that “stupid” when referring to a person is a bad word. It is not a bad word when used to describe an idea. We don’t have to resort to personal attacks to advance our ideas.

    I say the same thing to Orion, who I wholeheartedly support, specially in advancing his CoRRECT movement. Let us all be more mature and refrain from personal attacks. We are all aiming for the same thing: reforming the 1987 Constitution to make it more rational and protective of individual rights through the application of free market principles. We really don’t have to fight each other. Yes, Orion needs to learn more about the American system, but your way of telling it to him will never work. You also need to learn more about the Parliamentary system, and you have to admit that at this point the word “Parliament” is now an emotionally loaded word for you, all because of past exchanges with Orion. You have to regain your objectivity to this word as much as Orion has to remove his blinders about the American system, which I also admire.

    I am reminded of Aguinaldo and Bonifacio in this very strong animosity between Orion and you. At least in the case of Aguinaldo and Bonifacio we can say there was a power struggle between the two, and seen in this light the killing of Bonifacio may be “justified”. But we are not after power here. Our battlefield is that of ideas, and the weapon of choice is words. We don’t need to get at each other’s throats to get our ideas across.

    • October 28, 2012 3:38

      “Yes, Orion needs to learn more about the American system, but your way of telling it to him will never work.”

      — I know it will never work, Mr. Tapang. It will never work to a dishonest, dogmatic person. The problem is, Orion does not know what he’s talking about. One commenter here talks about semantics; it’s not just semantics. The problem with these people is that they fail or refuse to see the whole context of Orion’s propaganda against “presidential system”. He parroted the Riggsian gibberish that the system is America’s most dangerous import; he also parroted some welfare statists’ propaganda that parliamentarism is superior to presidentialism. Yet he doesn’t even know the concepts, differences and relationships of presidentialism, federalism and republicanism.

      Orion’s hilarious gibberish about America’s electoral college simply proves that he’s simply demagoging and that he doesn’t have a clue. This is entirely related to his borrowed claptrap that presidentialism is USA’s most dangerous import. You honestly think he knows what he’s talking about?

  4. October 28, 2012 3:38

    Honesty. Objectivity. Integrity.

    That’s the tagline of your blog but has nothing to do with your post.

    How to tear your post apart? Well, it’s not that easy because it twists and turns so that it carefully avoids facts. Facts are messy things; that’s why Aquino supporters avoid them because they tend to make a mockery of their slogan.

    Oh, just like facts make a mockery of your “Honesty. Objectivity. Integrity.”-tagline.

    If you’re going to attack what Orion stands for, why not actually attack the three point agenda of CoRRECT? After all, his comments on the US system have usually been to dismiss it and your comment that he sees the electoral college as the USA’s parliament is thoroughly and completely intellectually dishonest on your part.

    Intellectually dishonest. Now -that- is a tagline your blog could wear with pride… and accuracy.

    Now you mention a straw man and yet this entire post is a straw man. What has the US system got to do with Orion’s agenda at CoRRECT?

    You’ve completely misrepresented him which, no doubt, was your goal all along.

    INTELLECTUAL BANKRUPTCY. A tagline you and your blog can wear with pride… and accuracy.

    • October 28, 2012 3:38

      This is getting funnier.

      “You’ve completely misrepresented him which, no doubt, was your goal all along.”

      Funnier indeed. I’d like to see your rebuttal. You have not made a single rebuttal.

      Perhaps you need to read my related blogs to further inform yourself. I don’t think you, guys, know what you’re talking about. You believe that “presidential system is America’s most dangerous import”? You don’t even understand America’s presidential system.

      In your reply I’d like to see your rebuttal. Plus, I don’t think you read the blog. If you ever read it, you’d not have posted an utterly emotional, ill-informed comment. So, read the blog and my other related blogs to educate yourself.

      FYI, I’ve written more than a dozen articles exposing the intellectual bankruptcy of your mediocre group. Don’t be a sheep. Use your mind. Buy some logic.

      Yes, your comment simply reeks of INTELLECTUAL BANKRUPTCY.

      • October 29, 2012 3:38

        I am happy to rebut specific points but your article is about the US system which is not what Orion is about.

        If you want do discuss the things that Orion is advocating I am more than happy to debate those but the article above starts with a misrepresentation and gets worse from there.

        Intellectual bankruptcy; it’s the new black!

      • October 30, 2012 3:38

        Then debunk it. You should have presented your counter-arguments right away. Like I said to Mr. Tapang,

        “The problem is, Orion does not know what he’s talking about. One commenter here talks about semantics; it’s not just semantics. The problem with these people is that they fail or refuse to see the whole context of Orion’s propaganda against “presidential system”. He parroted the Riggsian gibberish that the system is America’s most dangerous import; he also parroted some welfare statists’ propaganda that parliamentarism is superior to presidentialism. Yet he doesn’t even know the concepts, differences and relationships of presidentialism, federalism and republicanism.

        “Orion’s hilarious gibberish about America’s electoral college simply proves that he’s simply demagoging and that he doesn’t have a clue. This is entirely related to his borrowed claptrap that presidentialism is USA’s most dangerous import. You honestly think he knows what he’s talking about?”

        I don’t think you, guys, understand what you’re talking about. Do you even know the concepts, differences and relationships between presidentialism, federalism and republicanism?

        You said: “If you want do discuss the things that Orion is advocating I am more than happy to debate those but the article above starts with a misrepresentation and gets worse from there.”

        Why not cite what you call misrepresentation? I think it’s you who’s actually misrepresenting my blog. I don’t think you understand Orion’s arguments… IF you’re not one of his SOCKPUPPETS

      • October 30, 2012 3:38

        Nigel Pope whoever you are…

        I’d like you to cite what you call “misrepresentation”. But I don’t think you understand Orion’s arguments and position.

        Let’s see what he actually said about electoral college.

        Orion said:

        “The USA remains to be the most stable among all the Presidential Systems in the world, albeit in many indices, the USA doesn’t do as well as other countries using parliamentary systems. (It usually gets in the top 30, but it’s usually nowhere at the top 5)

        “And this is because the USA is the only presidentialist system to be “quasi-parliamentary” because of its use of the Electoral College, unlike all other presidential systems who use “direct elections” for the President.”

        He also said:

        “Presidential Systems universally DO NOT WORK and in fact, the only place where it has worked uninterrupted is in the USA, and the reason for that is also traceable to parliamentaristic features: The USA is the only Presidential System to use a somewhat parliamentary-ish electoral system (the indirect voting-based Electoral College) which tends to mitigate the chaotic and unstable nature of Presidential Systems that use direct elections for the President.”


        FACT 1:
        It was America that first developed and adopted what Orion calls “presidential system”. However, what he doesn’t understand is that America’s system is NOT just presidentialism. It also applies federalism and republican system. https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/05/29/against-parliamentary-system/

        FACT 2:
        It was America that first developed and applied what Orion calls “electoral college”. Again, what Orion doesn’t know is that USA’s electoral college is not, strictly speaking, a feature of America’s presidential system. It’s actually a distinguishing feature of USA’s federalism. This is why Orion needs to properly understand the concepts, differences and relationships of the following terms: presidentialism, federalism and republicanism.

        FACT 3. Therefore, the electoral college is an ORIGINAL feature of America’s POLITICAL SYSTEM (not presidentialism).

        How is electoral college a “somewhat parliamentary-ish” as Orion claimed?

        Orion also said:

        “A majority of international PhD’s have commented that it is the Electoral College that has caused the USA to be the most stable of all “presidentialist” systems in the World.”

        I don’t know where Orion got this information. I suspect he’s making fantastic stories again to support his made-up arguments. Well, the reality is, America’s electoral college did not prevent ‘socialistic’ Obama from being elected. I’d like to know his sources.

        He also said:

        “Check out this article which explains that the US Presidential System is actually – UNDER THE HOOD – based on the Parliamentary System’s leader-selection method because the US uses the ELECTORAL COLLEGE.”

        It appears that the main source of his misinformed argument is a blog article written by an ill-informed blogger who didn’t even read a single Federalist Paper.

        Then he said:

        “What particular feature of the US Presidentialist System (that DOES NOT exist in the Philippine Presidentialist System or that of other presidentialist countries) makes the USA’s system work better than other presidentialist systems? Answer: The Electoral College.”

        The MAIN ANSWER to his misinformed post is: It’s because the Philippines DOES NOT APPLY FEDERALISM.

        Still, Orion doesn’t have enough brain cells to understand the relationship between Republicanism, Federalism and Presidential System. America is primarily a REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. To maintain a REPUBLICAN SYSTEM, the founding fathers adopted FEDERALISM that gives “independent power” to the States. This independent State power “serves as a check on the power of the Federal Government”. A landmark court decision clearly states: “federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power.”

        BY DEFINITION– and this is what you, guys, do NOT understand- America’s presidential system refers only to the ‘system’ and manner by which elected officials, particularly the President and Vice President, are ELECTED. This is the only feature of the American System which we PARTIALLY BORROWED.

  5. Kiro Alcazar permalink
    October 28, 2012 3:38

    The comments/statements below made by some members of Orion’s Correct group shows that they’re consistent with their agenda that “electoral college” is parliamentary system:

    From Allan Reyes: “Btw some countries who are using presidential system are more stable than Philippines because they adopted some features of parliamentary like majority vote rule, electoral college, etc…”

    From Harvey Aw 胡子江: “The US is presidential. Only in selecting their candidates is “parliamentary” because of electoral college and that’s why their system is still somewhat consistent.”

    Source: http://www.facebook.com/groups/ffreethinkers/permalink/10151217482207188/?comment_id=10151220432717188&offset=0&total_comments=212

    • October 29, 2012 3:38

      I am deeply disturbed how Mr. Orion transforms into an immature crybaby a la fascist whenever someone challenges or at least innocently questions his propositions. “STUPID” he throws away this kind of word as if it’s equally professional and diplomatic as saying “please review the discussion” or “the numbers speak already” SANS ad hominem attacks. Can’t he just plainly resort to his arguments with tolerance instead of bickering everyone else who can’t agree with his POV? He promotes decentralization but acts like a despot

  6. Kiro Alcazar permalink
    October 28, 2012 3:38

    Here are some Orion’s statements at FF group.

    http://www.facebook.com/groups/ffreethinkers/permalink/10151217494097188/?comment_id=10151217521092188&offset=0&total_comments=22

  7. Kiro Alcazar permalink
    November 9, 2012 3:38

    These Correct people must be on CRACK!

    http://www.facebook.com/groups/ffreethinkers/10151247485812188/?ref=notif&notif_t=group_comment

Trackbacks

  1. Presidential System Over Parliamentary System « THE VINCENTON POST
  2. On Dealing With a Clueless ‘Parliamentary’ Lackey « THE VINCENTON POST
  3. On Language Preservation, Culture and Blind Nationalism « THE VINCENTON POST
  4. Why Republican Federalism? | THE VINCENTON POST
  5. Free Market Republican System Over Parliamentary System | VINCENTON BLOGVINCENTON BLOG
  6. Free Market Republican System Over Parliamentary System | VINCENTON

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: