![]() |
Alaska for Obama?
With the stunning indictment of Sen. Ted Stevens (R AK), it's become
more plausible that Alaska will go for Obama (in addition to changing the name of the Anchorage airport). Alaska has three electoral votes and a population of about 684,000. An Alaska resident has nearly three times the voting power for president of a resident of California, and MORE than three times the voting power for president of a resident of Texas. In my dreams, Obama will win with a majority of electoral votes and a minority of popular votes. That would be sweet revenge. I can already hear the screams from the hypocritical right wing. Maybe such an outcome would result in reform of the stupid electoral system. ---- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
Alaska for Obama?
"rw" wrote in message m... Maybe such an outcome would result in reform of the stupid electoral system. I, for one, have never found anything stupid about the system. It works as designed. Tom |
Alaska for Obama?
"Tom Littleton" wrote in message news:raMjk.344$Ht4.140@trnddc01... "rw" wrote in message m... Maybe such an outcome would result in reform of the stupid electoral system. I, for one, have never found anything stupid about the system. It works as designed. Tom Just my take, but I don't recall anything about the SCOTUS's constitutional authority in making decisions as to electoral outcomes of POTUS? Ginsberg's dissenting opinion sums it up for me. "In sum, the Court' s conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is *impractical* is a prophecy the Court' s own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States. I dissent." http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/pres246.htm I join rw, in the belief that the system needs repair, but not likely for the same reasons. Op |
Alaska for Obama?
Tom Littleton wrote:
"rw" wrote in message m... Maybe such an outcome would result in reform of the stupid electoral system. I, for one, have never found anything stupid about the system. It works as designed. Tom It most certainly does not work as designed -- which is a good thing. As designed, the electors were to be free to vote for whomever they chose. The power to elect the president and vice president was taken away from a direct democratic vote and given to a small group of "wise old men." As I'm sure you know, that isn't the way the Electoral College works these days. While electors are technically allowed to vote for anyone they choose, in practice they are a "pledged" to one candidate. The only real effect is to magnify the voting power of residents of small states at the expense of residents of large states, and to leave open the disturbing and very real possibility that the winner will have lost the popular vote. It's an obsolete and dangerous system that was designed as a political compromise in a very different time. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
Alaska for Obama?
On Jul 29, 6:35 pm, rw wrote:
The only real effect is to magnify the voting power of residents of small states at the expense of residents of large states, And that, IMO, helps protect the interests of the varied populations, cultures, and lifestyles throughout our very large and diverse country. I'm all for it. We are, after all, a federation of _states_. Jon. |
Alaska for Obama?
|
Alaska for Obama?
"rw" wrote in message m... snip The president should be the president of ALL the people, and should be elected by popular vote. We should also scrap the state-by-state winner-take-all system because that also can lead to democratically illegitimate outcomes. The current electoral system is merely an obsolete, obscure, unfair, antidemocratic, and ponderous system born of a compromise necessary to get 13 states to ratify the constitution. Another compromise was to count slaves as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of congressional representation (although they had no vote, of course). -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. Interesting rant compared to your silence during the primaries re that "system". Bob Weinberger La Grande,OR ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
Alaska for Obama?
Bob Weinberger wrote:
"rw" wrote in message m... snip The president should be the president of ALL the people, and should be elected by popular vote. We should also scrap the state-by-state winner-take-all system because that also can lead to democratically illegitimate outcomes. The current electoral system is merely an obsolete, obscure, unfair, antidemocratic, and ponderous system born of a compromise necessary to get 13 states to ratify the constitution. Another compromise was to count slaves as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of congressional representation (although they had no vote, of course). -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. Interesting rant compared to your silence during the primaries re that "system". Bob Weinberger La Grande,OR So now you're criticizing me for what I DIDN'T say about politics on a flyfishing newsgroup? That's a first, I believe. BTW, I wouldn't call this a "rant." It's an opinion. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
Alaska for Obama?
"rw" wrote in message m... So now you're criticizing me for what I DIDN'T say about politics on a flyfishing newsgroup? That's a first, I believe. BTW, I wouldn't call this a "rant." It's an opinion. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address My, how thin skinned. No criticism. Simply an observation of an apparrent inconsistency. Bob Weinberger La Grande ,OR ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
Alaska for Obama?
On Jul 30, 10:38 am, rw wrote:
Can you explain why a resident of Alaska should have (effectively) three votes for every one vote of a resident of California or Texas? Which vote will get more campaign dollars spent trying to sway it? Jon. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter