On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:46:11 -0600, rw
wrote:

riverman wrote:

I'm opposed to one-man-one-vote also, but not because all men are not
equally infomed, but because I am a rural denizen, and would find it
dispicable that the more populated urban centers would *always* rule
the vote.

I'm a rural denizen, as well. About as rural as you can get -- Custer
County, Idaho.

I'm also a liberal or progressive or whatever term you prefer. So is the
majority of my community of Stanley, population 100 as of the last
census. In 2004 Stanley went for Kerry three to two.

Idaho is a solidly Republican state, of course. My second congressional
district is even redder than district one. (Idaho only has two
congressional districts.)

Simply put, that means, under our current electoral system, that my vote
and the votes of like-minded voters in Stanley, count for nothing.

See - the Founding Fathers DID know what they were doing...

Seriously, though, I suspect you know that your idea is unworkable in
any group as large as the eligible voter pool of the US and IAC, doing
so would require a complete restructuring of the _United_ _States_.
Furthermore, there is no actual "popular vote," nor one intended, but
rather, an informal adding-up of the votes cast totals of 51 distinct
elections - no one "wins" or "loses" it because it doesn't exist. The
election is for the President of the _United_ _States_, not the
President of Each and Every Citizen Officially Residing in Any of the
States or Other Locales and Eligible to Vote, regardless of the bull****
the candidates spout about wanting to the president of all citizens.
Also, no law or other such restriction prevents you from moving to a
location in which you feel your vote would count (or count more).

Under a simple popular-vote system they would count.

In a true democracy, there would be no party primaries as now (each
party could make an unofficial recommendation, endorsement, etc.). Each
voter would get, basically, a piece of paper with the name of the office
and a blank line as a ballot upon which voters would indicate their
choice for each office, but I'm sure the ACLU and similar would say that
was unfair to some group or another. As it stands, even if the POTUS
election itself were "a simple popular-vote system," if a voter wants
their vote "to count," they must choose between McCain or Obama because
no other candidate can actually win, and those two were chosen by
systems that in no way resemble a "simple popular-vote system." IOW, a
"simple popular-vote system" in the election wouldn't really be much
more "democratic" than the EC system.

You don't like democracy because the urban majority does things you
don't like. I dislike anti-democracy because the rural majority does
things I don't like. It cuts both ways.

I say let's have democracy, and let the chips fall where they may.

Are you volunteering to be the lamb among the two wolves...?

Or Ken can be dictator. :-)

Not likely - more proof the FFs knew what they were doing...

TC,
R