Alaska for Obama?

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
Tom, could you explaine that, please? What corruption?

Dave



lessee.....vote suppression, bogus counting process, a few other things.
And, for the record, such corruption of popular vote goes on in countless
ways, nationwide, all the time. In 2000, in Florida, it just allowed the
elected officials of Florida(GOP) to 'declare' victory of a candidate under
dubious circumstances, with the Supreme Court maintaining the state's right
to do so.
Tom

Tom Littleton wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
m...
..

The only real effect is to magnify the voting power of residents of small
states at the expense of residents of large states,


which was precisely the compromise that enabled the creation of a Republic
of large and small population states. Otherwise, an agreement would have
never been reached, and the USA, as we know it, never would have existed.
Does the system work perfectly? No. Would any system? Just because a system
of simple majority seems simple, doesn't mean that it doesn't present very
real electoral/representational pitfalls. And, yes, you are correct in
citing how the system at the outset was able to work(before any real two
party setup in the current sense). Still, cite an example where the system
failed, beyond the fact that the person YOU supported didn't win.

I'll cite two.

In the Presidential Election of 1876 Samuel Tilden won the popular vote
but was defeated by Rutherford Hayes in electoral votes, 184 to 165
(later by 204 to 165 counting disputed votes, after an extremely bitter
and divisive electoral fight).

In the Presidential Election of 1888 incumbent Grover Cleveland won the
popular vote, but lost the electoral vote to Benjamin Harrison, 233 to 168.

I didn't support any of these candidates. :-)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw wrote in
m:

Tom Littleton wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
m...
..

The only real effect is to magnify the voting power of residents of
small states at the expense of residents of large states,


which was precisely the compromise that enabled the creation of a
Republic of large and small population states. Otherwise, an
agreement would have never been reached, and the USA, as we know it,
never would have existed. Does the system work perfectly? No. Would
any system? Just because a system of simple majority seems simple,
doesn't mean that it doesn't present very real
electoral/representational pitfalls. And, yes, you are correct in
citing how the system at the outset was able to work(before any real
two party setup in the current sense). Still, cite an example where
the system failed, beyond the fact that the person YOU supported
didn't win.

I'll cite two.

In the Presidential Election of 1876 Samuel Tilden won the popular
vote but was defeated by Rutherford Hayes in electoral votes, 184 to
165 (later by 204 to 165 counting disputed votes, after an extremely
bitter and divisive electoral fight).

In the Presidential Election of 1888 incumbent Grover Cleveland won
the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote to Benjamin Harrison,
233 to 168.

I didn't support any of these candidates. :-)


A minority-vote victory is not a failure of the Electoral College.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply