Alaska for Obama?

"rw" wrote in message
m...
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:

I'm saying, and consistently have been saying, that an Alaskan has three
times the voting power of a Californian and a Texan, not that Alaska AS
AN ENTIRE STATE, has three times the voting power. Can't you ****ing
read?


You're making a spurious argument. You want to claim that because
1 electoral vote is split between 600,000 Californians but only
between 200,000 Alaskans that an individual Alaskan has three
times more "voting power". It's like arguing that because 3 people
split an orange somebody else has more apples.

All electoral votes are equal. One Californian (or Texan) voter gets
1/600000th of an electoral vote, while one Alaskan gets 1/200000th of a
vote (approximately). That means that a Californian or Texan vote is worth
only 1/3 of an Alaskan vote.

The electoral system is an arcane, overly complex, and undemocratic system
based on a political compromise well over 200 years old. It wasn't
designed to be fair or to work well. It was designed to get 13 states to
ratify the Constitution, just like counting a slave as 3/5 of a person for
the purpose of congressional representation.

We've made many progressive changes to the way elections are held and the
way votes are counted -- women's suffrage, the franchise of African
Americans, senators elected by popular vote, and so on. It used to be that
only white male property owners were allowed to vote.

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

First, the people do not vote for the President of the United States. The
States supply people to pick the POTUS. How that state picks those POTUS
pickers is up to the state. Look on the ballot. Does it say xxxx for
President, or does it name a group that is committed to vote for xxxx POTUS?
In California, the Electors are required by law to vote for the xxxx
candidate for POTUS on the first ballot. If there is a tie vote, they can
vote for anybody they desire. That person does not even have to been on the
ballot. And Majority rule can be a little bad. Sort of like mob rule. The
majority at the moment is of the mind to hang the local desperado from a
tree. They do it. Now is it legal, as a majority of the residents of the
area, thought it was a good idea?

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 00:20:07 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
.. .
Probably does. It was said that JFK (whom I voted for) won Chicago
and therefore Ill. because of voter fraud.

that's pretty must established fact, not hearsay. If you want to generalize,
the Dems get out the vote from the deceased better, the GOP has fraudulant
absentee balloting down to a science.

Were not the Dems guilty of the same thing on numerous occasions. The
school bus incident in Philly comes to mind, along with the dismissing
of over a thousand absentee ballots by military personell in Floriduh
because of some silly technicality.

It simply affirmed that the
State of Florida could not change the voting laws post facto. There
were, what, 5 recounts with Gore losing all of them. ..... Gore LOST.
Get over it.

not my point, David. Something was clearly up with turnout and votes for
Buchanan in a lot of districts. No investigation was done by the GOP-led
state government.

It was the ballot form, Tom, the ballot *approved* by the Dems.

It was a very fraudulant, crooked election from a notoriously fraudulant,
crooked state. And, it affected the national election, in that case. You
will note, however, that I defended the electoral college system, as I feel
it's purpose of evening out the importance of densely populated and rural
areas serves the country well. As for getting over Gore losing, hell, I
wasn't surprised that he lost in the first place, so nothing to get over
here......

The only thing fraudulant about it was the attempt to recount only
those districts which were heavily Democrat. Gore lost. Live with
it.

Dave

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:30:09 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

The
debacle of 2000 was NOT the fault of the electoral college system, it was a
corruption of the electoral system in one state. An electoral system
consisting of simple majority can be corrupted and abused every bit as
easily.

Tom, could you explaine that, please? What corruption?

Dave