The Electoral system

What? And let the peoples' vote count? End pork barrel to the large
electoral vote states?

And force all to read history before voting?

How does it work in Australia?

.... The present system is not about government, it is about party
perpetuation.


john
"rw" wrote in message
m...
In the 2000 election Gore won the popular vote by about 500,000 votes,
but lost the election to Bush by the Electoral vote count.

In the 2004 election Bush won the popular vote by about 3,500,000 votes,
but if Kerry had gotten about 140,000 more votes in Ohio he would now be
the President-elect by virtue of a majority of Electoral votes.

Isn't it time to reform this stupid, broken system?

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

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 00:06:10 GMT, "asadi...."
wrote:

What? And let the peoples' vote count? End pork barrel to the large
electoral vote states?

And force all to read history before voting?

How does it work in Australia?

... The present system is not about government, it is about party
perpetuation.

Ya, it's interesting how differentiated rights are OK when it's the
Electoral College we're discussing but wrong when it's affirmative
action or gay rights, or whatever. It's kinda hard to take when
differentiated rights are OK as long as it's the other guy's ox that
is getting gored. (Don't worry, we have the same bull****, different
flavour, in Canuckistanni land. We're no better.)

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 00:06:10 GMT, "asadi...."
wrote:

What? And let the peoples' vote count? End pork barrel to the large
electoral vote states?

And force all to read history before voting?

How does it work in Australia?

... The present system is not about government, it is about party
perpetuation.

Ya, it's interesting how differentiated rights are OK when it's the
Electoral College we're discussing but wrong when it's affirmative
action or gay rights, or whatever. It's kinda hard to take when
differentiated rights are OK as long as it's the other guy's ox that
is getting gored. (Don't worry, we have the same bull****, different
flavour, in Canuckistanni land. We're no better.)

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

"rw" wrote in message
m...
...Isn't it time to reform this stupid, broken system?

It is. But, if we're going to reform it......you know bring it all the way
up to the nineteenth century or something.....what the hell, why not just do
away with this silly bull**** rotating monarchy altogether?

The possibilities are endless........heck, we could even give democracy a
try. People have been talking about it for centuries; why not see if it
works?

Wolfgang
i mean, really, what have we got to lose?

rw wrote:

In the 2000 election Gore won the popular vote by about 500,000 votes,
but lost the election to Bush by the Electoral vote count.

In the 2004 election Bush won the popular vote by about 3,500,000 votes,
but if Kerry had gotten about 140,000 more votes in Ohio he would now be
the President-elect by virtue of a majority of Electoral votes.

Isn't it time to reform this stupid, broken system?

This canard seems to come up every presidential election. It is in the
interest of the more populous states to get rid of the electoral college
but against the interest of the less populous states. To get rid of it
requires a constitutional amendment. To pass it requires 38 states to
vote for it. If a minimum of 13 oppose it, it doesn't pass. The nine
most populous states hold a bit more than 50% of the population. That
leaves 41 in whose interest it would not be to pass such an amendment of
whom only 13 need to see it that way. It ain't going happen.

Mike

"Mike McGuire" wrote

If a minimum of 13 oppose it, it doesn't pass. The nine
most populous states hold a bit more than 50% of the population. That
leaves 41 in whose interest it would not be to pass such an amendment of
whom only 13 need to see it that way. It ain't going happen.

Mike

hold on here. you haven't heard how pat robertson feels about the
issue. everything could change.

wayno ;(

"Mike McGuire" wrote in message
link.net...
rw wrote:

In the 2000 election Gore won the popular vote by about 500,000 votes,
but lost the election to Bush by the Electoral vote count.

In the 2004 election Bush won the popular vote by about 3,500,000 votes,
but if Kerry had gotten about 140,000 more votes in Ohio he would now be
the President-elect by virtue of a majority of Electoral votes.

Isn't it time to reform this stupid, broken system?

This canard seems to come up every presidential election. It is in the
interest of the more populous states to get rid of the electoral college
but against the interest of the less populous states. To get rid of it
requires a constitutional amendment. To pass it requires 38 states to vote
for it. If a minimum of 13 oppose it, it doesn't pass. The nine most
populous states hold a bit more than 50% of the population. That leaves 41
in whose interest it would not be to pass such an amendment of whom only
13 need to see it that way.

Good God, you people will swallow anything. The abolition of the Electoral
College doesn't "favor" anyone but individual voters. With or without the
electoral college, places where there are more people have more votes. With
or without the electoral college, states with larger populations exert more
influence becasue there are more people voting.

The underlying principle behind democratic elections is that everyone who is
eligible to vote gets one vote, and whichever candidate gets the majority of
the votes wins the election. Insofar as the Electoral College supports that
fundamental tenet, it is entirely superfluous. We just don't need it. If
it does anything other than facilitate the democratic electoral process, it
subverts the very core of Democracy. And that is EXACTLY what it does.

Wolfgang

It ain't going happen.

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

Good God, you people will swallow anything. The abolition of the
Electoral
College doesn't "favor" anyone but individual voters. With or without the
electoral college, places where there are more people have more votes.
With
or without the electoral college, states with larger populations exert
more
influence becasue there are more people voting.

The underlying principle behind democratic elections is that everyone who
is
eligible to vote gets one vote, and whichever candidate gets the majority
of
the votes wins the election. Insofar as the Electoral College supports
that
fundamental tenet, it is entirely superfluous. We just don't need it. If
it does anything other than facilitate the democratic electoral process,
it
subverts the very core of Democracy. And that is EXACTLY what it does.

Wolfgang

While all of the above is true with regard to a Democracy, our system is
not a Democracy and never has been. Our system of government is a republic,
with all the "subversions" of democracy that that entails. It would take a
major re-write of our constitition to change our system to a true Democracy.
I suspect nothing short of a revolution would accomplish that. Not that
such a revolution is necessarily a bad thing.


--
Bob Weinberger
La, Grande, OR

place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email

Bob Weinberger wrote:

While all of the above is true with regard to a Democracy, our system is
not a Democracy and never has been. Our system of government is a republic,
with all the "subversions" of democracy that that entails. It would take a
major re-write of our constitition to change our system to a true Democracy.
I suspect nothing short of a revolution would accomplish that. Not that
such a revolution is necessarily a bad thing.

The revolution starts now.

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

wrote...
The revolution starts now.

With bitches like you fighting, are you ready to concede yet?

:-)
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt and earth(nospam)link dot net to reply via email)