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.

"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

"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

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.

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.

wrote:
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.

Can you explain why a resident of Alaska should have (effectively) three
votes for every one vote of a resident of California or Texas?

If you truly want a federation of states, the electoral system is a
screwy way to achieve it. The power of small states is already protected
by every state having two senators. (Until 1913 Senators were elected by
state legislatures, not by popular vote. That was changed by the 17th
amendment, so electoral reform is possible.)

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.

"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 **

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.

"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 **

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.