Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 09:36:06 11/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 26, 2000 at 22:23:43, Mark Loftus wrote: >On November 26, 2000 at 21:28:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 26, 2000 at 19:36:01, Daniel Chancey wrote: >> >>>Who thinks the rejected votes should've counted and who thinks that the >>>electorial college should go? >>> >>>This is 100% off topic and I apologize for this. >>> >>>Castle2000 >> >> >>1. Not only is the USA a land of 250 million people, it is _also_ a land of >>50 states. The electoral college gives the small states a voice so that they >>are not overrun by a few large states. The only problem is that the small states still do get overrun by a few large states. >>2. All votes should be counted. But _only_ votes should be counted. Not >>ballots where you have to "imagine" what the intent of the voter actually >>was. IE dimples. Etc. A bunch of nonsense. If someone can't cast a vote >>properly, then perhaps their vote should not count. Voting is not rocket >>science. Not if kindergarden kids could use the same ballot as in West Palm >>Beach, and have _zero_ errors. >> >>Yes it is off-topic. But it is reasonably acceptable so long as it doesn't >>turn into an ugly argument... > > >I don't see a problem with the electoral college, those who gave us the >Constitution knew what they were doing. The idea of the Electoral College was conceived originally because those who gave us the Constitution didn't want the people to elect the president in the first place. The intent was that a group of rich, land-owning, white guys would get together and determine amongst themselves who would be the next president. Only later did it get twisted into the current system, where it's winner-take-all electoral votes in each state. And still when this started, only the white, land-owning men could vote. I think that if this were a perfect world, the current system _should_ work better, but then communism would lead to a utopian society in that perfect world. The serious flaws in the current electoral system are that: A) One can lose the popular vote (possibly by a very large margin) but still win the electoral vote. B) Onc can win the popular vote by 51 votes, but completely sweep the electoral vote. (Yeah, this would never happen. But it would look like one candidate was by far more popular than another, when in reality it's exactly equal for all practical and statistical purposes.) C) Only about half the states have laws that say winner-takes-all-electoral-votes. In some states, electors can vote for anyone they choose, rather than the person "chosen" by that state. D) In a very close election, it's nearly impossible to get an accurate count on votes. The counting machines have a built-in error rate, and obviously humans can make mistakes when counting also. E) Voting errors, voting fraud, and other nonsense is far too common. Combined with (D), this makes it nearly impossible in some cases to determine who the winner should really be.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.