Author: Jay Rinde
Date: 09:57:49 11/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2000 at 12:36:06, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >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. As in pro football, when the election is close by one percent, have sudden death. Sudden death chess! That would do it.
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.