Author: Michael Cummings
Date: 19:01:02 12/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 02, 2000 at 10:04:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 01, 2000 at 23:54:32, David Rasmussen wrote: > >>On December 01, 2000 at 16:01:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>Inside the states, it _is_ one person, one vote. At the federal level, the >>>states are given an equal starting point in the electoral college (each state >>>gets 2 votes regardless of the population, then a proportion of electoral >>>votes matching their proportion of the total population.) >>> >>>The scheme makes perfect sense. And has stood the test of time for > 200 >>>years. It works and isn't broken in the least... >> >>Well, as I've said, I don't think it works. It's a matter of what you call >>democratic. You're just stating an opinion, you're not arguing WHY you think it >>works. I've argued as to why I DON'T think it works. I haven't heard any >>counterarguments. > > >I don't know why you refuse to read, but here goes again. The US is a >collection of 50 individual states, with individual state governments, with >an overall federal authority sitting on top of them. When the framers of >the constitution considered this authority, they felt (and rightly so) that >popular vote would not work. At the time the constitution was drawn up, >there were 13 original colonies that became states. 75% of the population >was in 2 or 3 of the colonies. Which meant they would control _all_ federal >government decisions. As a result, the senate and house were defined, with >the house voting on popular vote lines, and the senate giving each state >equal voice. To select the president, these were combined into the electoral >college concept. Makes perfect sense. Has worked perfectly for > 200 years. >Will probably work fine for another 200 years. > >People have rights. So do individual states. Without the electoral college, >35 out of the 50 states would have _no_ say-so in the presidential election >process at all. Hence the need for the electoral college to give even sparsely >populated states a say... Maybe have worked perfectly for the past 200 years but right not it is not working, which basically I think has to do not with how it works, but how the votes are counted. I do not understand how some places can have three mechanical recounts and each vary by thousands of votes after each count. To me the technology is flawed and I think that is what should be challenged. Of course their is a small degree of corruption, every election in any country has that. But to me it is allot easier to do it on mass when technology starts to play a part.
This page took 0.01 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.