![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 22 of 22. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Racer on November 8, 2000, at 20:42:52
It's Bill Clinton. I looked it up!
Of course, his term ends in January, and we'll have a new president after that. I don't know who that's going to be.
(Yes, it does seem rather surreal that the most interesting part of the election is that we STILL don't know who won.)
Makes me think it's time to revisit the need for the electoral college...
Posted by noa on November 9, 2000, at 7:17:14
In reply to I know who the President is!!!!!!!!, posted by Racer on November 8, 2000, at 20:42:52
I have been thinking that the electoral college is not relevant to our times. It was relevant perhaps when the average voter had no access to information about the candidates. But we have instantaneous and voluminous access to info. Seems to be unnecessary to me.
I have been asking myself, however, if I would feel this way if it were the other candidate who won the popular vote but was likely to lose the electoral college vote.
I heard a commentator talk about how if we got rid of the EC the candidates would spend too much time campaigning in the large cities and on the coasts, and would ignore the less populated states. On the other hand, though, why is it fair that the residents of less populated states have slightly more influence per individual than those of us in more populated states (every state starts with 2 electors regardless of population)??
I think it is time for this to change, but of course it is a hard battle--you need 2/3 of the congress( I don't know if it is both house and senate?) and 3/4 of the states to go along, I think.
Posted by Racer on November 9, 2000, at 10:43:57
In reply to Re: I know who the President is!!!!!!!!, posted by noa on November 9, 2000, at 7:17:14
> I have been asking myself, however, if I would feel this way if it were the other candidate who won the popular vote but was likely to lose the electoral college vote.
We discussed just that last night! If W had won the popular vote, but was losing the EC, we'd have been dancing in the streets.
Of course, my SO can't vote, since he's from out of town. At least he knows which candidate to vote for, so if he ever becomes a citizen, I won't have to tie him in the closet on election day.
Posted by noa on November 9, 2000, at 17:07:38
In reply to Re: I know who the President is!!!!!!!!, posted by Racer on November 9, 2000, at 10:43:57
Bush's lead is dwindling with the recount. Three more counties to recount, plus absentee ballots. That doesn't even count the 19,000 discarded ballots in Palm Beach County!
Let's hope for party time real soon, as we salute Prez Al and Veep Joe.
Posted by noa on November 9, 2000, at 18:19:32
In reply to Re: I know who the President is!!!!!!!!, posted by Racer on November 9, 2000, at 10:43:57
I just thought I'd share with you guys the body of a letter I just faxed to my congresswoman about the election problems. Of course, just after I faxed it, I read on CNN online that the Palm Beach County problem was not the only ballot problem. Apparently in a predominantly black district, voters were turned away and told there were no ballots left! I just might have to write her honor another letter about that one!
Congratulations on your reelection to the House of Representatives. I look forward to your continued representation of our county.I am quite distressed about the ballot situation in Palm Beach County, Florida, and want to convey to you my strong feelings that this situation must be addressed in order to protect the integrity of the Presidential Election process.
Recently, the United States encouraged the people of Serbia to protect the integrity of the balloting process in their country. If we do not allow the voters who are disenfranchised by confusing ballots the opportunity to resubmit their votes, we are not upholding the integrity of this sacred and essential part of our democracy----free and fair elections.
Left uncorrected, this problem will undoubtedly cast a shadow upon the legitimacy of Mr. Bush’s presidency, and on the honor of our country in the eyes of the world.
This situation transcends partisan politics. I am a supporter of Mr. Gore, but I would like to think that I would have these same feelings about this problem no matter what the election outcome. Even Mr. Buchanan, the beneficiary of some of the incorrect votes, said today that he does not want votes that were not intended for him. This problem is a threat to the integrity of our democratic process, regardless of who benefits from it or from correcting it.
I hope that you will do whatever is in your power to advocate for appropriate measures to correct this problem, so that the true intentions of the voters of Palm Beach County are carried out, and in order to uphold the integrity of the election process so essential to our democracy.
Thank you.
Posted by noa on November 9, 2000, at 18:33:58
In reply to Re: 362 votes and falling....., posted by noa on November 9, 2000, at 17:07:38
Another county reported in, and the Bush advantage continues to shrink. 2 counties left, plus absentee ballots.
Posted by stjames on November 11, 2000, at 19:58:35
In reply to I know who the President is!!!!!!!!, posted by Racer on November 8, 2000, at 20:42:52
Makes me think it's time to revisit the need for the electoral college...
James here....
Remember, Gore inveneted the electoral college ! He he.
james
Posted by Snowie on November 11, 2000, at 21:35:09
In reply to Re: integrity of the elections, posted by noa on November 9, 2000, at 18:19:32
Noa,
I faxed a very similar letter to the Attorney General of Florida, and plan to send them to Florida Senators Graham and Davis, who just happen to both be Democrats. Mr. Butterworth was the campaign manager for Vice President Gore in Florida. Here is my letter:
"Dear Mr. Butterworth:
Please allow me to state my opinion and to perhaps vent my frustration regarding the Presidential election debacle that has taken place in the State of Florida, particularly in South Florida. I feel very strongly that
the will of the people of Florida will not be accurately reflected unless and until the residents of Palm Beach County are allowed to recast their vote. There were too many inconsistencies and too many voter errors
involved -- apparently due to the confusion over the ballot used only in Palm Beach County -- to simply dismiss this situation. My understanding is that the sample ballot sent to many of the voters of that county was different than the actual voting ballot used. Also, having seen the ballot used in Palm Beach County on television, I can understand the confusion and the subsequent frustration of many of those residents.I am a registered voter (Independent) from Hillsborough County, and although I decided at the last hour to vote for Vice President Al Gore, my concern is not partisan. Rather, I hope that this election will ultimately be decided by a majority decision of the people of this State, and so far this does not appear to have happened.
Thank you."
Snowie
> I just thought I'd share with you guys the body of a letter I just faxed to my congresswoman about the election problems. Of course, just after I faxed it, I read on CNN online that the Palm Beach County problem was not the only ballot problem. Apparently in a predominantly black district, voters were turned away and told there were no ballots left! I just might have to write her honor another letter about that one!
>
> Congratulations on your reelection to the House of Representatives. I look forward to your continued representation of our county.
>
> I am quite distressed about the ballot situation in Palm Beach County, Florida, and want to convey to you my strong feelings that this situation must be addressed in order to protect the integrity of the Presidential Election process.
>
> Recently, the United States encouraged the people of Serbia to protect the integrity of the balloting process in their country. If we do not allow the voters who are disenfranchised by confusing ballots the opportunity to resubmit their votes, we are not upholding the integrity of this sacred and essential part of our democracy----free and fair elections.
>
> Left uncorrected, this problem will undoubtedly cast a shadow upon the legitimacy of Mr. Bush’s presidency, and on the honor of our country in the eyes of the world.
>
> This situation transcends partisan politics. I am a supporter of Mr. Gore, but I would like to think that I would have these same feelings about this problem no matter what the election outcome. Even Mr. Buchanan, the beneficiary of some of the incorrect votes, said today that he does not want votes that were not intended for him. This problem is a threat to the integrity of our democratic process, regardless of who benefits from it or from correcting it.
>
> I hope that you will do whatever is in your power to advocate for appropriate measures to correct this problem, so that the true intentions of the voters of Palm Beach County are carried out, and in order to uphold the integrity of the election process so essential to our democracy.
>
> Thank you.
Posted by Snowie on November 11, 2000, at 22:04:08
In reply to Re: I know who the President is!!!!!!!!, posted by noa on November 9, 2000, at 7:17:14
IMH-nonpartisan-O, the Electoral College is an archaic relic from our forefathers (not to be confused with the U.S. Constitution). In this enlightened, information age, there is no need for an intermediary between the People and the Presidential candidates. Consequently, the Electoral College serves no real purpose except to confuse and frustrate, and should be abolished. And while we're making changes, why not change the election from a weekday to the weekend, when most people are closest to their voting precincts? And I'm tired of the old excuses: "It's tradition." It was tradition to use a horse and buggy a century ago, but thank goodness that didn't stop progress.
Snowie
> I have been thinking that the electoral college is not relevant to our times. It was relevant perhaps when the average voter had no access to information about the candidates. But we have instantaneous and voluminous access to info. Seems to be unnecessary to me.
>
> I have been asking myself, however, if I would feel this way if it were the other candidate who won the popular vote but was likely to lose the electoral college vote.
>
> I heard a commentator talk about how if we got rid of the EC the candidates would spend too much time campaigning in the large cities and on the coasts, and would ignore the less populated states. On the other hand, though, why is it fair that the residents of less populated states have slightly more influence per individual than those of us in more populated states (every state starts with 2 electors regardless of population)??
>
> I think it is time for this to change, but of course it is a hard battle--you need 2/3 of the congress( I don't know if it is both house and senate?) and 3/4 of the states to go along, I think.
Posted by Sunnely on November 11, 2000, at 23:57:55
In reply to Re: integrity of the elections, posted by Snowie on November 11, 2000, at 21:35:09
> This situation transcends partisan politics. I am a supporter of Mr. Gore, but I would like to think that I would have these same feelings about this problem no matter what the election outcome. Even Mr. Buchanan, the beneficiary of some of the incorrect votes, said today that he does not want votes that were not intended for him. This problem is a threat to the integrity of our democratic process, regardless of who benefits from it or from correcting it.
Hi Snowie,
Nicely put.
Mr. Bush kept saying during his campaign that "I trust the people." I wonder why he is so opposed to a hand recount to ascertain that the votes of the people whom he "trusts" really count?
Posted by Snowie on November 12, 2000, at 6:23:43
In reply to Re: integrity of the elections » Snowie, posted by Sunnely on November 11, 2000, at 23:57:55
Sunnely,
Thanks. I was surprised at how similar my letter was in content to Noa's (whose writing style is wonderful and uniquely her own).
IMO, it's highly unlikely that the Bush camp will win the hand count injunction. Other than a re-vote for Palm Beach County (which has a high percentage of elderly Democrats, and which Bush will vigorously oppose), I suggest they throw out Florida, which is possible if this is still undecided when the Electors meet.
BTW, Bob Graham (D) and Connie Mack (R) are the Senators from Florida, although Mack doesn't intend to seek re-election. Congressman Jim Davis is my District Representative. Sorry.
Snowie
> > This situation transcends partisan politics. I am a supporter of Mr. Gore, but I would like to think that I would have these same feelings about this problem no matter what the election outcome. Even Mr. Buchanan, the beneficiary of some of the incorrect votes, said today that he does not want votes that were not intended for him. This problem is a threat to the integrity of our democratic process, regardless of who benefits from it or from correcting it.
>
> Hi Snowie,
>
> Nicely put.
>
> Mr. Bush kept saying during his campaign that "I trust the people." I wonder why he is so opposed to a hand recount to ascertain that the votes of the people whom he "trusts" really count?
Posted by Snowie on November 12, 2000, at 6:43:57
In reply to Re: I know who the President is!!!!!!!!, posted by Racer on November 9, 2000, at 10:43:57
Racer,
If the tables were turned, I don't think that I would be exactly unhappy, but I would certainly understand the other side's concern. However, I don't think that I would want my candidate to win at the expense of the voters.
My understanding is that in the history of the U.S., this has only happened 3 times, i.e., that a Presidential candidate has lost the popular vote, but won the Electoral vote and the election. See the interesting link for more details.
Snowie
> > I have been asking myself, however, if I would feel this way if it were the other candidate who won the popular vote but was likely to lose the electoral college vote.
>
> We discussed just that last night! If W had won the popular vote, but was losing the EC, we'd have been dancing in the streets.
>
> Of course, my SO can't vote, since he's from out of town. At least he knows which candidate to vote for, so if he ever becomes a citizen, I won't have to tie him in the closet on election day.
Posted by B Day on November 12, 2000, at 9:31:09
In reply to Re: integrity of the elections » Snowie, posted by Sunnely on November 11, 2000, at 23:57:55
> Mr. Bush kept saying during his campaign that "I trust the people." I wonder why he is so opposed to a hand recount to ascertain that the votes of the people whom he "trusts" really count?
>Yep!
One also wonders what ever happened to "Every Vote Counts". I find it interesting that the first time in my life I've seen the truth of that statement so dramatically demonstrated, so many people have changed their tune saying those 19,000 votes simply don't matter.
Another way I'm looking at it is that the 19,000 disqualified votes, not to mention the estimated 2-3000 miscast votes is the equivalent size of probably most of the mid-sized small towns in America.
My sisters live in a little hamlet of around 5,000 souls. If those folks had all their votes thrown out of this election the town would have probably declared war on the federal government by now.
B
Posted by Snowie on November 12, 2000, at 14:29:01
In reply to Re: integrity of the elections » Sunnely, posted by Snowie on November 12, 2000, at 6:23:43
How embarrassing -- I'll eventually get it right. Florida's U.S. Senators are Senator-Elect Bill Nelson (D) (whom I voted for just a few days ago), and Senator Bob Graham (D).
Snowie
> Sunnely,
>
> Thanks. I was surprised at how similar my letter was in content to Noa's (whose writing style is wonderful and uniquely her own).
>
> IMO, it's highly unlikely that the Bush camp will win the hand count injunction. Other than a re-vote for Palm Beach County (which has a high percentage of elderly Democrats, and which Bush will vigorously oppose), I suggest they throw out Florida, which is possible if this is still undecided when the Electors meet.
>
> BTW, Bob Graham (D) and Connie Mack (R) are the Senators from Florida, although Mack doesn't intend to seek re-election. Congressman Jim Davis is my District Representative. Sorry.
>
> Snowie
>
>
> > > This situation transcends partisan politics. I am a supporter of Mr. Gore, but I would like to think that I would have these same feelings about this problem no matter what the election outcome. Even Mr. Buchanan, the beneficiary of some of the incorrect votes, said today that he does not want votes that were not intended for him. This problem is a threat to the integrity of our democratic process, regardless of who benefits from it or from correcting it.
> >
> > Hi Snowie,
> >
> > Nicely put.
> >
> > Mr. Bush kept saying during his campaign that "I trust the people." I wonder why he is so opposed to a hand recount to ascertain that the votes of the people whom he "trusts" really count?
Posted by Sunnely on November 12, 2000, at 15:17:14
In reply to Re: integrity of the elections » Sunnely, posted by Snowie on November 12, 2000, at 6:23:43
1. Electoral college.
Don't end it but mend it. EC was included in the Constitution by our founding fathers in the name of fairness. If EC is scrapped and the winner is based on majority votes garnered, most if not all of the attention will be grabbed by the big states. Major political parties will see to it that their presidential candidates hail from either California, New York, or Texas. If a presidential candidate is from CA, it is no brainer that he will pick for his VP someone from either NY or TX. This may lead to the polarization of the country. Smaller states may end up uniting to fight against the candidate of the big states.
2. Introduce and pass the Campaign Finance Reform bill.
Hopefully, this will stop those special interests with big bucks from "buying" the election. May be elected officials won't feel so beholden to any of them and will turn their attention to the less fortunate people who really need it.
3. Ban the media and other national pollsters from polling at least 1 week before an election.
I know that this may infringe against the First Amendment. On the other hand, polling only invites more confusion and discourages voter from participating in the election. Furthermore, pollsters can sway voters one way or the other. The number of national pollsters have mushroomed mostly giving mixed, confusing, and unreliable results. This last presidential election is a testament to this. All the major national pollsters gave Bush from 2-5 point edge against Gore until election day, except one, the Zogby poll, which correctly predicted that Gore would win the popular votes by a slim margin.
4. Ban all exit pollsters from the polls.
They are not always accurate. (This is related to number 3.) Remember the chaos they created when they initially projected Gore as the winner in Florida, then changed it to Bush, then changed it to "too close to call" where we are stuck right now, 5 days after the election.
5. Use only "user-friendly" and universal election ballot.
Stop the use of antiquated methods of voting such as the punch cards. With the US in the forefront of the high-tech age, there is no reason why we can't relegate these dinosaurs into extinction.
6. Make the US Presidential election day a national holiday.
I believe this will create increased enthusiasm for each citizen to exercise his/her given right to vote. In turn, this leads to increase voter turn out. It is appalling to note that only 50% of the US citizenry participated in the last presidential election. I don't think Americans realize how lucky they are to have the right to shape their future through the election. I came from another country (now US citizen) where the form of government was a carbon copy of the US. Tragically, for at least 15 years, democracy was raped by dictatorship. During this time, not only was the joy of electing a president came to a cruel and abrupt halt, but also the right of the people to gather, demonstrate and express ones' opinion. People were afraid to say anything negative about the president turned dictator. For one to do so risk a chance of being vanished without a trace and/or his/her family threatened and tortured. Finally, after those agonizing years although at the expense of countless lives, democracy was restored and the dictator was VOTED out of power and out of the country.
Just my own 2 cents.
Posted by Hannah on November 12, 2000, at 18:17:46
In reply to Some tips for a fair future national election, posted by Sunnely on November 12, 2000, at 15:17:14
Sunnely Thanks for a little clear thinking. I've been watching CNN so much the last few days,it's a pleasant change. I get so tired of the talking heads trying to whip up a frenzy and declare a national crisis! Of course my chad's been hanging by a thread for years, so what do I know.
> 1. Electoral college.
>
> Don't end it but mend it. EC was included in the Constitution by our founding fathers in the name of fairness. If EC is scrapped and the winner is based on majority votes garnered, most if not all of the attention will be grabbed by the big states. Major political parties will see to it that their presidential candidates hail from either California, New York, or Texas. If a presidential candidate is from CA, it is no brainer that he will pick for his VP someone from either NY or TX. This may lead to the polarization of the country. Smaller states may end up uniting to fight against the candidate of the big states.
>
> 2. Introduce and pass the Campaign Finance Reform bill.
>
> Hopefully, this will stop those special interests with big bucks from "buying" the election. May be elected officials won't feel so beholden to any of them and will turn their attention to the less fortunate people who really need it.
>
> 3. Ban the media and other national pollsters from polling at least 1 week before an election.
>
> I know that this may infringe against the First Amendment. On the other hand, polling only invites more confusion and discourages voter from participating in the election. Furthermore, pollsters can sway voters one way or the other. The number of national pollsters have mushroomed mostly giving mixed, confusing, and unreliable results. This last presidential election is a testament to this. All the major national pollsters gave Bush from 2-5 point edge against Gore until election day, except one, the Zogby poll, which correctly predicted that Gore would win the popular votes by a slim margin.
>
> 4. Ban all exit pollsters from the polls.
>
> They are not always accurate. (This is related to number 3.) Remember the chaos they created when they initially projected Gore as the winner in Florida, then changed it to Bush, then changed it to "too close to call" where we are stuck right now, 5 days after the election.
>
> 5. Use only "user-friendly" and universal election ballot.
>
> Stop the use of antiquated methods of voting such as the punch cards. With the US in the forefront of the high-tech age, there is no reason why we can't relegate these dinosaurs into extinction.
>
> 6. Make the US Presidential election day a national holiday.
>
> I believe this will create increased enthusiasm for each citizen to exercise his/her given right to vote. In turn, this leads to increase voter turn out. It is appalling to note that only 50% of the US citizenry participated in the last presidential election. I don't think Americans realize how lucky they are to have the right to shape their future through the election. I came from another country (now US citizen) where the form of government was a carbon copy of the US. Tragically, for at least 15 years, democracy was raped by dictatorship. During this time, not only was the joy of electing a president came to a cruel and abrupt halt, but also the right of the people to gather, demonstrate and express ones' opinion. People were afraid to say anything negative about the president turned dictator. For one to do so risk a chance of being vanished without a trace and/or his/her family threatened and tortured. Finally, after those agonizing years although at the expense of countless lives, democracy was restored and the dictator was VOTED out of power and out of the country.
>
> Just my own 2 cents.
Posted by shellie on November 12, 2000, at 20:33:20
In reply to Some tips for a fair future national election, posted by Sunnely on November 12, 2000, at 15:17:14
> 1. Electoral college.
>
> Don't end it but mend it. EC was included in the Constitution by our founding fathers in the name of fairness. If EC is scrapped and the winner is based on majority votes garnered, most if not all of the attention will be grabbed by the big states. Major political parties will see to it that their presidential candidates hail from either California, New York, or Texas. If a presidential candidate is from CA, it is no brainer that he will pick for his VP someone from either NY or TX. This may lead to the polarization of the country. Smaller states may end up uniting to fight against the candidate of the big states.
>Sunnely, just curious what you think about keeping the electorial college, but instead of winner takes all, electorial votes in each state go according to proportion of votes cast per candidate. Like in Maine. Is there a disadvantage that I am missing by saying, for example, in a state with ten electorial votes, if Dem candidate gets 60% of vote, he gets 6 electorial votes and 4 votes for the opponent? Shellie
Posted by Snowie on November 12, 2000, at 21:10:14
In reply to Some tips for a fair future national election, posted by Sunnely on November 12, 2000, at 15:17:14
See my responses after Sunnely's.
> 1. Electoral college.
>
> Don't end it but mend it. EC was included in the Constitution by our founding fathers in the name of fairness. If EC is scrapped and the winner is based on majority votes garnered, most if not all of the attention will be grabbed by the big states. Major political parties will see to it that their presidential candidates hail from either California, New York, or Texas. If a presidential candidate is from CA, it is no brainer that he will pick for his VP someone from either NY or TX. This may lead to the polarization of the country. Smaller states may end up uniting to fight against the candidate of the big states.I'm not entirely persuaded by your reasoning here. Our forefather's weren't interested in fairness; they were afraid of the power of an unenlightened people to directly elect the President of the United States. As seen in this election, candidates don't always win their home states. Also, you still have polarization with the Electoral College, but with the Electoral College winner takes all. With the popular vote, every vote counts. We will always have some states that swing slightly either Republican or Democrat (depending upon the candidates), and other states that vote predominantly one party or the other. However, as it now stands, it's almost futile for a resident of a partisan state to even vote for the minority party, and it leads to apathy when people feel their votes don't count. Besides, isn't allowing the collective people the right to choose what democracy is supposedly all about?
That having been said, I would be interested in any opinions as to how we could mend the Electoral College.
> 2. Introduce and pass the Campaign Finance Reform bill.
>
> Hopefully, this will stop those special interests with big bucks from "buying" the election. May be elected officials won't feel so beholden to any of them and will turn their attention to the less fortunate people who really need it.Total agreement here, but I doubt that will change much since the stakes are so high. Also, how could we as a nation police the parties? It might stop some of the television ads, but not necessarily the buying of votes, the leakage of information, intimidation at polls, etc. Everyone seems to know that these things exist, but nothing is done.
> 3. Ban the media and other national pollsters from polling at least 1 week before an election.
>
> I know that this may infringe against the First Amendment. On the other hand, polling only invites more confusion and discourages voter from participating in the election. Furthermore, pollsters can sway voters one way or the other. The number of national pollsters have mushroomed mostly giving mixed, confusing, and unreliable results. This last presidential election is a testament to this. All the major national pollsters gave Bush from 2-5 point edge against Gore until election day, except one, the Zogby poll, which correctly predicted that Gore would win the popular votes by a slim margin.I agree, but doubt this could be enforced. In my opinion, the media should not be calling results before all of the polls in every state have closed. Unfortunately, the media is about ratings, not information. The media will do what it must to get ratings, i.e., provide information, even if that information is not always fair or even accurate.
> 4. Ban all exit pollsters from the polls.
>
> They are not always accurate. (This is related to number 3.) Remember the chaos they created when they initially projected Gore as the winner in Florida, then changed it to Bush, then changed it to "too close to call" where we are stuck right now, 5 days after the election.Agree, but doubt this could be enforced for the same reasons noted above.
> 5. Use only "user-friendly" and universal election ballot.
>
> Stop the use of antiquated methods of voting such as the punch cards. With the US in the forefront of the high-tech age, there is no reason why we can't relegate these dinosaurs into extinction.Agree. An overhaul of the system is long overdue.
> 6. Make the US Presidential election day a national holiday.
>
> I believe this will create increased enthusiasm for each citizen to exercise his/her given right to vote. In turn, this leads to increase voter turn out. It is appalling to note that only 50% of the US citizenry participated in the last presidential election. I don't think Americans realize how lucky they are to have the right to shape their future through the election. I came from another country (now US citizen) where the form of government was a carbon copy of the US. Tragically, for at least 15 years, democracy was raped by dictatorship. During this time, not only was the joy of electing a president came to a cruel and abrupt halt, but also the right of the people to gather, demonstrate and express ones' opinion. People were afraid to say anything negative about the president turned dictator. For one to do so risk a chance of being vanished without a trace and/or his/her family threatened and tortured. Finally, after those agonizing years although at the expense of countless lives, democracy was restored and the dictator was VOTED out of power and out of the country.Big agreement here!
Snowie
Posted by Sunnely on November 12, 2000, at 23:50:07
In reply to Re: Some tips for a fair future national election » Sunnely, posted by Snowie on November 12, 2000, at 21:10:14
> I'm not entirely persuaded by your reasoning here. Our forefather's weren't interested in fairness; they were afraid of the power of an unenlightened people to directly elect the President of the United States.
Hi Snowie,
I stand corrected. However, that was 200+ years ago, the era of the pony express. With the advent of the Information Superhighway, I can't think of any segment of the nation that remain ignorant or "unenlightened" about issues. Look, here I am responding to your post of just a few minutes ago. But I still believe Electoral College should remain although "fairness" will be more appropriate now than "enlightening the people." I do think it needs some modifications to conform with time changes.
I agree with you that candidates don't always win their home states. I do believe, however, that this is more uncommon event and political parties will still be incline to bet on a candidate who hail from the bigger states. Some aspects of politics is like betting in a horse race. You go with the percentages or odds. In fact, the Bush campaign is heavily critisized, even by their fellow Republicans, for spending heavily in CA (slim chance of winning) instead of concentrating on other states with better chance of winning such as Pennsylvania and Florida.
> Big agreement here!
I believe that every US citizen should make it a point to exercise their right to vote. In some other countries, a lot of people sacrificed their lives protecting this right.
Posted by Sunnely on November 13, 2000, at 0:09:25
In reply to Re: Some tips for a fair future national election » Sunnely, posted by shellie on November 12, 2000, at 20:33:20
> Sunnely, just curious what you think about keeping the electorial college, but instead of winner takes all, electorial votes in each state go according to proportion of votes cast per candidate. Like in Maine. Is there a disadvantage that I am missing by saying, for example, in a state with ten electorial votes, if Dem candidate gets 60% of vote, he gets 6 electorial votes and 4 votes for the opponent? Shellie
++++++++++
Hi Shellie,
I think Maine's arrangement is a good idea. If we stay with the electoral votes, every state should follow Maine's formula. "Winner-take-all" in electoral votes, in my opinion, is unfair. With the Winner-Take-All formula, and with the right combination of states, it is possible although statistically improbable, that one can become president by just winning 1 more vote than his/her closest rival. I think you're right that awarding the electoral votes proportionately makes more sense.
Posted by noa on November 13, 2000, at 8:26:54
In reply to Re: integrity of the elections » Snowie, posted by Sunnely on November 11, 2000, at 23:57:55
I watched the Sunday news interviews and it seems the objection is that there are no state-wide standards for interpreting the ballots by hand--ie, if a hole is only punched out 3/4 of the way, etc.
This seems legit to me. So, why don't they set state wide standards and go to it?
And the objection to the 4 counties in question being democratic? Recount the whole state!!
Posted by noa on November 13, 2000, at 8:32:20
In reply to Re: Some tips for a fair future national election » Sunnely, posted by shellie on November 12, 2000, at 20:33:20
I heard one proposal that the electoral votes would go by congressional district.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.