Thank God!

...um...yes.

Reply to
Rufus
Loading thread data ...

I for one would like to see the EC revamped or eliminated, at a minimum be more open - have you ever actually tried to find out who your EC reps are? I think it's easier to pick the lock at Ft Knox...

But on the other hand - an interesting thing happened out here in Mono County - a dead even tie in the popular vote. Interesting...a tie in the EC, while pretty evident in the outcome, would still have been an interesting civics lesson.

Reply to
Rufus

...I actually got to sit at the controls of a P-38 as a teenager, and a Gemini space capsule that had been into orbit as a youngster.

But I've lost my ring...

Reply to
Rufus

Heh...love the sig...

Reply to
Rufus

...one of the gals at work today was saying she was going home and burn all of her Springteen records.

Reply to
Rufus

ROFL! Be sure to read the 'Questions from other buyers ' at the bottom....

Reply to
Al Superczynski

Repeating the above; he did. Bush was reelected.

-- -- -- -- -- "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." George Orwell

My Home Page:

formatting link

Reply to
Bill Woodier

**** SNIP ****

On the way. From what's been said, the Infernal Revenue Service and the Federal Income Redistribution Tax (aka the income tax) will be among the first to contribute to that smaller gov'mint.

Ed

Not Fonda Kerry

Reply to
RobbelothE

Reply to
Robert Skipper

Maybe, but if Howard had lost headlines worldwide would have trumpeted that it was because of his support of the war in Iraq.

Reply to
Al Superczynski

snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net ( WmB) wrote in :

A bit, but that could be achieved just as well with some maths. The current system has middlemen who are allowed to ignore the popular vote. I understand why it was set up that way 200 years ago, but those reasons seem less than valid these days.

Reply to
Harro de Jong

snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net (AM) wrote in :

That's not what I said or meant. The numerics make sense (although the influence of thinly populated states is at best double that of a straight popular vote). It's the middleman that's questionable. They can ignore the popular vote, remember?

Reply to
Harro de Jong

snipped-for-privacy@earthNOSPAMlink.net (Greg Heilers) wrote in :

There's a solution for that as well: have more than two parties. There'll be no 50/50 vote splits, and you get to have some real choice in the bargain.

Reply to
Harro de Jong

You don't understand because your country isn't composed of 50 distinct and sovereign states. The people of the United States aren't a monolith, they're citizens of those individual states.

Reply to
Al Superczynski

snipped-for-privacy@aol.comxomchrms (RobbelothE) wrote in :

16% of our current population immigrated sometime in the past century.
Reply to
Harro de Jong

snipped-for-privacy@swbell.net (Al Superczynski) wrote in :

Yes, I now understand why you wouldn't want a straight popular vote. But that doesn't explain why you have electors who can ignore a state's popular vote. As I said, with some maths you can easily set up a system where each state's votes are weighed just as they are now, without the indirection introduced by electors.

Reply to
Harro de Jong

Good. We're getting somewhere. Our president is actually chosen by 51 separate elections (50 states and Washington, DC). US Territories and Possesions do not have any electors - some, like Guam, 'vote' for presidential candidates but it's only a symbolic action.

That's depends on state law. Some states prohibit unfaithful electors, some don't. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, don't even allocate their electors on a winner-take-all basis.

The states are free to select their electors however they choose to; they could even be appointed directly by the state's legislature - again, the US Constitution leaves that up to the individual states.

Reply to
Al Superczynski

And when, pray tell, do you decide a war on "terror" is over? Terror isn't a nation. Terror can't surrender. Shut down one cell of terrorists, another pops up. Terror (and the support thereof) isn't even defined all that well - obviously a suicide bomber is a terrorist, but what about a protester? Couldn't the case be made that they're "aiding" terrorists? (Yes, it's a bit of a stretch, but it would be possible to say that.)

Sorry, Al, while I have a great deal of respect for you, I don't agree this president "gets it." I hope I'm wrong, but at the moment...

-Eric

Reply to
EGMcCann

Take a 1040 to the polls?

Reply to
Ron

With large urban cesspools of welfare cases it's more relevant than ever.

Reply to
Ron

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.