Thank God!

So true.

Simply put, the masses are not always right. It also gives relatively lightly populated areas more say, as a small percentage difference in one state can throw 50 electoral votes in the direction of one candidate. Remember, until sometime in the past (not sure of the year), state legislatures actually elected the senate, not the people. It woks... it has always worked and will continue to work. It is just one of those funky systems that just does what is supposed to do: gives everyone a voice, but not a direct voice in making decisions.

I do not like referendums. They make for bad law and bad policy. California is almost governed by referenda and while it seems to work there, look at the money spent and the power wielded by the unwashed masses. No thank you ; no direct democracy for me. As far as I am concerned tha average voter is as dumb as a box of rocks!!

Just my > snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Bill Woodier) wrote in

Actually, I like you quesitoning it... makes us think about it a little. It may seem strange to you, but it woks, OK? I answered much longer in another post and others have echoed it.

Perfect, no... works, yes. Many th>Bill Woodier wrote:

Ah I see, you're talking about the situation where you would have unfaithful electors. I'm not absolutely sure what the remedy is there. They mentioned the possibility of one WV elector ignoring the Bush win in his state and voting for Kerry instead in the event that it came down to a 269-269 tie. They never did flesh out that scenario but I was left with the impression that there was a remedy for that involving the WV legislature selecting a new slate of electors.

You are right on that point, I would like to understand more about what is done to safeguard against such mischief. As it is, I believe unfaithful electors are a rarity.

WmB

To reply, get the HECK out of there snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net

Probably right... and I'm sure Howard's pro-US viewpoint did win votes. Not that many will ever admit it.

Mitch

FWIW, there *are* more than two parties. You just don't see the Greens, Libertarians, or Constitution parties getting many votes.

Yeah, obviously only CEOs should vote... dem po' people ain't got no brains. Or maybe just landowners. How about just male white Baptists making over $80k a year? Lose your income, lose your right to vote, whether it's your fault you lost it or not!

Sheesh.

Sheesh is right. There you go again.

What does being poor have to do with paying taxes. Whether it was keyed to voting or not, paying taxes is a civic duty and a legal responsibility. Taxes owed are based on a percentage of what you earned over the previous year. If one earns little or nothing, one owes a small percentage of little or nothing. If one's income is low enough, one would owe no tax at all. So, you see, losing one's income would not lose one the right to vote. Not paying taxes owed would lose one the right to vote. I don't understand your problem.

Hell; I'm liking the idea more and more the more I think about it. ;~)

-- -- -- -- -- "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:

Then the initial statement needed to be phrased better. "Prove you paid taxes in order to vote" sounds to me like "If your income is so low you don't pay taxes, you don't get to vote." *That* was why I had a problem with it (having lost a good-paying job and been mostly unemployed for a few years to take care of my disabled wife - and no, not qualifying for a bit of help - tends to make that a sore point.)

"If you neglect to pay taxes owed, you forfeit the right to vote until payments are made" works, yes. And I'd have no problem with that, either.

Straw man. I neither said nor implied that. What bothers me is that people that receive government largess without paying any taxes tend to vote for yet *more* largess at the expense of taxpayers.

See my other response - Different interpretations of what was said. Explained as "Decide not to pay your taxes and you don't get to vote," I have no problem with the idea.

snipped-for-privacy@zzzzonnet.nl.invalid (Harro de Jong) wrote in news:95969A09BWile.E.Coyote@62.58.50.216:

Just becuase you are not sophisticated enough to understand how a representative republic works ain't our fault. The fact that we have the longest (or nearly so) functioning government that is still in many ways in it's original form says more about us than anything else.

Basicaly the intent is to dilute the areas with high populations from dominating the entire country. If New York, Boston and Los Angeles dominated the country any more than they do it would hardly be fair to those living elsewhere. It forces the big population centers to give consoderation to the more rural areas. It's actually quite a simple but brilliant idea.

No shock that nitwits not so blessed don't get it.

snipped-for-privacy@zzzzonnet.nl.invalid (Harro de Jong) wrote in news:9596A8C23Wile.E.Coyote@62.58.50.216:

And you know this how? Cause the guy you wanted to win didn't? Well you ain't from here so it don't matter, and Bush has a clear popular vote majority and long coattails in Congress, too.

How would not having the electoral college changed that?

"EGMcCann" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@uni-berlin.de:

If you are getting check from Uncle you don't vote. If you send money to Washington you do vote.

1) Those taking money out of the Treasury shouldn't be voting themselves raises. 2) It doesn't take much to get on the voting side. Maybe an incentive?

Even non-radical Islamics want to control nations - and have quite restrictive laws. I wouldn't want to live anywhere with a "religious police" - be it under a hardline, Talibanesque regime, or a "more moderate"

*cough* one such as Saudi Arabia. (Or, for that matter, one under any other religion... )

I don't believe I said that, or anything close to it. If someone points a gun at me, I don't care if they're acting alone, part of a gang, someone's military, or whatnot, I'm not going to ignore it. Besides, we didn't declare war on al-Qaeda, we declared war on "terror," of which al Qaeda was a part.

grey snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) wrote in :

No. My preference has nothing to do with this. (Fortunately, I didn't have to choose, it seem to me US voters were between a rock and a hard place on this one...)

You're a bit late to the party. See my other posts.

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (EGMcCann) wrote in :

Yeah, I noticed those. I wonder how two parties got to be that dominant, though.

Magic. Devine intervention. Just because they did. Take your pick. I'm not going to give a history lesson on politice in America. You can research your question on the Internet and find your answer there.

-- -- -- -- -- "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:

Well...we actually have *dozens* of parties, but 99% of the attention is given to the two big ones.

And many of our states *do* practice what you suggest. For example, the statewide races in neighboring Louisiana often feature five, six, or more candidates per race. But, then the problem is: does one need to capture a majority of the vote to be declared the winner, or simply a plurality? If only a plurality, then you have the situation of a "winner" being someone who the majority of the people did *not* vote for....which is one of the aspects that many people have against the Electoral College. If, as Louisiana does, you need to capture the majority, then you must have a series of follow-up "run off" elections, to weed things out until a majority winner surfaces. However, this delays the end result. You would not have a President decided for months after the national election, if this system were widespread.