On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 17:23:21 -0500, "Doug Dotson"
wrotf:


wrote in message
.. .
I think most Americans held their noses as they voted, whether for
bush or kerry (based on my friends and family) with only the
democratic and republican bases really supporting either one. The

I think "most" is a stretch.

Then again, you observed below "Vote for the one that offends you the
least." Kind of makes my point, doesn't it?

electoral college is a throw back to when it was not the people who
elected the president, but rather the states,

You clearly don't understand the wisdom of the Electoral College.

If we want the president to represent the states - the original intent
of the framers - then the electoral college is fine. There are those
of us who believe that politicians should serve the people.
Otherwise, why go through the sham of a popular election?

I understand both the role of the electoral college and the reasons
why it may not be the best solution for America today. We are much
more diverse than the America of 1787 when the constitution was
penned. Back then, the only voters were white male landholders. The
country was agrarian with little of the industry we have today. The
country was small.


Unfortunatly most Senators and Represenatives represent themselves to the
end of being reelected so as to make money and retain power. Representing
the
people vanished long ago in my observation.

Sadly in my observation as well. I am not sure how that can be
addressed, but it surely needs addressing. There are ways to take the
money out of DC, but they require those in power willingly making
changes that give up their power. This of course, is unlikely to
happen and the remedy the constitution gives the people - to call a
new constitutional convention - bears its own dangers, esp. in a
country where most people do not even understand what form of
government we have.



In the case of the Republicans, they presented the only choice inasmuch
as W was the incumbent. In the case of Kerry, I haven't a clue what the
Dem party was thinking. From what I have heard, the Dem party was
pretty much disorganized and never had any coherent plan.

Regardless of bush being incumbent, he is far from the best the
republicans had to offer us. Part of the problem is the polarization
of the parties that tends to produce candidates with broad party
support - playing to that party's extremes - but narrow appeal to
those in the middle or the other side. I think eliminating the
primaries and caucuses and having all candidates run in a single
general election and then following that with whatever runoffs are
necessary to find a consensus president that represents more of
America would go a long way. It would also take power away from the
two major parties, opening the presidency to more challengers
representing a broader spectrum of opinion, pulling people away from
the 'them or us' two party mentality and causing us to really listen
to what candidates have to say.

Also, eliminating the current primary/caucus system would remove the
disproportionate sway certain states have in the primary process where
only two or three states have a chance to vote on all the candidates.


Unfortunately, you have to choose between the 2 candidates. One of them IS
going to win. As painful as it is, one must choose one of them.
Idealogically
the other parties have good points (some of them) but the reality is that
one
of the Red or Blue bozos is going to get elected. Vote for the one that
offends you the least.

No, you do not have to vote for one of them even though, for now, they
have a disproportionate advantage. Their formation of the Commission
on Presidential Debates virtually guaranteed that for the moment they
can marginalize the other candidates as their rules for who can
participate lock out other candidates where the old League of Women
Voters format allowed other candidates to participate. And as more
people vote for the other parties, two things happen. One is that the
parties begin to look at the issues the third parties raise and
assimilate some of them. The other is that they circle the wagons.
Indeed, the copd is a direct reaction to the success of Ross Perot and
Ralph Nader in getting significant numbers of votes that, while not
winning the elections, certainly altered the outcomes. It is doubtful
that Bill Clinton could have won either election without Perot nor
that Bush could have won without Nader. Candidates like Howard Dean
show how much effect Nader had on the Democrats and by the same token
Bush's 'kinder, gentler conservative' rap was a nod towards Perot's
politics.
My objection early on to this thread was those outside the US telling
us how dumb we were to elect bush and that we should choose our
leaders based on what other countries think.

Absolutely!

When I start seeing the
rest of the world choosing their leaders based on what America wants I
will consider this, but that is not going to happen, nor should it.

Diddo!

I think the last several elections point to the fact that we need to
look again at how we select presidents, unfortunately, the entrenched
interests of the two major parties will prevent this from happening as
the current system, with the collusion of the media in the US,
guarantees that the white house will always be held by one of the two.
They are in no hurry to open up the competition further.

Damn that Constitution!

The system by which we hold the presidential elections (the popular
election portion) is by no means dictated by the constitution. The
constitution leaves it to the states to decide how they apportion
their electoral college votes. The primary/caucus system, the debates
and the elections themselves are NOT defined in the constitution other
than setting the rules for who can hold the presidency.

The system by which we run the popular vote is entirely a product of
the politians. This can and should be revised, whether or not the
electoral college is kept or changed. I think Colorado's proposed
amendment where they would apportion votes rather than be a winner
take all system is a good step. The current system resulted in the
two 'big candidates' focusing their attention almost entirely on just
6 'battleground' states. If apportioned voting applied nation wide,
then the candidates would have to work more broadly than they did this
time. Those who claim a straight popular vote would over-empower the
urban centers need only look at the popular vote this year. The urban
centers did not determine the winner in either the popular or
electoral college vote.

Weebles Wobble
(but they don't fall down)