Finally, the correct answer! Add to that the fact that the electoral
college is there to prevent the tail-wags-the-dog effect of high population
centers and the fact that our electoral statesmen are supposed to understand
how our country is based on transcendent law, not law based on current whim
and fad (aka 'current public opinion') and you might be on to something. A
guy that just wrote to me recently, one who'd rather see law based on
current whim and fad, actually threatened to "take the government back, by
force if necessary" ...talk about being uneducated, stupid, ignorant of
history and governments ...including our own! True, Georgy Boy needs to cut
the spending, learn how to veto the neo-conservatives, shrink government and
it's programs (especially the liberal-left social engineering institution
....I mean the federal board of education), but at least he's a known
quantity. The only things known for sure about Kerry are a)
anti-establishment/anti-American, b) can't handle the realities of war, c)
consistently grows government and raises taxes, and d) always votes for
abortion. All other things in his mind are subject to the opinions of
whoever is standing in front of him. We voted Bush into office because he's
closer to what we want ...what the moral majority who understands our
government and history, those that understand what works, wants. The rest
of the world, the placating passifists and appeasers, have failed and are
jealous ...rather than wake up and learn to emulate what succeeds, they'd
rather whine and hate those that do succeed (too bad ...nanny nanny boo
boo!). We elected the right guy, but need to work together to defeat Bush's
tendency to spend too much and to grow government. The Middle East needs to
get out of the hot sun and start thinking for a change,
Islamo-fascists/imperialists in particular. The rest of you whiners need to
quit your idealist utopia fantasy thinking and get real. It didn't work for
Marx, and it won't work for you. Live and let live, folks. Don't whine and
hate. Quit acting like a spoiled child. Fix the country that YOU live in
and shut the hell up. That's what adults do. Next time you need military
intervention in something, or want hand-outs, go ask China or France. In
the mean time, it's time the US kicked the UN out of our country and dropped
funding to zero.

Brian


"Me" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Auerbach" wrote:

I happen to have been for Kerry, but I am a democrat as well as a
Democrat.
Inherent in both is a belief that in this country we respect the decision
of
the electorate. Screaming that voters are blithering idiots means that
the
screamer favors something other than a democratic form of government. In
all
likelihood that would be a dictatorship, run by the individual doing the
screaming.

Now, about epoxy vs. polyester ...

To bad you don't live in a democracy.....The USA is a Repersentative
Republic.......or did you sleep thru that class in US History and
Civics when you were in High School???????


Me

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
electoral college is a throw back to when it was not the people who
elected the president, but rather the states, just as the senators
initially represented the states, not the people and were selected by
the state legislatures.

I think both parties failed to provided us with their 'best and
brightest' from which to choose the president. This is why I and many
other have migrated to the 'third parties' such as libertarian,
reform, constitution or green parties.

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. 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.

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.

Weebles Wobble
(but they don't fall down)

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:14:48 GMT, "Brian D" wrotf:


Finally, the correct answer! Add to that the fact that the electoral
college is there to prevent the tail-wags-the-dog effect of high population
centers and the fact that our electoral statesmen are supposed to understand
how our country is based on transcendent law, not law based on current whim
and fad (aka 'current public opinion') and you might be on to something. A
guy that just wrote to me recently, one who'd rather see law based on
current whim and fad, actually threatened to "take the government back, by
force if necessary" ...talk about being uneducated, stupid, ignorant of
history and governments ...including our own! True, Georgy Boy needs to cut
the spending, learn how to veto the neo-conservatives, shrink government and
it's programs (especially the liberal-left social engineering institution
...I mean the federal board of education), but at least he's a known
quantity. The only things known for sure about Kerry are a)
anti-establishment/anti-American, b) can't handle the realities of war, c)
consistently grows government and raises taxes, and d) always votes for
abortion. All other things in his mind are subject to the opinions of
whoever is standing in front of him. We voted Bush into office because he's
closer to what we want ...what the moral majority who understands our
government and history, those that understand what works, wants. The rest
of the world, the placating passifists and appeasers, have failed and are
jealous ...rather than wake up and learn to emulate what succeeds, they'd
rather whine and hate those that do succeed (too bad ...nanny nanny boo
boo!). We elected the right guy, but need to work together to defeat Bush's
tendency to spend too much and to grow government. The Middle East needs to
get out of the hot sun and start thinking for a change,
Islamo-fascists/imperialists in particular. The rest of you whiners need to
quit your idealist utopia fantasy thinking and get real. It didn't work for
Marx, and it won't work for you. Live and let live, folks. Don't whine and
hate. Quit acting like a spoiled child. Fix the country that YOU live in
and shut the hell up. That's what adults do. Next time you need military
intervention in something, or want hand-outs, go ask China or France. In
the mean time, it's time the US kicked the UN out of our country and dropped
funding to zero.

Brian


"Me" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Auerbach" wrote:

I happen to have been for Kerry, but I am a democrat as well as a
Democrat.
Inherent in both is a belief that in this country we respect the decision
of
the electorate. Screaming that voters are blithering idiots means that
the
screamer favors something other than a democratic form of government. In
all
likelihood that would be a dictatorship, run by the individual doing the
screaming.

Now, about epoxy vs. polyester ...

To bad you don't live in a democracy.....The USA is a Repersentative
Republic.......or did you sleep thru that class in US History and
Civics when you were in High School???????


Me

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.

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.

just as the senators
initially represented the states, not the people and were selected by
the state legislatures.

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.


I think both parties failed to provided us with their 'best and
brightest' from which to choose the president.

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.

This is why I and many
other have migrated to the 'third parties' such as libertarian,
reform, constitution or green parties.

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.

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!

Weebles Wobble
(but they don't fall down)

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:14:48 GMT, "Brian D" wrotf:


Finally, the correct answer! Add to that the fact that the electoral
college is there to prevent the tail-wags-the-dog effect of high
population
centers and the fact that our electoral statesmen are supposed to
understand
how our country is based on transcendent law, not law based on current
whim
and fad (aka 'current public opinion') and you might be on to something.
A
guy that just wrote to me recently, one who'd rather see law based on
current whim and fad, actually threatened to "take the government back, by
force if necessary" ...talk about being uneducated, stupid, ignorant of
history and governments ...including our own! True, Georgy Boy needs to
cut
the spending, learn how to veto the neo-conservatives, shrink government
and
it's programs (especially the liberal-left social engineering institution
...I mean the federal board of education), but at least he's a known
quantity. The only things known for sure about Kerry are a)
anti-establishment/anti-American, b) can't handle the realities of war, c)
consistently grows government and raises taxes, and d) always votes for
abortion. All other things in his mind are subject to the opinions of
whoever is standing in front of him. We voted Bush into office because
he's
closer to what we want ...what the moral majority who understands our
government and history, those that understand what works, wants. The rest
of the world, the placating passifists and appeasers, have failed and are
jealous ...rather than wake up and learn to emulate what succeeds, they'd
rather whine and hate those that do succeed (too bad ...nanny nanny boo
boo!). We elected the right guy, but need to work together to defeat
Bush's
tendency to spend too much and to grow government. The Middle East needs
to
get out of the hot sun and start thinking for a change,
Islamo-fascists/imperialists in particular. The rest of you whiners need
to
quit your idealist utopia fantasy thinking and get real. It didn't work
for
Marx, and it won't work for you. Live and let live, folks. Don't whine
and
hate. Quit acting like a spoiled child. Fix the country that YOU live in
and shut the hell up. That's what adults do. Next time you need military
intervention in something, or want hand-outs, go ask China or France. In
the mean time, it's time the US kicked the UN out of our country and
dropped
funding to zero.

Brian


"Me" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Auerbach" wrote:

I happen to have been for Kerry, but I am a democrat as well as a
Democrat.
Inherent in both is a belief that in this country we respect the
decision
of
the electorate. Screaming that voters are blithering idiots means that
the
screamer favors something other than a democratic form of government.
In
all
likelihood that would be a dictatorship, run by the individual doing
the
screaming.

Now, about epoxy vs. polyester ...

To bad you don't live in a democracy.....The USA is a Repersentative
Republic.......or did you sleep thru that class in US History and
Civics when you were in High School???????


Me

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)

I've already shot myself in the foot in a religious discussion this week, so
what the heck, I'll jump in on this one.
(Don't try this at home kids, you'll just look stoopid. I'm an amateur.)

wrote in message

snip

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.


I think it is the best solution still. Sure, today's thinking is that if YOU
don't like something, bring a lawsuit and force 1,000 other people to do
things YOUR way. I believe the original intent was to give people places to
move to where like-minded individuals live/work/play.
You don't like the Bible-belt? Move to Kalifornia, Rhode Island, etc.
With the Electoral College, even states with smaller populations still can
yield a big stick in close elections and force the federal candidates to at
least show some respect for the over-all "theme" of a state.

snip

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.

I would rather elect someone closer to my point of view and then swamp the
elected officials with emails about how I want the country to be run. Until
a Ronald Reagan comes from the ranks of the libertarian party, voting for
anyone other than a republican means you help someone far outside your
political leanings get elected. I say work for change from within. (If
you're a democrat, substitute accordingly. ;p)

snip


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.

But as a commentator pointed out, this would have essentially given colorado
1 electoral vote for the winner. Hence politically, it would have
marginalized itself.

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.

If I recall correctly, only a couple of elections had electoral winners not
winning the popular vote, so really it seems there isn't a problem - unless
you happen to be one of the few losers or a supporter.

For myself, I prefer a system that gives the little guy at least a spitting
chance at influencing things. I'm not a big city person at heart and never
will be. If we go with the popular vote, then eventually all us river
boating****, red-neck country bumpkins will have a New York/ LA big city
government. Bound to happen sooner or later. I don't think I'd like that.

**** See, relates to boating!


Weebles Wobble
(but they don't fall down)

Man I sure tried though. Did destroy a few in the process!
Oh, nothing personal.

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 02:14:23 GMT, "Greg"
wrotf:


I think it is the best solution still. Sure, today's thinking is that if YOU
don't like something, bring a lawsuit and force 1,000 other people to do
things YOUR way. I believe the original intent was to give people places to
move to where like-minded individuals live/work/play.
You don't like the Bible-belt? Move to Kalifornia, Rhode Island, etc.
With the Electoral College, even states with smaller populations still can
yield a big stick in close elections and force the federal candidates to at
least show some respect for the over-all "theme" of a state.

The problem is that I am more concerned about the votes of people than
states. I am really unconcerned with what clout the 'state' has.
They are no longer the monolithic populations they were 200 years ago
and even then, only a small percentage of the people were represented
in any way.


I would rather elect someone closer to my point of view and then swamp the
elected officials with emails about how I want the country to be run. Until
a Ronald Reagan comes from the ranks of the libertarian party, voting for
anyone other than a republican means you help someone far outside your
political leanings get elected. I say work for change from within. (If
you're a democrat, substitute accordingly. ;p)

And if neither party is close to your beliefs? I see such huge
problems with both parties that I cannot in good conscience support
either.

But as a commentator pointed out, this would have essentially given colorado
1 electoral vote for the winner. Hence politically, it would have
marginalized itself.

yes, but it would eliminate the marginalization of the orphan voters
in colorado and if adopted nationwide, it would end the focus on
'battleground states where in reality only a small number of states
really decide who is going to be president. 136,000 more votes in
ohio and Kerry would be president though he had less than a majority
and 3 million votes less than bush.


If I recall correctly, only a couple of elections had electoral winners not
winning the popular vote, so really it seems there isn't a problem - unless
you happen to be one of the few losers or a supporter.

The bigger problem is the focus on a few states, giving them massively
disproportionate power in the elections and conversely massively
disproportionate power when it comes to political agendas. The
electoral college would work much better if there were not 'winner
take all' apportionment of each state's electoral votes though my
basic feeling is that the focus on representing states rather than
voters puts the election in the wrong perspective for the politicians.

Is there a perfect, non-scammable way to elect the president?
Probably not, but this system is ripe for revision. It can be run
much better and it can be run so that more points of view can have a
chance to rise to the top.

For myself, I prefer a system that gives the little guy at least a spitting
chance at influencing things.

Then you should agree with me in my desire to have a system where the
individual counts more.

I'm not a big city person at heart and never
will be. If we go with the popular vote, then eventually all us river
boating****, red-neck country bumpkins will have a New York/ LA big city
government. Bound to happen sooner or later. I don't think I'd like that.

Really? then why isn't Kerry the president now? - even with the solid
support of urban areas, he lost both the popular and electoral votes.

**** See, relates to boating!

Personally, I am hoping to be starting a circumnavigation before the
next presidential race - the kick off to an early retirement if I can
get the boat built before then.

Weebles Wobble
(but they don't fall down)

Man I sure tried though. Did destroy a few in the process!
Oh, nothing personal.

seemed a great nic for a sailor though

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 02:14:23 GMT, "Greg"
wrotf:


I think it is the best solution still. Sure, today's thinking is that if
YOU
don't like something, bring a lawsuit and force 1,000 other people to do
things YOUR way. I believe the original intent was to give people places
to
move to where like-minded individuals live/work/play.
You don't like the Bible-belt? Move to Kalifornia, Rhode Island, etc.
With the Electoral College, even states with smaller populations still can
yield a big stick in close elections and force the federal candidates to
at
least show some respect for the over-all "theme" of a state.

The problem is that I am more concerned about the votes of people than
states. I am really unconcerned with what clout the 'state' has.
They are no longer the monolithic populations they were 200 years ago
and even then, only a small percentage of the people were represented
in any way.

As I understand it from my (sadly) limited reading/study, the intent was for
the state to be the true representative body of its people. The federal
government was to be the CEO of sorts that bound the states into the
"United" part. I think we have gone way overboard**** in the power the
states have given up to the Fed. Speed limits for simple example. Do it the
Fed way or no money for interstates. Money that came from the people of said
state. It is much easier to influence your reps when they live down the
street.

**** More boating references!


I would rather elect someone closer to my point of view and then swamp the
elected officials with emails about how I want the country to be run.
Until
a Ronald Reagan comes from the ranks of the libertarian party, voting for
anyone other than a republican means you help someone far outside your
political leanings get elected. I say work for change from within. (If
you're a democrat, substitute accordingly. ;p)

And if neither party is close to your beliefs? I see such huge
problems with both parties that I cannot in good conscience support
either.

I understand that position and held it once myself, but, you take yourself
out of the process. Better to join the party that at least lands on your
side of the ruler and become a loud mouth pest. Change from within is always
easier, unless the outsider swings a big hammer, but it happens. Personally,
I'm very interested in the National Sales tax and what comes of it. That was
an idea that percolated up from third party interests, if I'm not mistaken.


But as a commentator pointed out, this would have essentially given
colorado
1 electoral vote for the winner. Hence politically, it would have
marginalized itself.

yes, but it would eliminate the marginalization of the orphan voters
in colorado and if adopted nationwide, it would end the focus on
'battleground states where in reality only a small number of states
really decide who is going to be president.

But those battle ground states were such because the others had made their
choice. It could have easily been a different 6 or 3 or 12.

136,000 more votes in
ohio and Kerry would be president though he had less than a majority
and 3 million votes less than bush.

Trouble with any system is that eventually someone must lose, no matter how
the votes are tallied. I respect the individual and think we have trampled
the intended constitutional rights of individuals. However, IMO, part of the
problem is our diverse population and how we as individuals interact in our
society. Someone always seems to do something that "offends" someone else,
which results in lawsuits and more laws to restrict individual rights. I
realize the idea is non-PC today, but I think that's what
states/communitites are for - like minded people. Just as I think people
moving into homes by Airports and being offended by the noise are stupid, I
think someone with more liberal views moving into red-neck country and then
complaining about the Christmas scene on the State Square to be stupid. But
they do and then have a lawsuit and the 90% or more that thinks it's ok must
suffer. A majority is simply the largest group of individuals after all.
Where are their rights?


If I recall correctly, only a couple of elections had electoral winners
not
winning the popular vote, so really it seems there isn't a problem -
unless
you happen to be one of the few losers or a supporter.

The bigger problem is the focus on a few states, giving them massively
disproportionate power in the elections and conversely massively
disproportionate power when it comes to political agendas. The
electoral college would work much better if there were not 'winner
take all' apportionment of each state's electoral votes though my
basic feeling is that the focus on representing states rather than
voters puts the election in the wrong perspective for the politicians.

As stated above, this situation came about because other states had already
made their choices. Again, someone must lose, and from the state level, for
me, it is right that the majority elects the candidates.

Is there a perfect, non-scammable way to elect the president?
Probably not, but this system is ripe for revision. It can be run
much better and it can be run so that more points of view can have a
chance to rise to the top.

For myself, I prefer a system that gives the little guy at least a
spitting
chance at influencing things.

Then you should agree with me in my desire to have a system where the
individual counts more.

Yes and no. If an individual's state does not represent their point of view,
I would honestly suggest moving or working within a party for change. As an
example, I have lived briefly in northern Kalifornia and it is a beautiful
area - I truly loved it. However, given its socialist and extremely liberal
government, I would never live there permanently.

No government can be everything to everyone. Resource scarcity alone would
see to that. And I shudder at the thoughts of some type of Majority/Minority
power sharing government. We can hardly get anything done now with one in
charge.


I'm not a big city person at heart and never
will be. If we go with the popular vote, then eventually all us river
boating****, red-neck country bumpkins will have a New York/ LA big city
government. Bound to happen sooner or later. I don't think I'd like that.

Really? then why isn't Kerry the president now? - even with the solid
support of urban areas, he lost both the popular and electoral votes.

It is just an opinion that such areas' populations will continue to increase
and become more liberal. Whether or not the other areas keep up and maintain
parity in remains to be seen. And as the big map shows, few states actually
voted for Kerry but he came very close to winning.

I guess I come down as a states rights person, with a weak Fed. I believe
most issues are better handled at the state level where constituents can at
least drive to their Capitol in a day and grab their rep as he steps
outside. That makes the individual much more effective at influencing
government. But that is a notion long dead I'm afraid. Everyone wants to
suck on the Federal teat it seems.


**** See, relates to boating!

Personally, I am hoping to be starting a circumnavigation before the
next presidential race - the kick off to an early retirement if I can
get the boat built before then.

Wow, I'm impressed. Myself, I'm a newbie wannabe with no more experience
than bass boating. But, I'm reading all the mags and groups and visiting
local marinas. Hopefully I'll know a bit by the time I'm ready to open the
wallet. However, I'm worried my experience visiting the big ships dad served
on might have my room/comfort ideas at an unaffordable and unrealistic
level.

My apologies if my response wondered off. It's after midnight and my brain
went somewhere.


Weebles Wobble
(but they don't fall down)

Man I sure tried though. Did destroy a few in the process!
Oh, nothing personal.

seemed a great nic for a sailor though