scholar

I wouldn't want to go into the complexities of the electoral college here, but next time someone ask how a president could be elected without a majority of the vote, just say the system was developed so that smaller, less populated states would have representation equal to say, NY and CA. As a Californian, I can see why the Dakotas or Rhode Island wouldn't want us to make this important decision for the entire country.

SAndi

Dear it's all: So why don't you 'chill' already? Geeze, talk about killing a fly with a hammer. You must be a frustrated preacher. I think you think too much. Go out and pull some weeds for the sake of your soul.

jahoulih

The electoral college was actually developed to give disproportionate influence to the slave states, which could disenfranchise as many of their people as they wanted without losing the two extra electoral votes that each state got.

Kinta

You are absolutely correct when you say "The electoral college was actually developed to give disproportionate influence to the slave states". Yet another example of how undemocratic the USA is.

Capo

In the U.S. government, the Legislative branch functions as a check & balance on the Executive branch. So, even if the president were elected by direct popular vote -- which, IMO, he/she <I>should</I> be -- small states would continue to have the same disproportionate representation they've always had: in the Senate (where each state, regardless of population, has two senators.) <BR> <BR>The <I>fact</I> is that the current American president received the least number of votes country-wide in the recent election. The only reason he is in office is due to an unnecessary and outdated "legal technicality" referred to as the Electoral College. <BR> <BR>In other countries -- and for other political offices in the U.S. -- there's a pretty simple concept: the person with the most votes, wins. <BR> <BR>Our country, for better or worse, is now being led by the person who got the least votes. That means, quite simply, that the majority of Americans -- who actually got off their butts and voted, that is -- did NOT not want him as President of the United States. The existence of the Electoral College does not change that fact.

JOdy

CAPO&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <BR>You are definitley my kind of guy!!!!!!!!!!!

Capo

Thanks, Jody. Guess that means we'll probably get along on those repeated trips we're gonna take to Paris (once we secure funding), eh? :~) <BR> <BR>Unfortunately, I also realize that the fact that the majority of Americans who actually voted did NOT want him as President of the United States doesn't change the fact that he's now sitting in office.

Greg

If you look at the map of who carried what states, you'll find that most of the map was colored blue. Bush!!! <BR> <BR>Algore carried most of the big urban areas. Bush carried much of the South, Southwest and many Midwest and western states. <BR> <BR>For those that think Algore was the more popular choice for president, think again. He was the most popular in those urban areas for certain. Not that Gore's carrying the urban areas was any less significant. <BR> <BR>True Algore did win the popular vote, which is a mystery to some of us, but look at the map again people. A sea of Bush blue. <BR> <BR>Just look at the map again. The whole country looked Bush blue baby! <BR> <BR>

jahoulih

There's a novel notion of democracy--one square mile, one vote.

Capo

Greg, "blue" rhymes with "screw"! <BR> <BR>You're confusing square miles with number of voters. <BR> <BR>The fact that large parts of the U.S. where very few people reside are colored blue on a map doesn't change the <I>fact</I> that the majority of voters did NOT vote for Bush. <BR> <BR>It's really that simple and it's a fact that Bush supporters don't like to acknowledge: the majority of American voters (who voted) did not want him as our president. <BR> <BR>

xxx

Nor, indeed, did a majority of voters elect Clinton. <BR> <BR>

jahoulih

No, but a plurality did. A minority elected Bush.

Capo

xxxx, you're being somewhat semantically disingenuous. <BR> <BR>The majority of voters -- <I>eligible</I> voters -- did, in fact, not elect Bill Clinton either in 1992 or 1996. But, of course, only the votes of people who can tear themselves away from the TV long enough to vote, count. <BR> <BR>The majority -- "majority" being defined as a number greater than half the total -- of voters who actually voted did, in fact, also not elect Bill Clinton in 1992. In that election, Clinton received slightly less than half the votes from those people who voted. However, in that election, Clinton received MORE votes than did either George Bush or Ross Perot. <BR> <BR>In 2000, George W. Bush received LESS votes than Al Gore. It's that simple. Really.

JOdy

CAPO, <BR>HE'S NOT JUST SITTING IN OFFICE , HE'S OUT GOING TO EVERY PHOTO OP AVAILABLE. He's been in 2 national parks, while he is encouraging offshore drilling near Fl and an airport near the everglades and no monies for preservation in parks, just road and building funds. He ended the estate tax thereby elimonating any incentive for the wealthy to to donate to charities, he appeared before an assemblage of police officers then gutted the budget for COPS by 17% and then endorsed a 2nd amendment interpretation that will gut exsisting gun laws. Even Laura is getting into the act, while she appears at libraries , his new budget cuts almost 40 million dollars for library funding use. He certainly is a busy little beaver!!!!! <BR>By the way , I'm not having much luck with soros, he has business matters on his mind, maybe I'll try the Walton's. we could say we were scouting new locations in Paris for wal-marts...we just wouldn't be able to find any. How's that?????

Capo

No luck with Soros??!! What kind of a fund-raiser are you, anyway? :~) <BR> <BR>I like the Wal-Mart angle...that could work. Or, think we could convince Bush & Cheney and their friends there might be a major oil field under the Seine? <BR> <BR>As far as Bush's actions go...well, of course, a president -- any president, IMO -- tries his best to pay back those folks who helped put him in office with their $$$. It's just that a different group of folks helped put Bush in office.

mimi taylor

hello! I thought this was about travel not politics????

stay

POLITICS&gt;&gt;&gt;THEY ARE EVERYWHERE ,EVERYWHERE just like chicken man..lighten up mimi, some of us are having fun! After all this is about Europeans attitudes and if you haven't been there lately , you don't know what is being said.

Capo

OK, since this is a thread on a Europe travel forum, I'll try to at least make it relevant to Europe. <BR> <BR>From a 6-9-01 <I>Slate</I> article... <BR> <BR>President Bush's trip to Europe on Monday is previewed in a NYT front-pager. Bush will focus on easing European anxieties about his White House, especially its perceived unilateralism in international affairs. <BR> <BR>Throughout the trip, Bush will stress that his is an "internationalist government," and try to combat Europe's perception of him as a "shallow, arrogant, gun-loving, abortion-hating, Christian fundamentalist Texan buffoon," as a senior administration official put it.

Jody

Capo. <BR>great idea , oil fields under the seine.. I can see it now, derricks at the ends of Ile de la cite and Ile de St Louis, covered in thousands of white twinkle lights!! What an attraction,paris will rival disney world in no time at all!!!!!

Ace

What a bunch of fun folk!!! Thank God we have geniuses like you to tell us how screwed up the country has become. I can't wait for you and your socialist pals to take over and decide what else is in our best interest. I must have missed it when the military coup overthrew the "rightful" government of this country. Oh yeah, the "rich" Republicans bought the election. Gee, I wonder what the Dems did with all that Hollywood cash. Bill must've spent it all on cigars and hookers. Hillary in 2004!