Outlaw, your changing the topic of the thread go tell some light bulbjokes or something. Jeff, i think the election process is fair and just. Electoral votes even out the voting population, and gives signifance to the voice of the less populated heartland of America(farmers,food producers,) where they usually have diffrent views, and are much less in number than those in States with larger cities, and epecially coastal states. ------------------ [This message has been edited by ROCKETBOOSTER (edited November 09, 2000).]
Sorry if you were offended by my post Traj. But Republicans are usually anti-labor and prefer low voter turnout so i don't think Bush and Co. would approve of making election day into a national holiday. Here is an article about Bush's "Jesus Day" http://www.sunnysidebiz.com/wwwboard/messages/3.html Bush also named Jesus as his favorite political writer and even got into an argument with his mom about his belief that only Christians are accepted into Heaven. (I guess the rest of us 4 billion humans are going to Hell?) ROCKETBOOSTER - i was not changing the topic, merely stating that a national election day holiday would not be a Bush priority. I don't buy your defense of the electoral college either. Each vote should have the same weight no matter where they live. [This message has been edited by outlaw (edited November 10, 2000).]
outlaw, That might be true if we lived in a "true" democracy. But, the fact is, we don't. We live in a Republic governed by a document (The Constitution). And, the Constitution outlined the process for electing a President. If people don't like it, then amend the Constitution. But, I doubt that will or more correctly can happen, due to the overwhelming majority needed to pass amendments. ------------------ "I have a DREAM.........his name's Hakeem." DREAMer's Rocket Page
Well, I think it is usually pretty cool watching the election returns come in and seeing the states lit up one way or another. It's sort of neat watching the process when it happens that way. But that's not really reason enough to keep the Electoral College. Seems to me that if we elect everyone else directly, we might as well elect the President directly. (Of course, in this race, it would take just as long to find the winner, perhaps longer. As it turns out, there are still a lot of absentee ballots yet to be counted in many states. Bush could end up winning the popular vote after all, depending on how those absentee ballots work out). I don't think the argument that no candidate would go to smaller cities is entirely valid. For one thing, candidates don't go to smaller cities generally anyway. And secondly, does it really matter if the candidate comes to my town and stands behind the counter at the cookie place at the mall as part of a photo op (Dan Quayle did this at Ridgmar Mall in Fort Worth in 1992. That was nearly the entirity of his visit) or gives a speech outlining his views? I can find out a candidate's views without him coming to my hometown. And as it is, places are written off because they are in states where the candidate has no chance or has already sown the vote up. If we had a direct vote, wouldn't you expect that the Gore operation might have been better run in Texas? Wouldn't Bush's organization been better in California? Etc. Etc. And one would expect that direct election of President might increase turnout. I imagine that there might be some people who don't bother to go and vote because they know their state is going a certain way. Just some things to think about. I don't actually think that this election will end up changing anything, though. We, as a people, don't stay outraged for very long (when we are), and politicians and the PTBs are quite good at stalling until we forget or coming up with something else to distract us with. And there's the fact that it is pretty hard to Amend the Constitution. There are a lot of hoops that have to be jumped through on many levels. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Outlaw and Dreamer: i'm sure this will be heavily discussed after this election, the voting process will be rehashed and put before the Senate, Congress, and Public for extensive review. Personally i think the Electoral numbers are justifiable over the popular numbers for the reason i stated earlier though. BTW, Outlaw, just joking with ya about the lightbulb off topic thing-hee ------------------
whether or not it can happen is not relevant to whether or nor it should happen. Until 1913, people were not able to vote directly for their Senators. It took the 17th amendment to change that.
By the way, I went to a Reform Party County Meeting (actually, it was the County Convention) last year, and one of the things that some Reform Party people wanted put in their platform was a repeal of the 17th Amendment. The thinking being that Senators would be more responsive to the people if the Legislature chose who they were. Try wrapping your mind around that one. Is it any wonder the Reform Party went to being a nonfactor so quickly? ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
outlaw, You don't see the problem with what you're saying? You're saying that democracy should be able to elect a president, but we should undermine democracy (because it wouldn't pass with a majority) to amend the constitution? ------------------ "I have a DREAM.........his name's Hakeem." DREAMer's Rocket Page
Direct vote can get dangerous. I'm not sure I would be for that. But, it would make your vote count more. I voted for Gore in Texas, and it was virtually useless. In a direct vote, it would count more. ------------------ "I know how hard it is to put food on your family." George W. Bush
I actually think this election proves that our system is not only doing what it was designed to do (protect both the majority and minority, be fleixible, and make it possible to adapt to the situation), but that it's the the greatest system ever designed. It's remarkable in my book. What may appear to be a mess is sorting itself out. We have a remedy. Most countries go to war over these things. In my reasonable or unreasonable opinion, you are seeing our system function at it's best. As for specifically voting. It's impossible to guarantee a perfect election. The government never claimed to do that. The voting method is in general fair and 98 % of the country has no problem with their procedures. We have a crisis is Florida, but they are human, and a possible mistake was made. It Happens. Steve Francis has an occasional turnover. Then he learns. We are learning how to deal with this situation. It's not a can of worms, it's almost magical to watch how the system adapts to an unforseen situation. Nothing good is ever easy to get to. This is the tough part of the journey. ------------------ humble, but hungry. [This message has been edited by PhiSlammaJamma (edited November 10, 2000).] [This message has been edited by PhiSlammaJamma (edited November 10, 2000).]
Jeff, Wouldn't there be a concern about computer glitches with touch screen voting? Look at how many problems they had with "glitches" just on the computer disks used to carry the vote counts from the counting locations to the voting office. With the record of balloting locations this year, I'd be concerned about someone unintentionally loosing ballots, and no paper record to recount. ------------------ Stay Cool...
I would agree with DC. Not only that, but a large portion of the population doesn't deal with computers very well. No matter how easy it looks. Sad, but true. The old fashioned way is the best of the options if you ask me. ------------------ humble, but hungry.
