Politics!

[JIMRPT@AOL.COM]

et al;
First off forgive me, please, I just couldn't let this go unresponded to.
 
Susan wrote:
<<"But that is neither here nor there. The question is whether anyone's
vote should count less than anyone else's. I don't think it should
matter where you live. Also, the electoral college clouds the outcome,
since electors in several states are permitted to vote against the
popular vote in their states, if they choose. They usually don't
choose to, but they are allowed to.">>

and adressing these one at a time...........
<<"But that is neither here nor there. The question is whether anyone's
vote should count less than anyone else's.">>

 The fact is that it 'is' either here nor there. Our government is a 
"representative" government and not a "full" democracy. Each State has 2 
(two) Senators ..this includes states that have a few million residents as 
well as states which have many multiples of millions of residents. This gives 
the smaller states just as much power as the larger states have in the U.S. 
Senate. And....... this means that a resident of a small state has just as 
much clout in our government as the resident of a mega state does. This isn't 
even a questionable fact it is just a fact...period.
 Unequal power? Certainly and it is so mandated by our Constitution.

 In the House of "Representatives", the "junior house of Congress", the 
'attempt' is made to assign each state "representation" based on the states 
individual population. This process is driven by census information that is 
by its very nature 'not' an accurate reflection of the 'current actual' count 
of population in 'any' Congressional district.  assuming a population of 
aprox. 280,000,000 this gives each "Representative/Congress member" a 
constituency of aprox 643,678. Now to the extent that any individual 
Congressional district exceeds or does not come up to this 643,678 number 
that district is over or under  'represented' in Congress. In its very 
essence this gives "unequal power" to disparate constituencies.
 This, as is the case with the Senate, is mandated by our Constitution and is 
also not an assailable fact.

<<" I don't think it should matter where you live.">>
With all due respect it does matter where you live when it comes to having 
political power which is greater or lesser than your fellow Americans. Since 
no system is perfect and this system is what we use this is the syetem we 
have to live with or change. It doesn't matter who says "it shouldn't matter" 
it does matter...period.

<<"Also, the electoral college clouds the outcome,
since electors in several states are permitted to vote against the
popular vote in their states, if they choose.">>

 "Clouds the outcome"? While I am not a particular supporter of the Electoral 
College it is an obvious extension of our 'total' form of Government. Since 
anytime there is more than two candidates running for a single office there 
is the extremely likely result of no candidate getting a simple majority of 
the popular vote. In 1992 Bill Clinton received a popular vote of aprox. 
42.9% of total votes cast...but he received the 'majority' of the Electoral 
College vote. Same scenario in 1996 when he received aprox.45.4 percent of 
the popular vote. 

 In no state are Electoral Electors "permitted" to vote against the popular 
vote of their state...some states have laws "requiring" the Electors to 
mirror their states wishes and some don't have those laws. Although in those 
states there is the presumption that those Electors will mirror the states 
expressed wishes....As a practical matter, Electors, as chosen by the popular 
vote, are either 'party hacks' of the winning candidate or are "required" to 
vote for the states chosen candidate. In those states where an Electoral vote 
is not mandated there is the presumption that the Electors will follow the 
lead of their respective party.............Is there reason for concern of 
'rouge' Electors?....I suppose so but not to any effective extent under 
'normal' circumstances.

  If I had 'my way' every Presidential election would be under a runoff 
system where the top two vote getters would be left standing for the 
selection of the populace. This would assure that 'any' President who gained 
office would do so by a 'majority' of voters deciding that they were the 
proper choice....but unfortunately, or perhaps not, I don't get to have it 
'my way'. 


The current contentious political climate of this particular election is not 
an abberation and it behooves us to be very clear on what we say and do in 
these circumstances. We should also be very careful that what we say has a 
solid basis in the foundation of truth and clarity rather than passing of our 
feelings and desires as 'the true facts'.
 My view.
.................................................
Yes I am deserving of total flaming for taking up this much bandwidth on a 
'technical' forum but having said this...I just could not let this thread go 
unanswered. I can only offer the mitigating circumstance of having urged each 
of us to vote no matter affiliation because I thought it would be of greater 
than usual importance............see the newspaper or TV for the 
reasonableness of those feelings.

I stand guilty as charged, contrite but not bowed.
Jim Bryant (FL)