Flame!!!!! JIMRPT@AOL.COM wrote: > > 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)
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC