Ask Michael Burke Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Freedom Fighter who wrote (86551)	12/10/2000 1:06:53 PM
From: benwood	Read Replies (2) of 132070

Wayne, Considering how few instances there have been with a lower-vote-getter becoming president, I don't think that you have a valid argument about the popular-vote-wins issue. I agree that the problem would be in the method of voting, and much more uniformity would be needed. I agree that we would still want to keep that a State's right, however. I would also be open to a modified electorate -- one I've thought about instead of the winner take all would be that the winner of a state takes just TWO, plus a percentage of the rest based on popular vote. In Florida, for instance, that would give Bush perhaps 15 and Gore 10. But I agree, State's rights should not get further whittled. Ironically, Gore would probably win Florida if the US Supreme Court decided it could not meddle in the way a state is handling it's own election results. --Ben

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next