Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (14)	11/11/2000 9:44:44 PM
From: CatLady	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

It seems to me that the states could and should change the way they choose electors. Split the number of electors proportionately between the candidates. In FL, for example, 13 would go to Bush and 12 to Gore ( or 12 B and 13 G ).

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (14)	11/11/2000 9:58:18 PM
From: SmoothSail	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

Neither one of them visited North or South Dakota. So what if they don't go to the rural areas. Both of them came to the LA area (I think) but I never saw either one of them. The people that show up at those rallys are already supporters. The idea of the electoral college was a good one back then when information was hard to come by. People in rural areas have as much access to information as those in urban areas. The electoral college just doesn't make much sense anymore. In every other contest, it's the guy or gal that gets the most votes that wins. Why should the presidential contest be any different - times change.

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (14)	11/11/2000 10:12:24 PM
From: SmoothSail	Respond to of 14610

Besides, a Constitutional amendment requires the approval of 38 state legislatures. Why would they approve a change to the Electoral College? I heard it once said that "all politics are local." A congressman/woman or a senator from a particular state has far more power in looking after the interests of a particular area than a president does. Look at Byrd of West Virginia or Thurman of South Carolina - their states and local areas get far more attention than other more populated states. The presidency has become more of a popularity contest - who's better looking - who's got more personality - who's friendlier. It's hardly the issues anymore. They both promised prescription drugs, to do something about medicare, about social security, the economy, defense, etc.