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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Amateur Traders Corner -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Blue On Black who wrote (3627)	11/26/2000 10:34:00 PM
From: Tom Hua	Respond to of 19633

80% of the population lives on 20% of the land Lee, isn't that true in just about every country in the world? I guess all lands are not created equal. Is there room to meet? I like it a lot more than "Can we all get along?" That's also the question Bush asked in his remarks tonight. It was directed at the Clinton Administration with regard to meeting with Bush's transition team. Good luck to him! This is another interesting angle in the next 2 weeks. Regards, Tom

To: Blue On Black who wrote (3627)	11/26/2000 11:56:56 PM
From: Druss	Respond to of 19633

Lee--The system of representation our government has is the members of the House of Representatives represent the people of their district of their particular state. The Senators represent the people of their state and the President represents the people of the entire country. Large population states have the advantage of extra members in the House while small population states have the advantage of equal membership in the Senate. So a small state is in effect over represented in the Halls of Congress. I see no reason for this to occur in the case of the only governmental figure elected by the entire country. Why can't we trust the people enough to vote for a president? And why shouldn't the votes of the entire nation count the same for a nationally elected figure? I am a bit skeptical of the supposed leverage small states get from all this. When Hurricane Andrew ravaged the air base in Homestead, Florida, President Bush announced he was reopening it despite the Air Forces desire to close it down as a cost saving measure. [Not to mention the vulnerability of it to a reoccurance.] Bush was in a tight reelection campaign and was playing straight to the votes (electoral) in Florida as was mentioned in the media at the time. Leaving aside his use of government money to buy some votes, do you think he would have done the same for Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota in the same circumstances? Just some ramblings on a slow night. All the Best Dan