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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (8257)	12/3/2000 1:04:08 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

Personally, I think the Electoral College should be revised to where each state receives 10 electoral votes Interesting position. So you think 16% of the population should be able to elect a President? Under this system, a vote in Wyoming is worth 68 votes in California...

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (8257)	12/3/2000 11:21:36 AM
From: ThirdEye	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

Ron, a change in the electoral college giving all states an equal number of electors would be redundant. We already have a system of equal representation for all states. It's called the Senate. Now, assuming that if a candidate wins the popular vote in any given state that both Senators would be obligated to "elect" that candidate regardless of their party affiliation, you're saying that no president should be elected unless they win a majority of the senate. Can you see how that system would disenfranchise millions of people?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (8257)	12/3/2000 3:01:46 PM
From: Czechsinthemail	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10042

Personally, I think the Electoral College should be revised to where each state receives 10 electoral votes. That way, NO PRESIDENT will be able to win the White House without having to win the majority of ALL states, no matter how lightly, or densely, populated. If a candidate wants to win, he'll have to win more than 1/2 of the states, not just a few select ones that possess the majority of the population. Interesting, though it might be simpler if each state had 1 electoral vote. Or you could give each state 100 electoral votes so that more would have the opportunity to feel like big shots. And why stop there? Why not give an electoral vote to each county "no matter how lightly, or densely, populated", and insist that a candidate win the majority of counties. Your kind of thinking is what resulted in the Civil War, Baird... You remember reading about that war, don't ya? The one where the more heavily populated and industrialized North alienated the less populated southern states to the point where they seceded and lead us into Amerca's more bloody war (even bloodier than WWII).. I guess you must be referring to my view that slavery should be abolished. Your interpretations of history are fascinating. Since tens of millions more people died in World War II, I was intrigued by your notion that the American Civil War was "bloodier". And I suppose your view is that Germany and Japan were alienated by their neighbors to the point where they naturally had to invade them. I would hope you'd rethink your premise. The United States is NOT a democracy. It is a Representative Republic. Yes, but representative of what? Since you obviously have a mistrust of government of the people, by the people, and for the people, perhaps you should rethink your premise. Perhaps you could come up with a better electoral system by allocating one electoral vote to each company in the S&P 500. You could then have shareholders vote by proxy to determine how each company's vote would be cast.