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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TideGlider who wrote (99692)	12/3/2000 7:33:43 PM
From: Carolyn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I've been away for a bit, and am trying to get caught up. I refuse to read the thousands of new posts. <g> Are we getting into a discussion about the Electoral College now?

To: TideGlider who wrote (99692)	12/3/2000 7:44:22 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Census faults have nothing to do with this. This argument assumes the census is completely accurate. << The only argument one could likely make is that the number of Senate seats are askew to population. >> The grant of two senators per state is what skews the per capita electoral college weight, for sure. "the number of Senate seats are askew to population"? Well, that depends on how you look at it. << However, the even number of Senate seats assures states rights and a degree of autonomy necessary to preserve the individual rights and customs of a minority state. >> PRE-CISE-LY. Exactly what the authors of the constitution were trying to prevent. << Otherwise California, New York and Texas could simply write laws until they annex the country. >> Now THAT's a possibility I hadn't thought of before! Yes, without the minimum of 2 representatives and 4 electoral votes, that could have happened by now. "The United States of California, New York and Texas".