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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Globalstar Telecommunications Limited GSAT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pcstel who wrote (20887)	1/4/2001 3:00:54 PM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 29987

Well, then, why not abolish the Senate? Why should Delaware have as much senatorial clout as California or New York? That's undemocratic, isn't it? You seem to believe that some "pure" form of democracy -- apparently as defined and shaped by you -- is the panacea. It's not. But, again, you've missed the issue. Being created equal isn't the issue. It's protection of minority interests and rights. Your "majority rules" mob-rule mentality, without checks and balances and minority protections, would do away with the Bill of Rights as an undemocratic inconvenience imposed upon the majority. After all, why should people be able to freely speak their mind, when most people don't agree? Why be able to practice one's own religion, when most people are ____ (whatever), and it would be more efficient and harmonious (democratic) for the Government to sponsor a church as decided by an election? Why protect people from unreasonable search and seizure, when most people have nothing to hide? Scary thoughts. Btw, you have ALWAYS cast your presidential vote for an elector who represents the candidate, even though you deny that fact. We do not have direct presidential elections in this country. Please check your facts.

To: pcstel who wrote (20887)	1/4/2001 3:09:56 PM
From: oconnellc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29987

PCSTEL, I guess I'm not sure where you are going with your complaints. This is not even the first time in recent memory that the <"Will of the majority of Voters" was superseded in lieu of the "Will" of the Minority of Voters> as you put it. In 1992 a huge majority of voters wanted someone (anyone) other then Bill Clinton to be president, yet there was far less outcry then because of someone with ~43% of the vote becoming president then there is now with someone with ~50% of the vote becoming president. Many countries that are closer to a true democracy then the US have run-off elections. Don't tell me you are still upset about the last 8 years!! And please stop throwing out absolute numbers of voters. When you have an election like we do here, the overall number of votes is irrelevant. The reason is because many, many people in states where the election is foregone do not vote (how many Bush supporters did not vote in California because they 'knew' that Gore was going to win? or how many Gore supporters in Texas didn't vote because Bush was going to win?). The point being, stop comparing apples to oranges. This was not a popular vote election. If it had been, then your argument might have some merit. But it does not. You can't go changing the rules after the fact, and then try to justify a result based on your changing the rules. If your problem is with the fact that it is not a popular vote election, I think the timing of your complaint is a little suspect. If you were unhappy with the electoral college, I would think that the appropriate time to complain would have been before the election. I would like to think that you weren't just waiting to see if you got the result that you like before complaining. If your wife doesn't understand the election laws in this country, I can recommend an excellent web site: access.gpo.gov The constitution was around before Nov. 7. Ignorance of the law is no excuse... Now, after having read what I just wrote, I dare anyone to guess which candidate I voted for! Chris