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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jjayxxxx who wrote (160209)	2/6/2003 1:41:11 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1578916

Think about it, with a popular vote, the contenders would spend all of their time in NY, LA, Chicago, etc. I'm not sure I'm making myself clear - by getting all of the EC votes for little ole [insert small state here] the contenders actually campaign there. Every state becomes important, not just the highly populated ones. This is certainly one of the reasons the Electoral College was created. The Founding Fathers recognized, wisely, that a mere popular vote would be subject to the various distortions that could occur from aggregation of voters in particular locations. There are numerous other reasons it makes good sense. Again, I'm a recent convert -- until the '00 election I could not see the advantages of it. Today, it makes perfect sense. You can't really say for sure that Gore would have won an election based on the popular vote because it wasn't campaigned that way. This is a great point for those who argue that Bush is not a legitimate winner. He is legitimate if you consider the method we use to elect presidents. But as you point out, if we elected presidents by popular vote the entire dynamic of the campaign would have been totally different. Great, relevant point.