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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michelino who wrote (39534)	4/15/2004 3:35:25 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793868

The Electoral College is nothing but an extremely rough approximation of the popular vote. So what's the problem? Other than you didn't like the result... It was nonsense to let an entire state's electoral votes go to a winner who's margin of victory was less than the margin of error of the voting method. The whole science of statistics refutes the conclusion. So even without considering fraud, Bush's victory was just noise. You assume a reasonable conclusion could have been drawn from Florida in all cases. That is specious. The EC provides a mechanism that prevents hard cases like Florida turning into true Constitutional crises. It is precisely in situations like Florida that the EC proves its worth. You have forgotten that millions of Black voters were prevented from even going to the polls...it would have been a runaway for JFK if not for racism. That was the real stink. What is at issue is the realities on the ground, not the "what could have beens". The 60 election was squeeky close, there were debatable districts Nixon could have challenged, but didn't. As in 2000, if the election hinged only on popular vote instead of the EC the result may have been many times messier. Derek

To: Michelino who wrote (39534)	4/15/2004 5:43:58 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793868

It remains that there is no logical argument to defeat the proposition "that the electoral college is a subversion of the principle of one-man-one-vote." That is not the "principle" here, M. You know it very well. Claiming it is so does not make it so.

To: Michelino who wrote (39534)	4/15/2004 6:46:09 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Respond to of 793868

I thought Sam Giancana and Papa Joe Kennedy's other mafia pals secured the 1960 election. Did the black vote or the Electoral College even matter in that contest?

To: Michelino who wrote (39534)	4/15/2004 2:17:40 PM
From: Brian Sullivan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793868

In the south the whites voted for the Dixiecrats (i.e Democrats) prior to 1964. So you should not assume that millions of Black voters would have voted for the Kennedy/LBJ ticket in 1960. After reconstruction in the south the only black candidates that ever were elected to Congress were Republicans. usatoday.com Those who think African Americans have an unbreakable link to the Democratic Party could benefit from a history lesson. Richard Nixon won 32 percent of the black vote in the 1960 presidential election. Four years earlier, Dwight Eisenhower tallied 39 percent of that vote when he gained a second term in the White House. So what happened? Black support for Republican presidential candidates plummeted in 1964 when Barry Goldwater, then a civil rights opponent and states' rights advocate, was the GOP standard-bearer. He got just 6 percent of the black vote that year. Since then, no Republican presidential candidate has pulled in more than 15 percent of the black vote in a general election.