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: michael97123 who wrote (51520)	6/24/2004 3:04:17 PM
From: gamesmistress	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 795138

Mike, I agree that McCain would present a better "image" than Cheney but unless Cheney decides to bow out, he's there for the duration. As for Bush governing with "only" 45% of the vote, well, Bill Clinton managed with less than that in the 1992 election: he got 42.93% of the popular vote but 370 EC votes. Bush I got 37.38% of the popular vote and won 168 EC votes. Perot won 18.87% of the popular vote and no EC votes. Abolishing the EC would definitely assist the rise of multiple parties and probably lead to "coalition" governments in order to get anything done. Do we want that? A personal anecdote: I cannot remember if I voted for Bush or Gore in 2000. I do remember being in the voting booth trying to decide, thinking there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between them. I think I voted for Bush as a kind of protest vote - living in NJ, you KNOW who's gonna take that state - but I'm just not sure. But this time around, it's perfectly obvious that there's more than a dime's worth of difference between the candidates, and I know who I'll be voting for.

To: michael97123 who wrote (51520)	6/24/2004 3:18:46 PM
From: Andrew N. Cothran	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 795138

michael97123: You need to read up on the reasons for and the history of the Electoral College. The basic reason for its existence was an attempt, mostly achieved, to provide a sense of balance and equity between the large and well-populated states and their smaller southern and western counterparts. The concept was that the Electoral College equalized the relative imbalance between the larger states and the smaller states, thereby achieving greater equity. This meant that the rabble and masses in the Big East (New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, for instance) could not be "organized" and controlled by machines and machine politicians who would use their clout to dominate national politics to the detriment of the little man who lived in the small villages and farms of bigger America. The Electoral College has worked well. It has limited the spread of demagoguery and kept machine politics and politicians relatively honest. It has also given the little man on the street, from the small town, the sparsely populated states, etc., a greater sense of his own individual worth and importance in the broader policital world. I think, when you study the history of the Electoral College, you will discover that it has been a godsend to our Republic and in no instance should be abandoned. One wit in the past described democracy as the madness of many for the gain of a few. The Electoral College helps to equalize the political distance between the "many" and the "few" thereby giving the electorate a better sense of balance and equity and a feeling that "every vote really does count" and not just the votes of the well-populated cities and states. Cheers.