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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lou Weed who wrote (251977)	12/21/2007 2:31:44 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

i am not sure but electoral college served us well until it stopped doing so. Time to jettison it. BTW, the dems are no better. Kerry clearly lost popular vote but some dems wanted to reverse ohio so he would win. All pols suck and thus obama the new kid reformer vs mccain aka brett maverick.

To: Lou Weed who wrote (251977)	12/21/2007 2:45:38 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

What astounded me after the recount nonsense was the fact that the guy that won the popular vote lost the election. Never have and never will understand the electoral college......any system that allows for such a scenario is fundamentally flawed as a voting system for a democracy. Does any other country have an electoral college? It's not due to the electoral college. It could happen even without the electoral college, and it could be corrected leaving the electoral college in place. The US doesn't actually have any national elections; it has 50 state elections instead. The states decide how to apportion their results. A few states divide their results according the vote count but the great majority do it on a winner-takes-all basis. It is the winner-takes-all system that creates the potential for losing the popular vote but winning the election.

To: Lou Weed who wrote (251977)	12/22/2007 1:17:46 AM
From: c.hinton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

here is abit on the election process of Venice ...perhaps the closest thing to democracy that europe had for 900 years prior to thr french revolution... The Doge .... The highest office in Venice was that of Doge, the local dialect corrupted Duke into Doge. Many Italians from outside the city often found the strange local dialect difficult to understand. Elected by the Council of his peers by a complicated multi-stage voting system which in part involved voting for those who would vote for others to decide, the Doge would be presented to the public on his election the ritual words : "Here is your Doge, if it should please you." These words were uttered in remembrance of the fact the people could depose the Doge if they were mistreated. Despite being the highest office a Venetian could hold, the position of Doge was hedged with many rules to prevent an abuse of power. When he became Doge the individual gave up any right to choose his wife and his sons were limited in how they could be employed by the state. The sons of a Doge could only hold the positions of Ambassador or Captain of a State Galley. It is interesting to note that the youngest Doge ever elected was aged 63 so the lifetime position of Doge was not all it was cracked up to be. The Doge was never left alone with foreign visitors and he could not answer a question on foreign policy without consulting his advisors. Also the Doge could not leave the city without permission and had all his letters opened by a secretary loyal to the Republic. Most of the Doges were elected from the Case Grandi and it was only in the rarest of circumstances that one was elected from outside this group. Perhaps by the redistribution of the candidates accumulation of great wealth.