Victory?

merry · Apr 1, 2003, 08:51 AM

It's complicated... Romania is a democracy, the problem now is poverty. And maybe a trustworthy political class.

BWX · Apr 1, 2003, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SH4President
That means that with current system a vote from a man in Deleware has higher value than a vote from a guy in California?

That means that "one man one vote " doesnt apply in USA?

Yes, in reallity, the one man from Deleware's vote count's more than one man's (or woman's) vote from a bigger state, but it is more even than you think at first. I haven't studied it in depth, but I was surprised when I was a little kid in second grade learing about it for the first time, and never really understood it until highschool when I started thinking about it more because I was going to actually vote.

I always thought it should be the way you would naturaly think, everyone in the country votes, you count them, and then elect the president on who gets the most votes. But we live in a country where we have individual state governments. Some people feel the state governments should hold MORE power than the federal government in general, to basicly keep it in check. Some people think the Federal government should hold more power for a more central government.
But when it comes to electing the president, the states should be the ones to decide, because they are their own seperate entities, and why should California have more say than Deleware? If we went be the popular vote, Deleware would not even have a voice in the matter, and it's voting power would be next to nothing. However we have a free election, so you decide with your vote how your state will vote.

Plus, 200 years ago, it would have taken 4 years to count all the votes, and there were no phones and computers to comunicate accross country. I think alot of the reason they came up with that system way back then was a logistical need to speed up the process and make it fast enough for the president to be elected before his term was up.
It would have been a nightmare back then to count all the votes in the country at one time. And what if you needed to recount? If you only hade to recount one state's votes, it is going to take an exponentially shorter amount of time.
The main thing is that we all vote, and whether you listen to all the hype about how messed up Florida is or not, every vote does count- Especially when more people DON'T vote than DO vote- and being how close the elections have been across the board lately. So in reality you could say your vote counts double. (per capita).

Hopefully I haven't thoroughly confused you.

Falstaff · Apr 1, 2003, 02:51 PM

Alastair Cooke, ha ha...clear to me, reminds me history class, ha ha

GOG · Apr 1, 2003, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BWX232
Yes, in reallity, the one man from Deleware's vote count's more than one man's (or woman's) vote from a bigger state, but it is more even than you think at first. I haven't studied it in depth, but I was surprised when I was a little kid in second grade learing about it for the first time, and never really understood it until highschool when I started thinking about it more because I was going to actually vote.

I always thought it should be the way you would naturaly think, everyone in the country votes, you count them, and then elect the president on who gets the most votes. But we live in a country where we have individual state governments. Some people feel the state governments should hold MORE power than the federal government in general, to basicly keep it in check. Some people think the Federal government should hold more power for a more central government.
But when it comes to electing the president, the states should be the ones to decide, because they are their own seperate entities, and why should California have more say than Deleware? If we went be the popular vote, Deleware would not even have a voice in the matter, and it's voting power would be next to nothing. However we have a free election, so you decide with your vote how your state will vote.

Plus, 200 years ago, it would have taken 4 years to count all the votes, and there were no phones and computers to comunicate accross country. I think alot of the reason they came up with that system way back then was a logistical need to speed up the process and make it fast enough for the president to be elected before his term was up.
It would have been a nightmare back then to count all the votes in the country at one time. And what if you needed to recount? If you only hade to recount one state's votes, it is going to take an exponentially shorter amount of time.
The main thing is that we all vote, and whether you listen to all the hype about how messed up Florida is or not, every vote does count- Especially when more people DON'T vote than DO vote- and being how close the elections have been across the board lately. So in reality you could say your vote counts double. (per capita).

Hopefully I haven't thoroughly confused you.

You surely must be joking, what on earth is restraining you from changing this? We are in the 21st century now, you CAN'T obey laws that were written several hundered years ago, they don't comply to a modern society (as this shows). This makes me wonder:

If the Electoral College goes against the will of the voters, is this illegal?

Apr 1, 2003, 08:51 AM	#61
merry gargouille Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha Posts: 962 Rep Power: 0	It's complicated... Romania is a democracy, the problem now is poverty. And maybe a trustworthy political class. __________________ There is a war between the ones who say there is a war and the ones who say there isn't. ~~Leonard Cohen

Apr 1, 2003, 02:51 PM	#63
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	sounds like Alastair Cooke, ha ha...clear to me, reminds me history class, ha ha __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."