Politics!

[Richard Oliver Snelson]

Flame!!!!!

JIMRPT@AOL.COM wrote:
> 
> et al;
> First off forgive me, please, I just couldn't let this go unresponded to.
> 
> Susan wrote:
> <<"But that is neither here nor there. The question is whether anyone's
> vote should count less than anyone else's. I don't think it should
> matter where you live. Also, the electoral college clouds the outcome,
> since electors in several states are permitted to vote against the
> popular vote in their states, if they choose. They usually don't
> choose to, but they are allowed to.">>
> 
> and adressing these one at a time...........
> <<"But that is neither here nor there. The question is whether anyone's
> vote should count less than anyone else's.">>
> 
>  The fact is that it 'is' either here nor there. Our government is a
> "representative" government and not a "full" democracy. Each State has 2
> (two) Senators ..this includes states that have a few million residents as
> well as states which have many multiples of millions of residents. This gives
> the smaller states just as much power as the larger states have in the U.S.
> Senate. And....... this means that a resident of a small state has just as
> much clout in our government as the resident of a mega state does. This isn't
> even a questionable fact it is just a fact...period.
>  Unequal power? Certainly and it is so mandated by our Constitution.
> 
>  In the House of "Representatives", the "junior house of Congress", the
> 'attempt' is made to assign each state "representation" based on the states
> individual population. This process is driven by census information that is
> by its very nature 'not' an accurate reflection of the 'current actual' count
> of population in 'any' Congressional district.  assuming a population of
> aprox. 280,000,000 this gives each "Representative/Congress member" a
> constituency of aprox 643,678. Now to the extent that any individual
> Congressional district exceeds or does not come up to this 643,678 number
> that district is over or under  'represented' in Congress. In its very
> essence this gives "unequal power" to disparate constituencies.
>  This, as is the case with the Senate, is mandated by our Constitution and is
> also not an assailable fact.
> 
> <<" I don't think it should matter where you live.">>
> With all due respect it does matter where you live when it comes to having
> political power which is greater or lesser than your fellow Americans. Since
> no system is perfect and this system is what we use this is the syetem we
> have to live with or change. It doesn't matter who says "it shouldn't matter"
> it does matter...period.
> 
> <<"Also, the electoral college clouds the outcome,
> since electors in several states are permitted to vote against the
> popular vote in their states, if they choose.">>
> 
>  "Clouds the outcome"? While I am not a particular supporter of the Electoral
> College it is an obvious extension of our 'total' form of Government. Since
> anytime there is more than two candidates running for a single office there
> is the extremely likely result of no candidate getting a simple majority of
> the popular vote. In 1992 Bill Clinton received a popular vote of aprox.
> 42.9% of total votes cast...but he received the 'majority' of the Electoral
> College vote. Same scenario in 1996 when he received aprox.45.4 percent of
> the popular vote.
> 
>  In no state are Electoral Electors "permitted" to vote against the popular
> vote of their state...some states have laws "requiring" the Electors to
> mirror their states wishes and some don't have those laws. Although in those
> states there is the presumption that those Electors will mirror the states
> expressed wishes....As a practical matter, Electors, as chosen by the popular
> vote, are either 'party hacks' of the winning candidate or are "required" to
> vote for the states chosen candidate. In those states where an Electoral vote
> is not mandated there is the presumption that the Electors will follow the
> lead of their respective party.............Is there reason for concern of
> 'rouge' Electors?....I suppose so but not to any effective extent under
> 'normal' circumstances.
> 
>   If I had 'my way' every Presidential election would be under a runoff
> system where the top two vote getters would be left standing for the
> selection of the populace. This would assure that 'any' President who gained
> office would do so by a 'majority' of voters deciding that they were the
> proper choice....but unfortunately, or perhaps not, I don't get to have it
> 'my way'.
> 
> The current contentious political climate of this particular election is not
> an abberation and it behooves us to be very clear on what we say and do in
> these circumstances. We should also be very careful that what we say has a
> solid basis in the foundation of truth and clarity rather than passing of our
> feelings and desires as 'the true facts'.
>  My view.
> .................................................
> Yes I am deserving of total flaming for taking up this much bandwidth on a
> 'technical' forum but having said this...I just could not let this thread go
> unanswered. I can only offer the mitigating circumstance of having urged each
> of us to vote no matter affiliation because I thought it would be of greater
> than usual importance............see the newspaper or TV for the
> reasonableness of those feelings.
> 
> I stand guilty as charged, contrite but not bowed.
> Jim Bryant (FL)