Have your say! "Free Speech" or Muslim bashing? Do you support Iraq troop withdrawal? Iran invasion?
  • Please read our posting policy before adding a comment
  • Target areas: Operation "Anyone But Labour" 2006
  • Tuesday, December 28, 2004

    Senator makes bid to end electoral college sham

    At present, as this article mentions, presidential candidates can focus their attention on "swing states" which have larger numbers of electoral college voters. A senator called Dianne Feinstein is proposing an end to this, so that wherever people vote from their votes will be weighed equally. "The Electoral College is an anachronism, and the time has come to bring our democracy into the 21st century," Feinstein said in a statement. "During the founding years of the republic, the Electoral College may have been a suitable system, but today it is flawed and amounts to national elections being decided in several battleground states."

    2 Comments:

    At 12/28/2004 09:16:00 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    "electoral college sham "

    I'm willing to bet, you don't know anything about the electoral college or why it is used in the US.

    Its' biggest advantage is that it ensures no one state or region has more of a say in who gets elected, something the founding fathers (think Scotland and England) wanted.

    "Recognizing the strong regional interests and loyalties which have
    played so great a role in American history, proponents argue that the
    Electoral College system contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president.
    Without such a mechanism, they point out, presidents would be selected
    either through the domination of one populous region over the others or
    through the domination of large metropolitan areas over the rural ones.
    Indeed, it is principally because of the Electoral College that presidential
    nominees are inclined to select vice presidential running mates from a
    region other than their own. For as things stand now, no one region
    contains the absolute majority (270) of electoral votes required to elect a
    president. Thus, there is an incentive for presidential candidates to pull
    together coalitions of States and regions rather than to exacerbate regional
    differences. Such a unifying mechanism seems especially prudent in view
    of the severe regional problems that have typically plagued geographically
    large nations such as China, India, the Soviet Union, and even, in its time,
    the Roman Empire.
    This unifying mechanism does not, however, come without a small
    price. And the price is that in very close popular elections, it is possible that
    the candidate who wins a slight majority of popular votes may not be the
    one elected president -- depending (as in 1888) on whether his popularity is
    concentrated in a few States or whether it is more evenly distributed across
    the States. Yet this is less of a problem than it seems since, as a practical
    matter, the popular difference between the two candidates would likely be so
    small that either candidate could govern effectively.

    Pdf link here:

    http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

     
    At 12/28/2004 09:21:00 pm, Blogger Voice 1 said...

    Thank you for the link, I wonder, were you the same person who mentioned the Afhan constitution some time ago?

    I believe you will find a reply there if you'd like to see what "democracy" in Afghanistan means.
    regards.

     

    Post a Comment

    Links to this post:

    Create a Link

    << Home