Text 30143, 80 rader
Skriven 2009-03-22 16:26:02 av Lee Lofaso (3:800/432.0)
  Kommentar till text 30112 av Bob Ackley (1:300/3)
Ärende: How the US will split
=============================
Hello Bob,

>LL>"Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!"
>LL>- George C. Wallace, governor of Alabama

>WD>So, what happened to him? Someone took a shot at him?

>DC>Actually, yes.

>BA>Hit him, too.  He was paralyzed from the waist down for the rest of
>BA>his life.

>DC>Didn't he try a presidential run one time after he got shot?

>LL>Yes.  In 1976.  Wallace ran in a few early primaries, paving
>LL>the way for Jimmy Carter.

>DC>BTW, there was a fictional book about him running against Johnson and
>DC>Nixon.  The end result was that Bobby Kennedy became president!

>LL>There was also an edition of MAD magazine in which the Secretary of
>LL>Transportation (?) became president through the line of succession.

>DC>I don't remember the name of the book.  But, it was an indictment of
>DC>the electoral college system still in use.

>LL>The electoral college system is the more modern method, and gives more
>LL>stability in electing a chief executive.

BA>A lot of people want to do away with the electoral college.
BA>Those people obviously don't realize how easy it is to fix an
BA>election.  "It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the
BA>votes." - attributed to Joe Stalin.

George W. Bush learned his lessons well.

BA>President and veep are the only two officials elected nationally
BA>(senators and representatives are elected by their respective states
BA>and districts), and they are elected by the *states*, not by the
BA>people. While the electoral college is not perfect and could be
BA>improved, it is IMO better than a direct popular election.

An electoral college system *forces* candidates to seek the middle.
It also forces candidates to seek votes outside major metropolitan
areas.  There are also other advantages.  Of course, there are also
disadvantages.  A little-known candidate has a chance to win against
better-known candidates, the possibility (and strong likelihood) of
the best-qualified candidate being left out.  But IMO the advantages
far outweigh the disadvantages.

BA>One improvement I'd like to see is to require states to split their
BA>electoral votes along the lines that Nebraska does (note that
BA>Nebraska is trying to change back to the winner-take-all system
BA>because Obama carried one district in the state and thus got one of
BA>Nebraska's five electoral votes, which *really* p*ssed o the
BA>republicrooks that pretty much own the state - it was the first time
BA>in generations that a democrook won a congressional district, and the
BA>first time in history that the state's electoral votes were divided).

Maine is the other state that has chosen a method to divide its
electoral votes.

BA>In Nebraska the candidate with the most votes statewide gets two
BA>votes (corresponding to the state's senators) and the candidates get
BA>one vote for each congressional district they win (corresponding to
BA>the state's congressional representatives).

Same with Maine.  And that leaves open a scenario that third-party
or independent candidates could exploit.  Imagine a popular local
politician upsetting the apple cart by carrying two or three
congressional districts, thus denying either major party candidate
the necessary 270 electoral votes to win.  Wouldn't that be fun?

--Lee


 * SLMR 2.1a * "How sweet it is!" - Jackie Gleason

--- Maximus 3.01
 * Origin: Xaragmata / Adelaide SA telnet://xaragmata.thebbs.org (3:800/432)