Text 3673, 71 rader
Skriven 2007-07-01 12:57:38 av Ross Cassell (1:123/456)
   Kommentar till text 3656 av Björn Felten (2:203/2)
Ärende: CIA-list
================
Hello Björn!

01 Jul 07 17:27, you wrote to me:

 RC>> But the only way you would be happy is if we scrapped our govt in
 RC>> favor of a parliamentary system and adopted figurehead Royalty to
 RC>> worship.

 BF>    Not at all, whatever gave you that impression? It would have been
 BF> enough if you had followed normal democratic procedures (like the rest
 BF> of the democratic world) and put the guy that got the most votes in
 BF> the 2000 election in office, and the world would definitely had been a
 BF> much better one to live in for all of us.

Your system as you call it Democratic, isnt any better, you merely vote for
your parliamentarians, the political party that gains or maintains control via
needed majority or coalition, picks the PM.

The Electoral College as it is called is instituted via the US Constitution.

The US Constitution does not even prescribe the citizens right to vote for the
POTUS, instead the states are granted votes based on its congressional
delegation, in the early days, the legislatures of the states decided which
candidate gets its 3 or more votes.

Nowadays, the states use popular vote to decide which way their votes go.

A states electoral votes are like so: 2 for their Senate representation plus
the number of representatives they send to the house, in my state, we send 6
representatives to the house, plus our 2 senators, thus we have 8 electoral
votes.

Some states cast their electoral votes based on how the popular vote was spread
out throughout its congressional districts, 2 of its votes represented by its
Senators would still go to the candidate whom won the popular vote statewide,
but if the opposing candidate took the popular vote in one or more of its
congressional districts, that candidate would get the vote pertinent to the
district. Only a few states do this.

Constitutionally speaking, a state only has to let the legislature decide.

If the vote for POTUS were strictly by national popular vote, the citizens of
48 states might as well stay home and let the peoples of California and New
York state decide for them.

Your system as I said before isnt much better, you vote for a parliamentarian
whom represents you in parliament, after all said and done, the party with
needed majority or cobbled together coalition then picks the PM, just how do
you know they will pick a PM you would like?

Al Gore can thank California for his popular vote tally, but the 2000 election
could have been moot had he been able to have captured the electoral votes of
his own state or even Arkansas. It shouldnt have been too hard, he was one of
Tennessee's Senators before becoming VP.

 BF>    We can surely see that, now that Al Gore is allowed to speak his
 BF> mind outside of the ordinary 30 second ad spots that your POTUS
 BF> candidates are limited to. He sure as hell was -- and is -- not the
 BF> nut-case you GWB-fanatics told us that he was...

Of course not, he is a Democrat, by extension, socialist, you appreciate
socialism.


==
Ross
Fidonet Feeds Or Fidonet In Your Newsreader: http://www.easternstar.info
E-mail: ross(at)cassell(dot)us | Blogs/Other Places: http://links.cassell.us
... In fond memory of Ann and Ray Emery, I'll miss you Ann!
--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-30413
 * Origin: The Eastern Star - Spartanburg, SC USA (1:123/456)