Just to say there is an old joke in Scotland people are so thick if Labour puts a pig up as a candidate, with a Labour flag on it, in a safe Labour seat. The pig would win in a landslide vote. That one goes back to the 1960's and still is the case today. :nope:

Re: Whatever
 

Get over it already dang lol....quit making so much dirty laundry Sky lol.

[img]http://www.ericreiche.net/gallery/Fun/org/****_dirty_laundry.jpg[/img]

JK ya ..ya know I couldn't resist the pic should be an avatar...

Be sour if you like but President Bush got more votes than any candidate in the history of elections in the USA. It is clearly a disadvantage of the Democrats when it comes to numbers of people voting and geographical coverage.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/...dbluelarge.png

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pag...lts/scorecard/

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pag...toral.college/

Just like there is a house (votes based on population) and senate (all states get only two votes) there is a balance in how the President is elected via the electoral college. Here is a link to a history lesson proving that there is no bias:

http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecmenu2.htm

True, but he got the lowest margin of victory ever for an incumbent president- barely more than 1%-if not for the electoral college, a Bush loss would have been far more likely.
Balance would imply some sort of equality, the electoral college empowers a person in Wyoming with three times the vote I have in Illinois. I understand that all the small states would whine about having less power in a popular election, but I think that one person, one vote is far more fair and democratic.

My gut tells me this war in Iraq is a failure.

I never had a good feeling when it started. Although when Bush Senior went into Kuwait, I didn't feel there would be a problem.

Bush Senior went in quick, got out quick and didn't have a real problem. Bush Junior went in quick and dragged his heals getting out, now there's a problem.

How many thousand dead and injured Americans for a failed war?????

Weapons of mass distruction.........what a joke. (Boy does the American public ever blindly believe everything the U.S. government and media says).

But this is the "United States", not the "United Individuals".

Were this somehow to become the law of the land I believe it would soon cause a civil war that would make the last one seem tame by comparison. Modern weaponry alone would see to that.

Yes, but if all men are created equal, than their votes should be equal too.
That war could start if the present situation continues as well...

What do you base yourself on?

I believe the vast majority of US citizens, myself included, would prefer to do away with the electoral college. Since the 1970's, polls have shown that 60% or more of those question favored its elimination.

I have yet to see a poll how many people would start a civil war (and how to identify your foes) should the electoral college be dismantled.

For reference, see this report for reference and as a source of discussion.

This does a fair job of explaining it:

http://www.csupomona.edu/~reshaffer/eleccolx.htm

This is something that always gets me.

If the New York cops bust into an apartment and find nitric acid, RDX, toluene, glycol, hot plates, and beakers, it's called "bomb making equipment".

If the United States Army bust into RV's out in the middle of the desert and find thiodiglycol, ethylphosphonothiolate, continuous mixing piping, artillery shells with voids, sealing plugs, and several concealed howitzers, it's called "pesticide dispersal equipment".

Explaining it, yes, but nothing about producing a civil war. And this article appears to agree that a majority of the US population are indeed for the abolishment of the electoral college.

Very few countries practice one man - one vote fully.

It is common to let the votes from sparsely populated areas weigh more. This is conscious district politics and is intended to slow down centralization.

The main problem in American politics is the polarization that occurs when there are only two viable parties.

Also, the electoral college is elected on the "first past the post" principle, which means whichever party that gets a majority in a district, gets all the seats for that district, no matter if the majority is 99% to 1% or 51% to 49%. Proportional representation would be more fair, and make it more attractive for people to vote for smaller parties.

Well what do you think the result will be when 3-5 states dominate every election? When candidates can basically ignore everyone outside of those few states? You think you have voter disenfranchisement now...

In any case it won't happen without an amendment to the constitution that will require the ratification by 3/4ths of the states.
That won't happen...

I'm not sure that I agree with that. Back home in Australia we have always only had two viable parties being the Labour Party and the Liberals (actually conservative). In the case of the USA the reason for the polarization there I think has more to do with the style of politics, gutter politics IMO, by both sides that has basically split the country right down the middle. Either you are red or blue. There is no middle ground it seems. You only have to look at US News Channels to view the absolute vindictive, spitefull and hate filled nature of US politics today. I think voters deserve a hell of a lot better than this.

I think that is precisely because there are only two viable parties plus, as he mentioned, the 'first past the post' principle.

Here in Canada we have right now 4 major parties, and even though federal elections tend to come down to 2 parties (Liberals or Conservatives) the other 2 (the NDP and the Bloc) act as a check because they do win seats in the government - not enough to form the government, but enough to act as a check on it and prevent the black and white, or red and blue, we see in American politics.