Jseal,

Thanks for explaining the process to me. It seems apparrent to me that it has a glaring flaw. The people who vote for the losing candidate in each state get completely disenfranchised. In my opinion, the will of the people would be fully implemented if the states put in their votes on a proportional basis according to the votes received by the candidates. A narrow win in a state with a lot of electoral votes could sway the election and a candidate with less than a majority of the total vote could win, a la George W.

The Australian senate is elected on proportional representation as it is made up of 12 senators from each state plus 1 from the Australian Capital Territory (our Washington DC equivalent) and the Northern Territory.

Our house of reps are elected using a preference system till one candidate gets over 50% of the votes cast.

lakritze,

Interesting. You assert that the Republicans were guilty of tampering with the voting system in 2000.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

jseal---If I remember correctly,Lilith said once,that unless,you give examples,
things are only opinions.I have seen MANY ideas,but never an"in my opinion"!
Irish
P.S. my $.02.
P.P.S.jseal---I don't mean you!

Irish,

Indeed so sir. I have learned over time that people say the darndest things.

Grumble,

There are several voting systems which attempt to address the point you raise.

The upper house of our federal legislature, the Senate, is composed of two senators from each of the states - regardless of the state's population. This was implemented to prevent the heavily populated states from running roughshod over the preferences of the smaller states. This is an issue the EU must soon come to terms with. The proposed EU constitution is a reasonable, if bulky, attempt to do so.

The lower house, the House of Representatives, is proportionally representative of the population at large. A mandatory national census is taken every 10 years, and is used to determine the number of representatives a state may send to Congress. Needless to say, the census figures have on occasion been hotly contested. This proportional representation is made even more important as spending bills must originate from this body.

The executive, the President, here in the States comes to power in a way that is almost identical to that practiced by parliamentarian democracies such as those of Australia and the UK. The major difference is that here in the States we hold a special election to do so.

Consider the way that Tony Blair or John Howard came to hold their current positions. Having been elected as their party’s leaders, they campaigned for or against a set of policies. The electorate cast their ballots, and more candidates from Mr. Howard’s and Mr. Blair’s parties were elected to represent the people. Messrs. Howard and Blair then presented their credentials to their respective heads of state, who prudently entrusted the governance of the countries to the parties whose policies most closely matched those of the citizens

The way the Presidential game is played in the States is to appeal to the party to become the candidate, and to the electorate to become the President.

In the last presidential election, Senator Gore and Governor Bush each campaigned for or against a set of policies. The electorate cast their ballots, and the votes were counted in each state. If you now refer back to the composition of the Electoral College, you can see that it is vital to win the vote in the populous states. Governor Bush won the famous Florida count by some 530 odd votes, and thus was awarded all those votes for the Electoral College. He succeeded in winning the right mix of states.

Now for the entertaining part. Once this Great American Democracy has been saved from perdition for the nth time, and the votes are (eventually) in, the College of Electors meets. With much solemnity, they cast their votes for the forgone conclusion, and then they go home. That’s it. They have served their country well and faithfully, and having done so, return to the lives they led before the circus came to town. I always thought it somewhat anticlimactic, but there you are.

This part is true jseal




This is utter Frogshit

So the summery of that filibuster is that Grumbles is right in that a presidential candidate could win the popular vote and still lose the election?

Politics schmolitics....BRING ON THE BUSH TWINS!!!!!

& sadly, this was not the first time the system broke down, & probably won't be the last...it's an over-designed, anachronistic, Rube Goldberg contraption that was never right, & it's even more wrong as time goes by...

The Electorial College
Has no knowledge

Scotzoid

The electoral college was an attempt at rendering some sort of reliable reporting when communication and transportation WASN’T. It belongs in the shit-can with the thousand other governmental processes that didn’t work in the first place, so they were modified to what is a complete abomination and set in stone.

We are not the same as the UK. While the Queen is the Head of State here she is so only on paper. Also with the Party system here the Party can replace the leader. A Clinton would not happen here. The Party would replace him. Also we all HAVE to vote.

Catch22---Do you mean that voting is mandatory?Just asking,I REALLY don't
know! Irish

Very interesting.

Same is true in Brasil. Because many people are illiterate and/or uneducated, theperson who bribes the most (typically they stand just outside the voting booths) generally gets this segment of the popular vote.

And...if you don't vote...you can't register your car, get social services, and several other important things.