|
|
| Re: List Of Books Palin Tried To Have Banned (352668) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: List Of Books Palin Tried To Have Banned |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Sep 7 09:06:55 2008, in response to Re: List Of Books Palin Tried To Have Banned, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Sep 7 08:33:32 2008. But they don't currently consider the rural states either. The only states that are considered are the ones that are geographically lucky enough to be constructed in such a way that they are evenly divided between the two parties. The small town people and the big city people in the non-swing states are completely ignored.Giving minority candidates a majority is a stupid function. Many elections in this country and in others get along fine with plurality victories. Even so, there are much better ways of handling this. Preferential voting is optimal, if difficult to implement (but NOT difficult to understand). It also makes it less likely that a national recount would be necessary, because the minor candidates would be eliminated by the final round of counting. Even if a national recount were necessary, it wouldn't necessarily be any more chaotic than a state recount. Although there would be many more ballots to count, there would be many more people to do it, as each state would have its own people to count ballots. Obviously if a national popular election were done, then any disputes would have to be handled exclusively by the federal courts, rather than this being a state by state affair. Placing all elections at the state level may have been practical in 1787, but today there is more national cohesion than there was in the 18th Century, so it is more practical. The Constitution wasn't made to remain the same; Article V is there for a reason. The smaller states currently do not have a voice under the electoral college. Why would they disagree to something where at least their voices would have a greater chance of being heard? Under the electoral college, the voters in Wyoming are worthless to the candidates. With a national popular vote, they would each be worth as much as the voters in Florida and Pennsylvania. As for the added expense: Democracy isn't cheap. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|