[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: Call for a re-vote.
>
> > Did you know that in 1996 there were almost 14,000 ballots tossed
because
> of
> > discrepances such as double voting.
>
>
> in 1996, 14,000 ballots either way wouldn't have made a difference. this
> year, the whole election hinges on florida's 300 some votes, 19,000 makes
a
> huge difference.
>
I agree that it would not have made much of a difference, but were those
people allowed ro re-vote? That is the main issue. People don't get a
chance to re-vote because they messed up on the ballot, for whatever reason.
>
> > constitution set up an electoral college just for instances like this.
If
> > we based Presidential elections JUST on popular vote, then the large
> states
> > would be able to win the elections hands down and the smaller states
would
> > be left in the dust.
>
> are you saying there are some kind of state hive minds that everyone in
the
> same state would vote the same?? that's the only way a large state can
have
> more say than a small state. in a purely popular vote election,
> everyone's vote is weighed the same, no matter which state you are from.
> its in the electoral system that a vote in california is hell of lot
> important than a vote in alaska. think it through.
> oh wait, that's right, conservatives are known for their inability to see
> the inconsistencies in their logic.
>
Ok, maybe my argument wasn't quite logical, but think about this. If we
went on a purely popular vote, wouldn't it make sense just to focus on the
areas where the population is the largest? That is what I would do. I
wouldn't go to places like Idaho, North Dakota, Maine, and states which have
smaller populations. I would go to places like New York, California, Texas,
Florida, and Pennsylvania, where there are larger populations. That, I
think, was the main idea behind the Electoral College.
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/
Follow-Ups:
References: