At 04:15 PM 11/14/00 +0100, Sonja wrote:
>So are you saying that the American system is the only way to do it, and that
>it's the best way? I was under the impression that the problem lies in the
>disproportionallity of that system. The overall looser (whom you'd love to
see
>in office, granted) is suddenly the overall winner? I as a voter would (with
>the majority of other voters) feel somewhat cheeted in that case. Is the
result
>that just, correct and/or democratic? Majority is for Gore, but Gore
>looses....? Strange, very strange. But indeed, if I were for the other
camp I'd
>be just as elated and greedy as Bush and Bush voters on account that, with a
>minority of total votes, you can still win an election as important as yours.
It's not *that* strange Sonja. Doesn't your own European Commission
require some votes to pass with a majority of the Commissioners *and* a
majority of the States? (I might have some of the details wrong, as like
most people, I find the various decision making bodies of the EU to be a
bit confusing, but I do know for sure that some decisions are made that way
at the EU.)
The same principle applies to the US Electoral College. Just as the EU
has some voting mechanisms to preserve the interests of States like Belgium
and Netherlands in the face of the overwhelming populations of France and
Germany, so does the United State try to protect the interests of New
Mexicans and Iowans in the face of Pennsylvanians and Floridians.
JDG
_______________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Now is not the Time for Third Chances,
It is a Time for New Beginnings."
- George W. Bush 8/3/00
******************VOTE BUSH / CHENEY 2000 *******************
