If one looks at the EC as a method of equalizing each state's say in their
Federal Government, then it serves a valuable role. It is a fundamental part
of the incredible balancing act that our founding fathers created. House =
popular representation, Senate & president state representation, judiciary to
be sure that no one messes with the constitution. While it has it's hick-ups,
it has worked incredibly well for many years and the 2000 election may have
been more of an anomaly then a fundamental change in how our elections will
occur. It is not good practice to modify sound operating procedures for a one
time event that has passed.
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 9:13 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Electoral College/DNC
I'm confused. There WAS a majority winner in both elections, wasn't there?
One candidate received more votes than another candidate, right? There's
your president. Perhaps i'm just too simplistic in this thinking, but it seems
logical too me.
----- Original Message -----
From: Nick McClure
To: CF-Community
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 9:14 AM
Subject: RE: Electoral College/DNC
So what would we do with the 2000 and 1992 Elections?
Would we have a run off?
How would we handle absentee ballots, would only the people who voted the
first time around be allowed to vote the second time around? Or would only
third party candidates get to the change their votes?
<snip>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
