At least two states were theocracies as well. To vote in Connecticut
and Massachusetts you had to be a land owner and a member of the
Congregational Church.
Adam Maas wrote:
> On 2/6/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> In a message dated 2/5/2008 11:19:17 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> Let's use the democrats as an example, since I actually know a couple of
>> their names.
>> In the present campaign then, the primaries would be determining if Obama or
>> Clinton would be the candidate in the real election, which isn't really an
>> election since some other electing body (the Electoral College?) actually
>> elects the president based on lord only knows what criteria?
>>
>> I think my eyes are bleeding.
>>
>> Gads, I suppose I should just google this.
>>
>> William Robb
>>
>> ============
>> Technically. But I think only two times in history (okay, maybe a few more
>> but I'd have to look it up), has the popular vote and the electoral vote
>> differed. The thing that's throwing you is that one of those times was the
>> Gore/Bush election, but that was the first time since I don't know when,
>> ages ago.
>> Gore had more popular votes and Bush had more electoral votes. (Someone
>> really
>> wants to get precise about it, feel free to jump in.)
>>
>> That part is a bit Byzantine, I agree. And periodically people get steamed
>> up about doing away with the electoral college. But to date, it hasn't
>> happened.
>>
>> The historical roots for that are that originally only white men could vote
>> (not women, not blacks, etc.) and they didn't trust the unwashed masses and
>> wanted to limit the power of the popular vote. Of course, now it's one
>> person,
>> one vote, and I think we could well do away with the electoral college.
>> Smaller states with low population though like it because it gives them
>> more say.
>>
>> Sure you could, re google, but heck we can give you the Reader's Digest
>> version. :-)
>>
>> The thing is what a big country we are, it slows everything down. And it
>> costs a lot these days to win an election, so it all takes time. But I
>> wouldn't
>> mind it being a tad quicker.
>>
>> The other confusing thing is political pundits (and ordinary people) will
>> discuss someone's future election chances years before the primaries even
>> roll
>> around. It doesn't mean the election has started, it just means we are
>> always
>> talking about future elections, four and eight years down the road too. They
>> were talking about Hillary's chances years and years ago. So all of that
>> future speculation also makes it look longer than it really is. It really
>> takes
>> about a year, but that included prep time, not the primaries. Primaries to
>> general vote take less than a year (and if someone wants to be specific
>> about
>> that, jump right in.) Bit late here and my brain is a bit fogged.
>>
>> HTH, Marnie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Actually the historical roots of the Electoral College comes down to a
> compromise between the small colonies and the large ones. They needed
> to balance influence between the two groups to prevent the large
> states from utterly dominating the presidential selection. The
> ELectoral College long predates the popular vote, as at the time the
> only voters were landowners small and large (even the rich didn't
> qualify necessarily, only landowners. But outside of the large states
> & the plantations most heads of family were landowners of some sort)
>
>
--
I am personally a member of the Cream of the Illuminati.
A union with the Bavarian Illuminati is contemplated.
When it is complete the Bavarian Cream Illuminati will rule the world
-- Anonymous
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
