sbeam wrote: > So a lot of people don't understand it, and 3 times out of 54 a popular vote
loser has become president - but elections are not supposed to just be a mere popularity contest anyway.
But that is what an election in a democracy is supposed to be. The majority vote determines the winner, which means the popular vote and not the constellation of some electrocal college. Especially not since the rules for allocating the popular vote to the constellation of the members of the EC varies by state. Some have a winner takes it all approach while others follow more closely the will of the people.
I understand the benefits of it alright, but I am disturbed by calling this then a democratic process, because it is not. It skews the results and gives some rural vote more weight. That doesn't follow the one person one vote idea, which doesn't even apply with the EC in the middle. There is nothing that mandates that the EC members of one state have to follow the majority decision of the voters. So if 80% in state A vote for candidate 1 the EC members of that state can all vote for candidate 2. How is this a fair and democratic process? It is like me hiring you to do my work, but not givinh you any of my salary - or commonly known as scam. I agree that the cases where the EC member(s) voted differently than expected are not that many, but just having this possibility designed into the system is a major flaw. And that is why many people who do well understand the process don't understand why a country like the USA still employ such a process that may have made sense 200 years ago. I guess it is kept in place as it is much easier to bribe only a bunch of people than the whole population.
David _______________________________________________ New York PHP Community Talk Mailing List http://lists.nyphp.org/mailman/listinfo/talk NYPHPCon 2006 Presentations Online http://www.nyphpcon.com Show Your Participation in New York PHP http://www.nyphp.org/show_participation.php
