I am so tired of this election whining

[Sroundtable@aol.com]

In a message dated 01/03/2002 8:55:40 PM Central Standard Time, 
TheWho-Digest-Owner@igtc.com writes:


> Andrew:
> 
> Oh, I do...and one thing that desperately needs renewing is true DEMOCRACY
> in this country...you know, when the guy who actually wins the majority of
> votes in the majority of states gets to be President, instead of the tired
> old sneaky underhanded backroom deal we saw during the last Presidential
> election, so typical of a certain mindset (conservative) because "they know
> what's best for us all." Despite their obvious inability to go beyond first
> level thinking or understand consequences.
> 

Let's get the facts straight, shall we?  George Bush won many more states and 
far more geographic land area- which doesn't matter, of course, but your post 
states that gore won a majority of states- not true or even close to true.  
if you knew anything about the electoral system, you would know that the 
popular vote in our present system is NOT an accurate indicator of who the 
true winner is because neither candidate campaigns for a national popular 
vote.  Bush spent no money or time in New York, for example, because Gore had 
it locked up and Bush would be wasting money and manpower since all the 
electoral votes go to the winner.  If the popular vote decided the winner, he 
would have campaigned there for as many votes as possible.  the same is true 
of gore in texas, even though turnout was exceptionally low in texas because 
everyone knew bush had it locked.  100,000 votes in a pool of 70 to 80 
million in an election that counts only electoral votes in winner-take-all 
state elections is positively meaningless.  also, did anyone notice that in 
all subsequent private recounts Bush was found to be the winner?  and for 
every "butterfly ballot" vote that pat buchanan got rather than Gore, there 
is at least one person in the republican-dominated Florida panhandle, which 
is in the central time zone, that either didn't vote or went home when all 
the networks were projecting FL for Gore when polls closed in the rest of the 
state.  For God's sake- Gore couldn't even win his home state!  Our electoral 
system was created to over-represent the states as part of our federal 
foundation.  This gets candidates to spend far more time in states with lower 
populations.  For example- Connecticutt is alotted 4 electoral votes out of 
538, which is .74% of the total.  Connecticutt's population is only .4% of 
the nation's population, and with split voting, Connecticutt would only 
account for actually .2% of the vote for the winner.  This encourages 
candidates to spend at least some time there, whereas they likely ignore 
Maine virtually altogether in a popular vote system.  Candidates would spend 
much more time and money in large states and large cities where they can 
reach more people in less time.  It also stabilizes the system by making it 
more likely that one candidate will be a clear winner with a majority of 
electoral votes- avoiding the chances of the House of Reps having to decide 
the election.  Would that be more DEMOCRATIC??  The popular vote DOES matter- 
it's just that the popular vote in each state is what matters- not the whole 
nation.  This is part of our federal tradition and works.  Without it, a 
national popular vote could create a situation where 2 candidates with a 
combined total less than 50% could get into a run-off.  A choice between 2 
candidates who a majority of voters didn't want?  Is that DEMOCRATIC??  Just 
an education for you from a political science teacher.  

Kevin Mc