Re:

[Alan McKendree <bugtuber@thewho.net>]

>Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 00:16:37 +0100
>From: fox <l.van.kammen@chello.nl>
>Subject: Re:
>
>and the one who had less (overall that is) votes won. Where's the logic in
>that? Funny Americans, you have to love them. :)

Thanks for the love, much appreciated :-).  It's the same logic as having a
House of Representatives which is apportioned by population (i.e., each
person counts equally, each State does not) PLUS a Senate in which each
state has 2 Senators (each State counts equally, each person does not).  If
the election were simply a popular vote, we'd have a couple high-population
centers on the East and West Coasts, plus Texas and maybe Florida,
outvoting the other 40 States put together.  Hence the Electoral College.

BTW, while I haven't verified the Bush figure, I believe he's coming into
the Presidency with something like 49% of the popular vote, whereas Clinton
became President with only 43% due to a strong third-party candidate in '92.

And yes, the posts you were responding to *were* about the Presidential
election, no need to feel dumb.

Cheers,

Alan
"That's unbelievable, if that's true."
   --Howard Stern, 5/25/00