Quote:
Originally posted by troutman+Sep 19 2004, 12:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (troutman @ Sep 19 2004, 12:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Quote:
Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Sep 17 2004, 09:36 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-troutman
|
Quote:
@Sep 17 2004, 02:29 PM
Although they are close in the polls in popular vote, Bush still has a big lead in the mystifying Electoral College system. Bush could win the same way as he did vs. Gore; losing the popular vote, but winning the Electoral College. And they call it Democracy.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/special...EMPLATE=DEFAULT
|
Yes, we call it democracy and it's hardly mystifying. I don't live in California, New York, Texas or Ohio. A candidate could win 5 or 6 states overwhelmingly and win the Presidency. That's precisely why we have the electoral college. It's to prevent a small group of populous states from dominating policy decisions and leaving the rest of us out of the process.
|
It's not a true democracy if every vote is not equivalent. Canada''s system is even worse in this regard.
If one candidate gets more votes across the country than another candidate, what does it matter where the votes came from? Why should citizens of larger states be disenfranchised? [/b][/quote]
Who's arguing that it's a true democracy?
I'm arguing that the electoral college isn't mystifying.
Congress keeps residents of populous states from being disenfranchised.
California has more votes in Congress than any other state. They have a lot of power in Congress....they shouldn't have that kind of power in electing a President.