> I don't agree with your philosophy. Let's say, 35% vote for "A", 33% vote for
> "B" and 32% vote for "C". In that case, all of the electoral votes go to "A",
> but who's to say that those who voted for "B" and "C" wasted their votes?
Because in the end they arent counted toward the candidate you voted for. It would be different if the EC votes were given proportionate to the percentage, or if was only by popular vote. Then my vote gets counted with others from different states as it should in a NATIONAL election.

> When you start playing games about voting for a person you don't like because
> you don't like somebody else more, you get the result that Marc was talking
> about in France.
Was I playing games? Please explain. I asked a question. I didnt make a statement.

> In Hawai‘i we have a closed primary, which means you must
> vote for primary candidates of only one party. I think it is wrong, but many
> people will take a ballot for a party other than their own and vote for the
> weaker candidate, so that their party's candidate will have a better chance in
> the general election. That is clearly unfair.
Thats how it is in California. Right now there are 2 state propositions on the ballot. One says to open the primary back up so all parties can vote on all candidates. The other says that the top two candidates face off in the General election; so you could end up with 2 dems or 2 reps.

> Electoral College is the way that voting has been structured, and unless
> Hawai‘i changes its law, or the United States changes the Constitution, we are
> stuck with it (them). In neither case does it justify telling people to vote
> for someone they do not actually support.
The end result is the same.

> Because in the end they arent counted toward the candidate you voted for. It
> would be different if the EC votes were given proportionate to the percentage,
> or if was only by popular vote. Then my vote gets counted with others from
> different states as it should in a NATIONAL election.
>

In fact, your vote does count, but it counts for the losing candidate. If the presidential election was strictly popular, and your candidate lost, would you say your vote didn't count? The vote count for each candidate is indicative of the will of the country, and politicians do pay attention--that is why closely elected officials change their views and defeated candidates (or parties) modify their strategy in the next election.

> > When you start playing games about voting for a person you don't like
> because
> > you don't like somebody else more, you get the result that Marc was
> talking
> > about in France.
> Was I playing games? Please explain. I asked a question. I didnt make a
> statement.
>

I didn't mean you, personally, I meant when people play games . . . see Marc's post about the near election of Le Pen.

> > Electoral College is the way that voting has been structured, and unless
> > Hawai‘i changes its law, or the United States changes the Constitution,
> we are
> > stuck with it (them). In neither case does it justify telling people to
> vote
> > for someone they do not actually support.
> The end result is the same.
>

The end result is exactly what the framers of the Constitution intended: to allow for regional preferences while giving weight to the popular vote. Say that 10 little states give their electoral votes for a candidate. That candidate will get as many electoral votes as those states have representatives (that number is based on population) plus 2 more electoral votes per state (the number of Senators each state has). Another candidate may win a state with a population equal to the ten other states, so he should get the same electoral votes based on population, but he will only get two more electoral votes (based on the number of Senators for that one state). This gives a larger number of states more electing power than a single populous state, which was just what was intended. This system has worked for more than 200 years, but if enough people don't like it, a Constitutional Amendment will change it.

> > Because in the end they arent counted toward the candidate you voted for.
> It
> > would be different if the EC votes were given proportionate to the
> percentage,
> > or if was only by popular vote. Then my vote gets counted with others
> from
> > different states as it should in a NATIONAL election.
> >
>
> In fact, your vote does count, but it counts for the losing candidate. If the
> presidential election was strictly popular, and your candidate lost, would you
> say your vote didn't count? The vote count for each candidate is indicative
> of the will of the country, and politicians do pay attention--that is why
> closely elected officials change their views and defeated candidates (or
> parties) modify their strategy in the next election.
Because the number of votes that count are EC votes and not popular votes. So even if I had a candidate with a few million votes nationwide unless he won a state he would still have zero EC votes. Its like running a marathon but being denied to cross the finish line.
Im not really sure if elected officials change their views based on the popular vote. Here we had Gore winning the pop vote but I didnt see Bush bending over backwards to help the Dems or changing his campaign strategy now. Have you seen any difference?

Report links U.N. to Iraq bribes

Gun Shop Debuts Credit-Card-Sized Shotgun

Howard Stern and SIRIUS Announce the Most Important Deal in Radio History

> Because the number of votes that count are EC votes and not popular votes. So
> even if I had a candidate with a few million votes nationwide unless he won a
> state he would still have zero EC votes. Its like running a marathon but
> being denied to cross the finish line.
> Im not really sure if elected officials change their views based on the
> popular vote. Here we had Gore winning the pop vote but I didnt see Bush
> bending over backwards to help the Dems or changing his campaign strategy now.
> Have you seen any difference?
>

You are right, it's the EC that actually elects the president, but I personally don't feel that my vote doesn't count whether I vote for the winner or not. And I only vote for a candidate I want in office, or I don't vote at all in that race.

Election laws do provide for third party candidates, giving them Federal matching campaign funds if they win a certain percentage of the popular vote, even if they get zero EC votes. The last time a third party candidate got any EC votes was Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 (the Bull Moose Party); he got more votes than the Republican, and Woodrow Wilson won with about 42% of the popular vote. Though they knew about the issue you have raised, the EC system, they did not change it then.

As for any difference in the way Bush is acting, that's a complex question -- the events of his term have probably been the biggest factor in his decision-making. But even if 9/11 had never happened, it would be hard to tell if the election results made a difference, since any good politician would try their best to make it seem that their actions were what they intended all along, for the "good of the people" or whatever.

> You are right, it's the EC that actually elects the president, but I
> personally don't feel that my vote doesn't count whether I vote for the winner
> or not. And I only vote for a candidate I want in office, or I don't vote at
> all in that race.
>
Question, are you for or against the EC? Or indifferent?

> Question, are you for or against the EC? Or indifferent?
>

I could live with it gone. But it doesn't bother me, as long as the process applies equally to everybody. The founders believed the the EC was needed due to the way the States were federated, and there is an argument that the EC is no longer needed. But please do not (anyone) suggest that elections should be run any differently until the law, in this case, the Constitution, is changed. And by the way, it's hard to change the Consitution for very good reasons.

> > The only wasted vote is one not cast.
> >
> >
> Except if youre not in the majority in your State. Then the Electoral College
> "wastes" it for you. If I vote 3rd party then I know my individual vote wont
> count since the President is determined by EC vote, and that is determined by
> the States majority vote. So that puts us 3rd party people in a pickle. Do
> we stick to our guns and vote for the candidate we really want or knowing that
> only the dems/reps have the EC votes instead vote for the "lessor of two
> evils?"
>

Move to Maine or Nebraska (if memory serves), where Electoral College votes are actually awarded based on (Congressional) district results, as opposed to who wins the entire state.

(little-known fact)

> > Question, are you for or against the EC? Or indifferent?
> >
>
> I could live with it gone. But it doesn't bother me, as long as the process
> applies equally to everybody. The founders believed the the EC was needed due
> to the way the States were federated, and there is an argument that the EC is
> no longer needed. But please do not (anyone) suggest that elections should be
> run any differently until the law, in this case, the Constitution, is changed.
> And by the way, it's hard to change the Consitution for very good reasons.
>
>

So you would be a supporter of Colorado's "Amendment 36"?

(see http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/06/opinion/courtwatch/main647763.shtml for details)

> So you would be a supporter of Colorado's "Amendment 36"?
>

If I lived in Colorado I would oppose Amendment 36 vigorously. If they become the only State not to use the "all-or-nothing" rule, Colorado would be nearly irrelevant. They have nine Electoral votes, which in any close election would be split 5-4, but under the present system, presidential candidates must address the concerns of Colorado (and probably pay greater attention to those concerns than, say, Hawai‘i, which has only four EC votes). Those who want to do away with the Electoral College want the change to apply across the country, and I agree that if it is done, that's how it should be done. As I said before, the rules should apply equally to all candidates, and I might add, equally to all States.

"Colorado Ad. 36"

> > So you would be a supporter of Colorado's "Amendment 36"?
> >
>
> If I lived in Colorado I would oppose Amendment 36 vigorously. If they become
> the only State not to use the "all-or-nothing" rule, Colorado would be nearly
> irrelevant. They have nine Electoral votes, which in any close election would
> be split 5-4, but under the present system, presidential candidates must
> address the concerns of Colorado (and probably pay greater attention to those
> concerns than, say, Hawai‘i, which has only four EC votes). Those who want to
> do away with the Electoral College want the change to apply across the
> country, and I agree that if it is done, that's how it should be done. As I
> said before, the rules should apply equally to all candidates, and I might
> add, equally to all States.
>
> "Colorado Ad. 36"
>

No, that would make Colorado the THIRD state to permit the splitting of their EC, but it would use the popular vote as a template. Nebraska and Maine allow their electoral votes to be split among candidates based on who wins each congressional district, but this has not actually happened in modern times.

> No, that would make Colorado the THIRD state to permit the splitting of their
> EC, but it would use the popular vote as a template. Nebraska and Maine allow
> their electoral votes to be split among candidates based on who wins each
> congressional district, but this has not actually happened in modern times.
>
>
In an earlier post, I said that the last time a third party candidate got any electoral votes, it was Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose Party in 1912. I was wrong, George Wallace got a few as a third party candidate in, I believe, 1968. All along, there have been a few "electors" who bolted from the State's popular vote and cast their Electoral votes for various candidates. But Colorado would be the first to mandate a split of their EC votes, which would make them less important than other states with the same population. And that's the crux . . . do we, Americans, keep the EC or go to a popular vote? The system should be consistent.

> > Question, are you for or against the EC? Or indifferent?
> >
>
> I could live with it gone. But it doesn't bother me, as long as the process
> applies equally to everybody. The founders believed the the EC was needed due
> to the way the States were federated, and there is an argument that the EC is
> no longer needed. But please do not (anyone) suggest that elections should be
> run any differently until the law, in this case, the Constitution, is changed.
> And by the way, it's hard to change the Consitution for very good reasons.
>
>
Isnt there a couple of states who partition out their EC votes determined by the percentage of votes each candidate gets? Wouldnt it then be up to the States to decide if they want to change their formula?

> Move to Maine or Nebraska (if memory serves), where Electoral College votes
> are actually awarded based on (Congressional) district results, as opposed to
> who wins the entire state.
>
> (little-known fact)
>
>
heh, see previous post. I replied before I read yours. I couldnt remember which states they were but remembered that there were two.

> If I lived in Colorado I would oppose Amendment 36 vigorously. If they become
> the only State not to use the "all-or-nothing" rule, Colorado would be nearly
> irrelevant.

Well the candidates feel California, with its highest number of EC votes, to be irrelevant. Ever see any pres candidate campaign much in CA? Its because the Dems feel its a lock so they dont want to spend any time or money here, and the Reps also feel its a lock for the Dems so why waste their time/money here either. If our EC votes were partitioned out we'd get a lot more consideration.

> > Move to Maine or Nebraska (if memory serves), where Electoral College
> votes
> > are actually awarded based on (Congressional) district results, as
> opposed to
> > who wins the entire state.
> >
> > (little-known fact)
> >
> >
> heh, see previous post. I replied before I read yours. I couldnt remember
> which states they were but remembered that there were two.
>
It's true that some states choose their electors differently (electors used to be chosen by State legislatures until the 12th Amendment), but they have all followed the "all-or-nothing" rule in modern times, except for certain occasional rogue electors.

> Isnt there a couple of states who partition out their EC votes determined by
> the percentage of votes each candidate gets? Wouldnt it then be up to the
> States to decide if they want to change their formula?
>

As posted previously, the only two non-"all or nothing" EC states are Nebraska and Maine, whose electors are tied to their Congressional districts (you win the district, you get the elector, regardless of who wins the overall popular vote in the entire state).

As it has happened, a singular candidate has taken all districts in both states every election since that rule was adopted in the respective states.

Colorado's Admendment 36 would be a radical departure from the Maine/Nebraska model and would move the bar back towards the popular vote, effectively making it a necessity for both candidates to campaign in all 50 states. If adopted nationwide (unlikely), it would tip the balance of power in favor of more populous states (who have more electoral votes), which was a concern of the founding fathers (that the cities would dictate the policy of the rural residents by 'stuffing' the ballot boxes).

> Colorado's Admendment 36 would be a radical departure from the Maine/Nebraska
> model and would move the bar back towards the popular vote, effectively making
> it a necessity for both candidates to campaign in all 50 states. If adopted
> nationwide (unlikely), it would tip the balance of power in favor of more
> populous states (who have more electoral votes), which was a concern of the
> founding fathers (that the cities would dictate the policy of the rural
> residents by 'stuffing' the ballot boxes).
>
But if you abolish the EC and go strictly by popular vote then it wouldnt be decided by state but by the combined vote of the entire nation. Right now California has more say than Nebraska. But if the EC was gone then my individual vote would have the exact same weight as a voter in Nebraska. I think it would be good motivation for people to register and vote. What do you think?

Chirac lashes out against US cultural domination

TERESA: 'I think men are supposed to be boys always'

TERROR AT EGYPTIAN PARADISE

oh dear ,what going on with the american peoples,i not unterstand things like that
look her
http://www.operationarnold.com/home/