Comments on: Gore Defends Mansion's Power Consumption

Conservative Group Says Ex-Vice President Isn't "Walking The Walk" Of An Environmentalist

[Free Citizen]

Dear rhs648, thank you for your enlightenment of the Electoral College. I understand the fundamentals of it. However, no one can deny that it is less than perfect and leaves much to be desired. On three occasions including President Bush were elected though they lost the popular vote. The end results were not in keeping with the wishes of the majority. Let us look at the loop holes. Each state appoints as many electors as it has senators and representatives in Congress. This is fair enough but with the exception of only two states, a winner-take-all rule operates in every state. Just imagine, You could have many states with a small number of electors overtaking a few states with a large number of electors. Secondly, though pledged to vote for their state's winners, electors are not constitutionally obliged to do so. Hence, you have faithless electors going against the wishes of voters. A full proof system? I think not.

[Free Citizen]

LibDemsSuck, do not be so agitated. We live in a Global village. It is not anyone's fault that the US has a finger in every democracy in the world. And those that are not a democracy, the US will force it upon them regardless. The US didn't succeed in Vietnam and it doesn't look like it will either in Iraq. After the US 2004 Elections, a popular UK newspaper had on its front page titled, %u201CHow Can 59,054,087 People Be So Dumb?%u201D. It is not only the British that has a dim view of Bush. Many progressive democracies think likewise too including your neighbour, Canada. The general view is that Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And you know what? Neo-cons suck too.

[rhs648]

Free_Citizen - Thank for your well reasoned arguments. The civil war wasn't just over slavery. In addition to slavery, it involved cultural, economic, and philosophical differences between the north and the south. The north was highly industrialized whereas the south was agricultural. Neither side trusted each other.

This is a historical example of two different economies from two different parts of the country trying to dominate and control each other. The north did what was in its own best interest and the south did the same.

Without repeating the rationale for the electoral college, Our system does allow majority rule. Each state tallies how its citizens vote. The electorates then choose the candidate that carries the state. An exception to this would be a very close vote. The electorates would then select a winner. The candidate that wins the most states becomes president. What could be fairer? Unfortunately, few people understand either the purpose of the electoral college or how it works.

[Free Citizen]

rhs648: %u201CWould the highly populated industrial states care about the needs of the less populated agricultural or oil states? Probably not!%u201C
Good question but a premature assumption. If I were a responsible citizen and a reasonable person, I would seriously consider the impact the less populated states have on the country. After all, we are on the same boat just different working area or sleeping quarters. It would be highly unusual where you have a national policy that will benefit the urban area that works against the interest of the rural area. States that produce the bulk of the food for the nation and those that produce the mineral that the nation depends on are often thinly populated. However, it is not like their rights would not be heard if they didn't have enough voice in Congress. Their concern is the concern of the nation as a whole. It is a good thing that the Senate is not as powerful as the Congress. There would be serious problems if that were the case. US politics is generally based on litany. Election for the President should be no different from that at the Congressional level. The wish of the majority must be respected.

Free_Citizen.

Where do you live that's so perfect that you can waste your time dumping on the U.S.?

Or.......maybe your ******* "country" doesn't even HAVE any dam news.

[p-syrus]

He's part of the Proletariat, and we are the Peasants.

.
Posted by HawkSprings


If you're going to spout pseudo-intellectual Marxist cant then learn what it means first.

Scott4261;

You can't be serious!!

Seven years later and you still haven't accepted the fact that we have an ELECTORAL COLLEGE to determine the outcome of our elections, and that Bush (I know how much you hate that name :) ) WON the election by the same rules that have been in effect virtually forever in the U.S..

I'd bet that if Bore won the election in the same manner, you'd be happier than a pig in *** and you'd be complaining about the whining being done by the Republican party!

Give me a break, Skippy.

[rhs648]

thgdriver is correct. The founding fathers wanted to create some semblence of a level playing field. Why would a thinly populated colony agree to become permanently subservient to the will of a few heavily populated colonies? Without the electoral college, a few heavily populated states could control the whole country and every election. I believe that the same was done for the senate and house of representatives. Each state has two senators while the number of representatives in the house of representatives varies according to a state's population. On many things, both the senate and house of representatives must be in agreement thus leveling the playing field. Many of us would be unhappy if a few states with large populations controlled the whole country. Some states are oil states, others are agricultural, and still others are industrial. Would the highly populated industrial states care about the needs of the less populated agricultural or oil states? Probably not! If I am wrong, please feel to correct me.

[Free Citizen]

The way I see it, the Electoral College needs to be reworked or abolished altogether. It doesn't make sense for a candidate to win the popular vote and yet not made President. Your system is screwed.

[hawksprings]

"In a perfect world, Gore would be in his second term as President, 9/11 would never have happened, and the solar panels that Ronald Reagan removed would be back on the White House!"
Posted by scott4261 at 09:00 PM : Feb 28, 2007

Hey Scott, are these the same solar panels that Gore is SOMEDAY going to install on this mansion he's owned since before "Inconvenient Truth" was made?

Gore is just another Classic Liberal Elitist.
He's part of the Proletariat, and we are the Peasants.

.