On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 05:50:48PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Sunday 28 August 2005 04:51 pm, John Hasler wrote: > > > > 20% approval ratings from it's own citizens. That speaks fathoms about > > > how trustworthy the US government is right now. > > > > Those are the same citizens who elected George Bush. Their opinions are > > irrelevant. > > That's not how it works. Only 537 people are allowed to vote for president in > the United States, and their votes are not legally bound to the popular vote > for the state they represent in most states. Americans cannot vote for their > own president. That's like saying that American's don't get to pass their own laws since only 537 people can initiate/vote on federal legislation. The electoral college has a very specific purpose, to prevent the mob rule from swaying election results. Not to say that what the people want/think is unimportant, because it is. However, if we had direct popular election of the President, we would have a situation where the candidates would only need to campaign in the most populous/densely populated areas. Places with small and/or sparse populations would be marginalized. It already happens to a certain degree today, but not nearly as bad is if we had direct popular election. Personally, however, I like how Nebraska (and I forget the other state) does it. They split the state's electoral votes by the percentage of popular vote. It would be better if all states did that, if only because it provides a more accurate reflection of what the people want without allowing sudden changes in the public mood to unduly affect election results. -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto
Attachment:
pgpVrGemu_pE3.pgp
Description: PGP signature