Two chears and a moment of Silence

A Big Flying Fish · Post by **A Big Flying Fish** » 2002-11-09 06:23am

MKSheppard wrote:
Enlightenment wrote:
BUSH
50,456,169 votes, 271 electorial votes

GORE
50,996,116 votes, 266 electoral votes....

Doesn't that just show that the electoral college system is a bit screwed up since it just buggers up the idea of the majority rules since its possible for the majority to be defeated?

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2002-11-09 09:03am

A Big Flying Fish wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:
Enlightenment wrote:
BUSH
50,456,169 votes, 271 electorial votes

GORE
50,996,116 votes, 266 electoral votes....
Doesn't that just show that the electoral college system is a bit screwed up since it just buggers up the idea of the majority rules since its possible for the majority to be defeated?

Bush won a majority of states.

(EDIT: Alaska won by Bush, Hawaii by Gore)

The Electoral College was set up for reasons similiar to why states are represented differently in the two houses of Congress; to ensure that states with smaller populations still have a strong voice in the Federal Gov.

Otherwise, only the interests of a minority of states would be represented in the White House.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-11-09 01:34pm

Phil Skayhan wrote:
A Big Flying Fish wrote:
MKSheppard wrote: Doesn't that just show that the electoral college system is a bit screwed up since it just buggers up the idea of the majority rules since its possible for the majority to be defeated?
Bush won a majority of states.

(EDIT: Alaska won by Bush, Hawaii by Gore)

The Electoral College was set up for reasons similiar to why states are represented differently in the two houses of Congress; to ensure that states with smaller populations still have a strong voice in the Federal Gov.

Otherwise, only the interests of a minority of states would be represented in the White House.

Exactly, I don't want NYC and LA electing my president every four years. That sounds too much like a parlimentry system......

Sparkticus · Post by **Sparkticus** » 2002-11-09 02:17pm

Come on people, get a grip and understand that the Westminster System is the most stable and efficient form of govenrnment. Why would you want the people to elect the leader, shep? Have you seen some of these people? Fuck that! A decision like that is way out of their fucking league...

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-11-09 04:46pm

Sparkticus wrote:Come on people, get a grip and understand that the Westminster System is the most stable and efficient form of govenrnment. Why would you want the people to elect the leader, shep? Have you seen some of these people? Fuck that! A decision like that is way out of their fucking league...

Then why is it that countries based on the Parlimentary model are
notoriously unstable?

Israel is on what their 6th Prime Minister in x amount of years.....Italy
hasn't had a stable government that's lasted longer than 6 months
for almost 50 years, and France......france....is all by itself....

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2002-11-09 04:56pm

Enlightenment wrote: Exactly what does any of that have to do with the shoddy state of US democracy? Nothing?

Try again.

You're delusional if you don't think things were political and selfish then as well. Alien and Sedition Act? America nearly became a police state there. Please, things have gotten better: the end and reparations for the genocide of the Native Americans, the abolishment of slavery and reparations thereof that contine to this day, tighter control on the states. Ever hear of Aaron Burr? Major politicans do not plot meglomaniacal schemes to divide up the country at will anymore. We're better now, trust me.

Multi-party systems have shown considerable instability, particularly in Italy, IIRC.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2002-11-09 05:00pm

Sparkticus wrote:Come on people, get a grip and understand that the Westminster System is the most stable and efficient form of govenrnment. Why would you want the people to elect the leader, shep? Have you seen some of these people? Fuck that! A decision like that is way out of their fucking league...

Firstly, people have the freedom to vote and not to vote, and thus voter turnout is a symbol of a lack of education and political cynicism and thus irrelevent.

Secondly, American presidencial elections are decidably more democractic then Parliamentary elections of the PM.

Thirdly, the opinion of the above quote suggests that Saddam Hussien's election victory is quite legitimate.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2002-11-10 03:03pm

MKSheppard wrote:Then why is it that countries based on the Parlimentary model are notoriously unstable?

Unstable? Like Canada, the UK, Germany, and most of the rest of the EU? Certainly pathological cases (e.g. Israel, France, Italy and Japan) exist but they're not exactly a majority of countries with parliamentary democracies.

David · Post by **David** » 2002-11-10 03:06pm

As far as the US system goes, it is designed to be a two party system. I don't know about other country, but since most democracys have been based on the US's, I'd assume they are to.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2002-11-10 03:18pm

David wrote:I don't know about other country, but since most democracys have been based on the US's, I'd assume they are to.

No offense intended, but I strongly suggest you learn more about the history of non-US political systems before you shove your foot any further down your throat.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2002-11-10 03:41pm

Dude, Parliamentary systems have jack shit to do with the American Republic-style of government.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2002-11-10 06:11pm

David wrote:As far as the US system goes, it is designed to be a two party system.

No, it's been twisted and perverted into a two party system over the years.