I did not say "popular" vote.  So I have to ask what your first  
sentence is about. It is still mob rule.  The "winners" presume they  
can run over the "losers".  The consequences of state electors  
picking the president are not very interesting because there is  
little difference between the republican and democratic candidates.   
They all expand government, print money, lower the value of the U.S.  
dollar and increase the infringement of personal liberties.  So what  
difference does it make which candidate is selected ?

cc

> On Mar 26, 2008, at 3:34 PM, Dr Skip wrote:
> Since this is an international list, let's keep it factual... The  
> STATES elect
> the president. It's not by popular vote. The states' populations  
> determine whom
> the state will 'vote' for, via delegates, and even then, the  
> delegate electors
> are not bound by the voting results in their state.
>
> It has interesting consequences when you consider different voter  
> turnout in
> each state relative to its delegate 'weight', and, more easily  
> understood, the
> discrepancy from population growth and shift because delegate  
> counts aren't
> adjusted with real-time numbers. Each state also has its own rules  
> on who can
> vote or whether citizenship is even required too...
>
>
> Cedric Chang wrote:
>>
>> Voting is mob rule at worst, ineffective, pretend citizen involvement
>> at best.
>> Voting leads to bad things, 90% of the time.
>> Show me some examples of voting producing an better than average  
>> result.
>> The last two nation-wide votes in the U.S. produced GWB ..... reason
>> enough to question the idea of voting.  And the democratic candidate
>> would have been just as bad, just in a different way.
>> cc
>>
>> McCain will keep the U.S. in Iraq for 100 years, Obama will rule us
>> with a velvet glove, and Hillary is beyond evil.  You want me to vote
>> for one of these ?

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist