As to why mention Dubbya in that context?....because he was the obvious example.

Can you cite any other elections as being flawed? Since you claim he was the "obvious example" then, by your own words, there must be others.

Please explain.

Again I know this was not to be about the elctoral college but....The door has been opened so....

IMHO only..........The electoral college is an antique...As such every election is flawed.

The college was instituted at a time when folks travelled by horse & information about who was running for what & what their background was took weeks or longer to get to the voters.

In today's world where information/communication is instantaneous ( just look at how we all here communicate from different parts of the world let alone a country instantly.) There is no longer a need for a electoral college let alone a weighted electoral college.

We are well capable of counting the votes of the people. When the electoral college was devised, not all folks even had the right to vote. It was limited to white males who owned property. Things have changed just a little since then eh?

This electoral dinosaur does not allow one person one vote because some votes count as more than others. How can this be tolerated in this day & age?

Some States with say 50k voters will have 3 electoral votes yet other States with 10x as many voters only gets 10 electoral votes!

So how can we even state the claim of 1 man 1 vote? It does not in reality exist.

The majority of American voters do not even realize this.

Of course if pushed the govt will probably claim it is too costly to actually count each & every vote towards the election of a president. These are the same folks who claim the same thing when asked Why has the gold in Fort Knox not been independently audited since the era of President Eisenhower. Ah too expensive so we just do it in house. These are the same folks that hand out billions at the drop of a hat? Yet they cannot afford a independent audit of gold that supposedly exists?

Smoke & Mirrors rule the day. The men behind the curtain will never willingly throw back the curtain.

Can you cite any other elections as being flawed? Since you claim he was the "obvious example" then, by your own words, there must be others.

Please explain.

"Obvious example" does not mean there are others. Nevermind...

I'm sorry to disillusion you, but I (as with a majority of "the rest of the world") do not familiarise myself with American politics. As much as you would like to think that the rest of the world is interested in domestic American matters, we aren't, so I can not cite any other examples. There may not be any! Dubbya's election was enough to show the flaw.

It's good to see that you concede that his election was based on a flawed system though.

I conceded no such thing. Would you care to point out where I conceded the Electoral College system is flawed?

Since you claim unfamiliarity with American politics, why do you keep trying to appear you really know something about the subject? How can you claim a system is flawed if you don't understand it to begin with?

Mr. Harcourt, you seem to have a classic case of...open mouth, insert foot.

When you say, "..Can you cite any other elections as being flawed?..", it can be taken as a concession that the quoted election was one example.

Don't worry about it.....this is ridiculous on your part. Because I qualified the OP to make it NOT specific about America, you have decided to put your blinkers on and target just that qualification and spin it into an argument.

Why all this belligerence?

There was nothing constructive in you picking on an innocently intended qualification of the OP and trying to turn it into an issue.

If you push me, I will push back. I don't want you to break your hip when you fall.

Again I know this was not to be about the elctoral college but....The door has been opened so....

IMHO only..........The electoral college is an antique...As such every election is flawed.

The college was instituted at a time when folks travelled by horse & information about who was running for what & what their background was took weeks or longer to get to the voters.

In today's world where information/communication is instantaneous ( just look at how we all here communicate from different parts of the world let alone a country instantly.) There is no longer a need for a electoral college let alone a weighted electoral college.

We are well capable of counting the votes of the people. When the electoral college was devised, not all folks even had the right to vote. It was limited to white males who owned property. Things have changed just a little since then eh?

This electoral dinosaur does not allow one person one vote because some votes count as more than others. How can this be tolerated in this day & age?

Some States with say 50k voters will have 3 electoral votes yet other States with 10x as many voters only gets 10 electoral votes!

So how can we even state the claim of 1 man 1 vote? It does not in reality exist.

The majority of American voters do not even realize this.

Of course if pushed the govt will probably claim it is too costly to actually count each & every vote towards the election of a president. These are the same folks who claim the same thing when asked Why has the gold in Fort Knox not been independently audited since the era of President Eisenhower. Ah too expensive so we just do it in house. These are the same folks that hand out billions at the drop of a hat? Yet they cannot afford a independent audit of gold that supposedly exists?

Smoke & Mirrors rule the day. The men behind the curtain will never willingly throw back the curtain.

You post an interesting argument against the Electoral College. Please permit me to examine it from another viewpoint.

It is generally accepted that, of all the 50 states, California is head and shoulders above the rest in their liberal leanings. Every crazy law that has been thought of has been enacted at one time or another there. The state thrives on liberal extremism as is evidenced by their Congressional delegation. For the sake of argument, let's say my hypothesis about the liberal leanings of the state is correct.

During the latest Presidential election in 2008, California voted for Obama with a majority of 2,811,500 votes, 61% to 37%.

If you take the winning majority of 2,811,500 California votes and then take the winning margins of McCain in other states against that majority, California voters negate the following states popular votes. I have rounded the numbers off for simplicities sake.

Alaska

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

Georgia

Idaho

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

North Dakota

South Carolina

South Dakota

West Virginia

All of these states went for McCain but the total winning majority of votes for McCain was not equal to the winning margin of popular votes for Obama in California alone.

When you then add the winning majority of votes for Obama from the following states, you arrive at roughly the total winning number of popular votes Obama won by in the 2008 election, 8,539,000:

California - 2,811,000

New York - 1,787,000

Illinois - 1,338,000

Massachusetts - 787,000

Michigan - 823,000

New Jersey - 545,000

Washington - 550,000

Using the popular vote method of electing a President and Vice President means the seven (7) states listed immediately above this paragraph would effectively have elected Obama and the votes of the other 43 states plus the District of Columbia would not have even been necessary. What you have then accomplished with a popular vote election is to make the more highly populated states exert an undue influence on national elections.

Under the Electoral College system, each state is allocated the same number of Electors as their representation in Congress, which is currently 435 Representatives and 100 Senators, plus three Electors representating the District of Columbia. If you claim the Electoral College system is flawed, then, by extension, you must also claim the Congressional method of representation is also flawed.

The US Constitution was set up so a simple majority cannot rule. The US is not technically a democracy but is a Republic, which is a nation of laws and not one to be governed by majority rule. The only fair system for electing our national leaders is the one established by our Constitution. We cannot have seven states dictating what the other 43 must adhere to.

This is simply my support for the Electoral College system and I hope it does make a modicum of sense.

Here are a couple of links for your perusal.

http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/pr...te-summary.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Col...(United_States)

It's a better system than Canada where we get to elect a dictator for a minimum of 4 years. After that the dictator gets to choose whatever MP he wants in cabinet. ONLY the cabinet and the dictator have any say in running the country or province. All other elected officials get to sit in the wings and twiddle their fingers. Oh, and collect their huge salaries for doing nothing.

In Canada we elect MPs in specific ridings. With a few exceptions, every MP is tied to a specific party. Once the MPs have been elected, then the party with the most number of MPs wins the election. It is entirely up to the party to choose it's own leader. The voting public has nothing to say on the matter... other than to vote against the party whose leader they don't like. Very few parties get voted INTO power, but what usually happens is they get voted OUT of power after the smell gets so bad that nobody can stand it any longer. The MPs pick their leader, but the chosen leader (dictator) then picks whatever MP toady will follow his bidding without questioning anything. If they DON'T follow the dictator's instructions, then they get dumped for someone that does.

Again I know this was not to be about the elctoral college but....The door has been opened so....

IMHO only..........The electoral college is an antique...As such every election is flawed.

The college was instituted at a time when folks travelled by horse & information about who was running for what & what their background was took weeks or longer to get to the voters.

In today's world where information/communication is instantaneous ( just look at how we all here communicate from different parts of the world let alone a country instantly.) There is no longer a need for a electoral college let alone a weighted electoral college.

We are well capable of counting the votes of the people. When the electoral college was devised, not all folks even had the right to vote. It was limited to white males who owned property. Things have changed just a little since then eh?

This electoral dinosaur does not allow one person one vote because some votes count as more than others. How can this be tolerated in this day & age?

Some States with say 50k voters will have 3 electoral votes yet other States with 10x as many voters only gets 10 electoral votes!

So how can we even state the claim of 1 man 1 vote? It does not in reality exist.

The majority of American voters do not even realize this.

Of course if pushed the govt will probably claim it is too costly to actually count each & every vote towards the election of a president. These are the same folks who claim the same thing when asked Why has the gold in Fort Knox not been independently audited since the era of President Eisenhower. Ah too expensive so we just do it in house. These are the same folks that hand out billions at the drop of a hat? Yet they cannot afford a independent audit of gold that supposedly exists?

Smoke & Mirrors rule the day. The men behind the curtain will never willingly throw back the curtain.

You post an interesting argument against the Electoral College. Please permit me to examine it from another viewpoint.

It is generally accepted that, of all the 50 states, California is head and shoulders above the rest in their liberal leanings. Every crazy law that has been thought of has been enacted at one time or another there. The state thrives on liberal extremism as is evidenced by their Congressional delegation. For the sake of argument, let's say my hypothesis about the liberal leanings of the state is correct.

During the latest Presidential election in 2008, California voted for Obama with a majority of 2,811,500 votes, 61% to 37%.

If you take the winning majority of 2,811,500 California votes and then take the winning margins of McCain in other states against that majority, California voters negate the following states popular votes. I have rounded the numbers off for simplicities sake.

Alaska

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

Georgia

Idaho

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

North Dakota

South Carolina

South Dakota

West Virginia

All of these states went for McCain but the total winning majority of votes for McCain was not equal to the winning margin of popular votes for Obama in California alone.

When you then add the winning majority of votes for Obama from the following states, you arrive at roughly the total winning number of popular votes Obama won by in the 2008 election, 8,539,000:

California - 2,811,000

New York - 1,787,000

Illinois - 1,338,000

Massachusetts - 787,000

Michigan - 823,000

New Jersey - 545,000

Washington - 550,000

Using the popular vote method of electing a President and Vice President means the seven (7) states listed immediately above this paragraph would effectively have elected Obama and the votes of the other 43 states plus the District of Columbia would not have even been necessary. What you have then accomplished with a popular vote election is to make the more highly populated states exert an undue influence on national elections.

Under the Electoral College system, each state is allocated the same number of Electors as their representation in Congress, which is currently 435 Representatives and 100 Senators, plus three Electors representating the District of Columbia. If you claim the Electoral College system is flawed, then, by extension, you must also claim the Congressional method of representation is also flawed.

The US Constitution was set up so a simple majority cannot rule. The US is not technically a democracy but is a Republic, which is a nation of laws and not one to be governed by majority rule. The only fair system for electing our national leaders is the one established by our Constitution. We cannot have seven states dictating what the other 43 must adhere to.

This is simply my support for the Electoral College system and I hope it does make a modicum of sense.

Here are a couple of links for your perusal.

http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/pr...te-summary.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Col...(United_States)

Firstly, I don't make a habit of this, but in this case I'm obliged to.... simplicity's sake. For the sake of simplicity....not the plural of simplicity, if there is one, as you wrote, "simplicities sake".

Secondly, you say, ".....The US is not technically a democracy but is a Republic, which is a nation of laws and not one to be governed by majority rule.....". I won't argue the technicalities, but I will ask, who makes the laws that the republic is founded upon?...and think further than the immediate answer.

Thirdly, "....What you have then accomplished with a popular vote election is to make the more highly populated states exert an undue influence on national elections....". Surely a more highly populated state requires higher representation? Should Rhode Island have as much influence in the senate or congress as California?

While we are on the subject of Presidential elections, let us examine the 2000 election that put GWB into office. Mr. Harcourt has claimed this to have been a "flawed" election, although he has never explained what a "flawed" election might be.

I can, therefore, only surmise what his interpretation of a "flawed" election was in 2000. I can only see two reasons why an uninformed person might consider the 2000 election as flawed. The first reason would be that Al Gore received more popular votes than did George W. Bush. The second reason might be the melee that erupted in Florida concerning the recount.

Let me address the first question of the popular vote. It is true that Gore received 50,999,897 votes to 50,456,002 for GWB, an overall vote difference of 543,895. In California alone, Gore outpolled GWB by a total of 1,294,074. The analogy here is that GWB then won the remaining 49 states overall popular vote. While Bush did not win every other state outright he did win the overall populr vote in the remainder of the country.

As far as the Florida part of the equation is concerned and the Democrats claim the election was stolen there, they should be aware of the fact that during each and every recount made in the state of Florida, at no time did Al Gore lead in the final count. It was close, but he lost the popular vote in Florida, and the election as a result. The Supreme Court of the US made the final determination concerning recounts, finally declaring the last one as the final one.

The election was carried out in accordance with Constitutional requirements and is, therefore, not "flawed".

Edit in: This post was made prior to seeing Mr. Harcourt's post immediately preceeding. I will address those questions separately.

Firstly, I don't make a habit of this, but in this case I'm obliged to.... simplicity's sake. For the sake of simplicity....not the plural of simplicity, if there is one, as you wrote, "simplicities sake".

Secondly, you say, ".....The US is not technically a democracy but is a Republic, which is a nation of laws and not one to be governed by majority rule.....". I won't argue the technicalities, but I will ask, who makes the laws that the republic is founded upon?...and think further than the immediate answer.

Thirdly, "....What you have then accomplished with a popular vote election is to make the more highly populated states exert an undue influence on national elections....". Surely a more highly populated state requires higher representation? Should Rhode Island have as much influence in the senate or congress as California?

I will address your questions and statements in chronoligical order.

1. I stand corrected on the spelling and use of the word simplicity. Now, see how simple that is?

2. Laws are enacted in accordance with the Constitution. They originate in either the Senate or the House and DO NOT originate in the White House. They are, supposedly, then subject to open debate in both Houses of Congress and voted on by a roll call vote. If both Houses of Congress approve a law, it is then sent forward to the President for his signature. The President may either sign the legislation or, if he so elects, may veto it by refusing to sign it. If he signs, the legislation becomes law. If he chooses to veto legislation, Congress may override his veto by a two thirds majority, thereby making the legislation into law whether the President signs it or not.

3. Rhode Island does not have the same representation as does California. Both states have two Senators each. Rhode Island has only two members of the House of Representatives while California has 52. Each state is allocated two Senators while the House of Representatives allocations are based on statewide population.

Does this clear up your confusion?

Does the European Union vote on everything by a simple majority or does each country get a vote?

Firstly, I don't make a habit of this, but in this case I'm obliged to.... simplicity's sake. For the sake of simplicity....not the plural of simplicity, if there is one, as you wrote, "simplicities sake".

Secondly, you say, ".....The US is not technically a democracy but is a Republic, which is a nation of laws and not one to be governed by majority rule.....". I won't argue the technicalities, but I will ask, who makes the laws that the republic is founded upon?...and think further than the immediate answer.

Thirdly, "....What you have then accomplished with a popular vote election is to make the more highly populated states exert an undue influence on national elections....". Surely a more highly populated state requires higher representation? Should Rhode Island have as much influence in the senate or congress as California?

I will address your questions and statements in chronoligical order.

1. I stand corrected on the spelling and use of the word simplicity. Now, see how simple that is?

2. Laws are enacted in accordance with the Constitution. They originate in either the Senate or the House and DO NOT originate in the White House. They are, supposedly, then subject to open debate in both Houses of Congress and voted on by a roll call vote. If both Houses of Congress approve a law, it is then sent forward to the President for his signature. The President may either sign the legislation or, if he so elects, may veto it by refusing to sign it. If he signs, the legislation becomes law. If he chooses to veto legislation, Congress may override his veto by a two thirds majority, thereby making the legislation into law whether the President signs it or not.

3. Rhode Island does not have the same representation as does California. Both states have two Senators each. Rhode Island has only two members of the House of Representatives while California has 52. Each state is allocated two Senators while the House of Representatives allocations are based on statewide population.

Does this clear up your confusion?

I don't understand.

I will address your questions and statements in chronoligical order.

1. I stand corrected on the spelling and use of the word simplicity. Now, see how simple that is?

2. Laws are enacted in accordance with the Constitution. They originate in either the Senate or the House and DO NOT originate in the White House. They are, supposedly, then subject to open debate in both Houses of Congress and voted on by a roll call vote. If both Houses of Congress approve a law, it is then sent forward to the President for his signature. The President may either sign the legislation or, if he so elects, may veto it by refusing to sign it. If he signs, the legislation becomes law. If he chooses to veto legislation, Congress may override his veto by a two thirds majority, thereby making the legislation into law whether the President signs it or not.

3. Rhode Island does not have the same representation as does California. Both states have two Senators each. Rhode Island has only two members of the House of Representatives while California has 52. Each state is allocated two Senators while the House of Representatives allocations are based on statewide population.

Does this clear up your confusion?

I don't understand.

This will explain #3. Schoolhouse Rock!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

Firstly, I don't make a habit of this, but in this case I'm obliged to.... simplicity's sake. For the sake of simplicity....not the plural of simplicity, if there is one, as you wrote, "simplicities sake".

Secondly, you say, ".....The US is not technically a democracy but is a Republic, which is a nation of laws and not one to be governed by majority rule.....". I won't argue the technicalities, but I will ask, who makes the laws that the republic is founded upon?...and think further than the immediate answer.

Thirdly, "....What you have then accomplished with a popular vote election is to make the more highly populated states exert an undue influence on national elections....". Surely a more highly populated state requires higher representation? Should Rhode Island have as much influence in the senate or congress as California?

I will address your questions and statements in chronoligical order.

1. I stand corrected on the spelling and use of the word simplicity. Now, see how simple that is?

2. Laws are enacted in accordance with the Constitution. They originate in either the Senate or the House and DO NOT originate in the White House. They are, supposedly, then subject to open debate in both Houses of Congress and voted on by a roll call vote. If both Houses of Congress approve a law, it is then sent forward to the President for his signature. The President may either sign the legislation or, if he so elects, may veto it by refusing to sign it. If he signs, the legislation becomes law. If he chooses to veto legislation, Congress may override his veto by a two thirds majority, thereby making the legislation into law whether the President signs it or not.

3. Rhode Island does not have the same representation as does California. Both states have two Senators each. Rhode Island has only two members of the House of Representatives while California has 52. Each state is allocated two Senators while the House of Representatives allocations are based on statewide population.

Does this clear up your confusion?

I don't understand.

Then, as I suspected, you are beyond help.

Firstly, I don't make a habit of this, but in this case I'm obliged to.... simplicity's sake. For the sake of simplicity....not the plural of simplicity, if there is one, as you wrote, "simplicities sake".

Secondly, you say, ".....The US is not technically a democracy but is a Republic, which is a nation of laws and not one to be governed by majority rule.....". I won't argue the technicalities, but I will ask, who makes the laws that the republic is founded upon?...and think further than the immediate answer.

Thirdly, "....What you have then accomplished with a popular vote election is to make the more highly populated states exert an undue influence on national elections....". Surely a more highly populated state requires higher representation? Should Rhode Island have as much influence in the senate or congress as California?

I will address your questions and statements in chronoligical order.

1. I stand corrected on the spelling and use of the word simplicity. Now, see how simple that is?

2. Laws are enacted in accordance with the Constitution. They originate in either the Senate or the House and DO NOT originate in the White House. They are, supposedly, then subject to open debate in both Houses of Congress and voted on by a roll call vote. If both Houses of Congress approve a law, it is then sent forward to the President for his signature. The President may either sign the legislation or, if he so elects, may veto it by refusing to sign it. If he signs, the legislation becomes law. If he chooses to veto legislation, Congress may override his veto by a two thirds majority, thereby making the legislation into law whether the President signs it or not.

3. Rhode Island does not have the same representation as does California. Both states have two Senators each. Rhode Island has only two members of the House of Representatives while California has 52. Each state is allocated two Senators while the House of Representatives allocations are based on statewide population.

Does this clear up your confusion?

I don't understand.

Then, as I suspected, you are beyond help.

I meant, I don't understand why you said, "...Now, see how simple that is?...". It makes no sense in the context of things.

But never mind. I DO understand that you were trying to niggle again. I was actually hoping you'd go into a long diatribe about the US system....but you didn't. Spoilt my fun.

Nevermind.

Bush won the elections. Gore lost Tennessee in 2000 - no excuse.

Bush won the elections. Gore lost Tennessee in 2000 - no excuse.

That's twice now this week I agree with you.

Tennessee is Gore's home state. Not only that, but his father was a Senator from Tennessee as well so the family is sort of a political dynasty there. If the people of Tennessee said "no" to Gore, that should tell you a lot. Compare that to the 1984 election between Reagan and Mondale, Reagan won in a landslide, winning 49 out of 50 states (most by double digits) except for Mondale's home state of Wisconsin (and Washington DC). If you can't win your own home state, you've got issues.

Bush won the elections. Gore lost Tennessee in 2000 - no excuse.

That's twice now this week I agree with you.

Tennessee is Gore's home state. Not only that, but his father was a Senator from Tennessee as well so the family is sort of a political dynasty there. If the people of Tennessee said "no" to Gore, that should tell you a lot. Compare that to the 1984 election between Reagan and Mondale, Reagan won in a landslide, winning 49 out of 50 states (most by double digits) except for Mondale's home state of Wisconsin (and Washington DC). If you can't win your own home state, you've got issues.

Thanks.

When I realized Gore lost Tennessee, nothing else mattered about that election. Tennessee has voted for the election winner every time since 1952, I think.

Does the European Union vote on everything by a simple majority or does each country get a vote?

not only has each country a vote but each and every shitty country has veto rights which provide all kind of opportunities for blackmailing and horsetrading!

i don't want to give examples as just the thought of it makes my blood boil. my only consolation is that none of the EU clowns in Brussels have since 2001 access to a single penny of my money.

Does the European Union vote on everything by a simple majority or does each country get a vote?

not only has each country a vote but each and every shitty country has veto rights which provide all kind of opportunities for blackmailing and horsetrading!

I wonder how the smaller EU members would feel about a simple majority rules vote? I don't think they would like it at all.

On a related note, the Russians have been "bullying" Estonia & Latvia since the fall of communism. As I understand it, now that the tiny Baltics are in Schengan, if either of them put a travel ban on any big, mean Russians from their tiny republic, then that person is effectively banned from ALL of the EU Schengan countries. Would that be right?

Does the European Union vote on everything by a simple majority or does each country get a vote?

not only has each country a vote but each and every shitty country has veto rights which provide all kind of opportunities for blackmailing and horsetrading!

I wonder how the smaller EU members would feel about a simple majority rules vote? I don't think they would like it at all.

On a related note, the Russians have been "bullying" Estonia & Latvia since the fall of communism. As I understand it, now that the tiny Baltics are in Schengan, if either of them put a travel ban on any big, mean Russians from their tiny republic, then that person is effectively banned from ALL of the EU Schengan countries. Would that be right?

that's not correct as a general Schengen ban would involve a serious crime, sentencing by a court of law and multilateral action by the states. i also think there is some misunderstanding based on the fact that a de jure part of Russia (former East Prussia) is surrounded by "EU/Schengen" states which makes it mandatory for a russian citizen to get a EU transit visa if travelling from one part of Russia to another one. to prevent more problems "sealed" trains which do not stop till they reach mainland Russia and have sealed doors.

to sum it up, it's the tiny baltic states which are bullying russian citizens as a tit for tat of olden times and not the other way round.

sorry, picture of the map did not work.

to sum it up, it's the tiny baltic states which are bullying russian citizens as a tit for tat of olden times and not the other way round.

That's a different subject. Yes, the Baltics have some bad policies toward Russians living in their countries (more so Russians living in Estonia). The Russian citizens still prefer living in the Baltics than returning to Russia and I can't blame them.

But as for country-on-country bullying it is all one way only - Russia on the Baltics.