Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/05/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The number of electoral votes each state has is the total of its senators and representatives. So, states that get only one representative on the basis of population, get three times that number of electoral votes. That's how the electoral college skews the representation to the smaller states. It doesn't give the smaller states more power than the biggest states, but when many of them vote together, as the western and southern states did in 2000 for Bush, they can elect a president even though they have cast fewer popular votes than the other states did. Which is how Gore beat Bush by over a half million votes, but still lost the electoral college. > Don-- > > I could say that I stand corrected, but ... How can New Hampshire and North > Dakota even begin to hold forth against states like California and New York? > Or Illinois? Or Florida? Yes, all states have two senators, but not all > states have two representatives. Those are determined by population size. > Witness all the redrawing of districts of late, all meant to tip the balance > to this or that outcome, to favor this or that party. The senate > representation is an all but neutral measure of a state's importance in > electoral college votes. You may as well throw that out. > > Of course, the electoral college is rendered moot by all those hanging > chads! Fugeddaboudit! :) > > But the electoral college was indeed designed to keep the popular vote from > determining the outcome of the elections. Maybe my left-wing history > education taught me that. Now where is my Howard Zinn ... ??? > > Kit > > -----Original Message----- > From: lug-bounces+kitmc=acmefoto.com@leica-users.org > [mailto:lug-bounces+kitmc=acmefoto.com@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Don > Dory > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 2:35 PM > To: 'Leica Users Group' > Subject: RE: [Leica] Hey, now explanation of the Constitution > > Kit, > You have it exactly backwards. The electoral college was designed to > add weight to the less populated regions. Electoral college votes are > weighted to number of Senators and House members. Even New Hampshire > and North Dakota have two Senators. > > One of the things changing the political map is the move of the > population south and west. At one time New York was the powerhouse > state. > > Don > dorysrus@mindspring.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: lug-bounces+dorysrus=mindspring.com@leica-users.org > [mailto:lug-bounces+dorysrus=mindspring.com@leica-users.org] On Behalf > Of Kit McChesney > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 2:56 PM > To: 'Leica Users Group' > Subject: RE: [Leica] Hey, Did I Call YOU a Republican? > > The electoral college was designed to pre-empt the popular vote. That's > why > it was created in the first place. (That is not, however, what the > Supreme > Court was designed to do. But that's another issue altogether!) It was > felt > by the founding "fathers" (yay for patriarchy!) that given the > population's > distance from the centers of power, that there was no way that they > could be > adequately informed about the suitability of one candidate over another, > so > the electoral college was devised as a way to make sure that the most > populous and well-informed areas of the country, i.e., "cities" would > elect > the president. > > You can see how even in those days, the politicians' needs were placed > before those of the people. Just focus on the key areas with the largest > number of electoral votes (big states, big cities) and you've got the > election in the bag. > > The electoral college is an anachronism. But maybe we've covered this > topic > already. Probably just before the Lagavulinluggers started one of their > famous discussions about scotch a while ago! > > Kit > > -----Original Message----- > From: lug-bounces+kitmc=acmefoto.com@leica-users.org > [mailto:lug-bounces+kitmc=acmefoto.com@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of > grduprey@rockwellcollins.com > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 12:48 PM > To: lug@leica-users.org > Subject: RE: [Leica] Hey, Did I Call YOU a Republican? > > > > > > Not that I want to prolong this thread, but this is not the first time > the > Electorial college pre-empted the popular vote, although I cannot > remember > which other election was effected. Also as I remember how this was to > work, the Electorial College Vote is the official vote. Although both > votes should agree, but it does not always work that way. > > Gene > > > > |---------+--------------------------------------------------------> > | | "Kit McChesney" <kitmc@acmefoto.com> | > | | Sent by: | > | | lug-bounces+grduprey=rockwellcollins.com@leic| > | | a-users.org | > | | | > | | | > | | 05/21/2004 01:04 PM | > | | Please respond to Leica Users Group | > | | | > |---------+--------------------------------------------------------> > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > --------------| > | > | > | To: "'Leica Users Group'" <lug@leica-users.org> > | > | cc: > | > | Subject: RE: [Leica] Hey, Did I Call YOU a Republican? > | > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > --------------| > > > > > > Paul-- > > Thanks for pointing out the truth of who voted, and for whom! Are there > really still folks out there who think that Gore got fewer votes than > Bush? > Puleez! And those are the rough totals! Remember those hanging chads! > > It isn't the volume of votes that elects the president, as we know. It's > the > volume in certain key states that does the trick. Remember that good old > Electoral College? Ick! > > I guess it's no mystery who got my vote! Or at least, I assume he got > it! > > Kit > > > -----Original Message----- > From: lug-bounces+kitmc=acmefoto.com@leica-users.org > [mailto:lug-bounces+kitmc=acmefoto.com@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of > Paul > Hardy Carter > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 10:40 AM > To: Leica Users Group > Subject: Re: [Leica] Hey, Did I Call YOU a Republican? > > Actually that's quite interesting. According to your government > 50,456,002 > people voted for Bush and 50,999,897 voted for Gore. > > Isn't democracy wonderful! > > P. > > At 11:54 am -0400, 21/5/04, MCyclWritr@aol.com wrote: > >Does it further amaze you that even fewer Democrats voted for their > >candidate? You know, the guy who lost. Whoever he was. > > > >-Chris Lawson > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information