It's crunch time, place your bets, Dean or Kerry?

The electoral college insures that each state gets at least 3 out of the 539 votes no matter how small the population. The US was originally conceived as a union of individual states though that idea has mostly been lost in recent times.

0 Replies

The electoral college was designed not only to make certain that the voice of states with small populations were heard but to balance their influence against larger states. The fear was that small states would be ignored not only in the election process but also in the legislative process. The idea was to prevent large concentrations of population from dominating and ignoring other parts of the country. I think it has been rather successful in preventing that and despite it's faults I'm for it.

0 Replies

well it could certainly be argued that if the Electoral colleges' main function is to protect the little guy, it failed dramatically in it's mission in the year 2000.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

well it could certainly be argued that if the Electoral colleges' main function is to protect the little guy, it failed dramatically in it's mission in the year 2000.

Not if the "little guy" was a white southerner.

Though the electoral college still works as it was intended, I'm not sure if I'm for the intention, itself. The electoral college is a pretty good comprimise between the wishes of the general population and the wishes of the states. With the presidency assuming so much power these days I feel that perhaps the wishes of the general population is more important than the wishes of the states.

0 Replies

The electoral college failed in 2000 for two reasons. A corrupt election process in Florida. A condition which it not unknown historically in this country; for example the presidential election of 1876. Secondly an ideologically corrupt supreme court in which some members placed their personal political agenda over their duties as judges.

0 Replies

^ That wasn't a failure of the electoral college but the beaurocratic implementation of it in select areas.

0 Replies

It wasn't a failure at all. I would say that it worked exactly how it was supposed to.

That's why we have it.

0 Replies

I don't think it was meant to supersede the popular vote.

What kind of democracy is it where a candidate with the most votes loses?

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

I don't think it was meant to supersede the popular vote.

What kind of democracy is it where a candidate with the most votes loses?

A republican (small 'r') democracy.

0 Replies

I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict that Kerry will win the Iowa Caucuses -- and that Dean will come in third behind Edwards.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict that Kerry will win the Iowa Caucuses -- and that Dean will come in third behind Edwards.

You need your own cable tv show Frank.... :wink:

0 Replies

ye110man wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
well it could certainly be argued that if the Electoral colleges' main function is to protect the little guy, it failed dramatically in it's mission in the year 2000.

Not if the "little guy" was a white southerner.

Though the electoral college still works as it was intended, I'm not sure if I'm for the intention, itself. The electoral college is a pretty good comprimise between the wishes of the general population and the wishes of the states. With the presidency assuming so much power these days I feel that perhaps the wishes of the general population is more important than the wishes of the states.

I'm a white southerner and I'm not sure what you mean by that remark.....

0 Replies

My resistance to Kerry is based on the fact that he has been a virtual perrenial candidate and has never fired up the public in the past; I don't see him beating Bush for that one reason.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict that Kerry will win the Iowa Caucuses -- and that Dean will come in third behind Edwards.

You need your own cable tv show Frank.... :wink:

Actually, I had one at one time.

But I suspect you were just outing me for posting that comment after the Iowa results.

Surprised the hell out of me.

Surprised the hell out of people like Dean and Gephardt also.

My sister, whose opinion I value, has been on the Kerry bandwagon right from the very start.

We'll see where this goes.

All I know is that I want the Democratic Party candidate (remember, I'm a REGISTERED Independent) to be someone who can beat George Bush. I'd love it if I could like the candidate -- and feel very comfortable with the candidate -- but most of all, I want "electability!"

Kerry/Clark or Clark/Kerry doesn't sound all that bad to me.

0 Replies

The nomination process has definitely been prolonged. The Dems really needed the nominee to be sorted out by now for optimum campaigning reasons.

I think this snapshot of Dean's electability goes far beyond Iowa, don't think he's going to be it.

0 Replies

Go Kerry, go Kerry!!!!!

0 Replies

I think it may have been a mistake for Clark to skip Iowa. But he could not have known back then when he decided to skip, that the #1 deciding factor for Iowans would be electability. Nobody knew that until just a couple of days ago. In retrospect, Iowa might have been an easier win for Clark than New Hampshire would be.

0 Replies

Why would any truly serious candidate skip Iowa? Makes no sense. Clark = Goose Egg.

0 Replies

Here's my prediction: By the time Super Tuesday happens in March, what occurred in Iowa last night will be all but forgotten...

0 Replies

Kerry wasn't electable the last times he tried it. What has changed, if anything?

0 Replies

It's crunch time, place your bets, Dean or Kerry?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know