John Doe, a U.S. Presidential candidate, collects 62,000,000 "popular" votes, three million more than his opponent. He also wins 30 states, 50 per cent more than his opponent.
With an Electoral College tally of 278, the winning candidate is...John Doe's opponent???
That is what almost happened in 2004.
John Kerry received three million fewer popular votes than GW, he also won just 19 states. It doesn't matter which way you look at it Kerry was clearly not the popular candidate, and yet if he'd won Florida...
You give credit where it's due and this is why I respect the Democrats, because they clearly know how to play the game. (That doesn't mean I support them, just respect them, big difference.)
The 2008 Election was practically a reverse of '04. The Democrats won the same number of states as GW in '04, but their Electoral College tally was almost 80 points higher. A clear and decisive win by a party that knows how to play the game.
If the Democrats can get their shit together, the Republican party will never be in power again. That's not a good thing. As it stands now it's either Republican or Democrat, there's no real choice. If you remove the Republicans it becomes all Democrat, all the time. That's not a good thing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I'm decidedly not looking forward to the Democrat regime. Almost more disturbing to me is that the elections are so easily gamed. Beside the shenanigans in the "running" period, the voting system itself is a sham, and the electoral college can heavily skew voting.
The GOP did it to themselves imo. Republicans are supposed to be about promoting a small federal government, fiscal responsibility, and liberty. What we enjoyed for the last 8 years was the suspension of Habeas Corpus, the now permanent "Patriot Act", the largest increase in national debt ever recorded, and a number of executive orders granting the president dictatorial powers in a time of "crisis".
Both parties are full of shit and need to be dismantled. The people need a fresh start with new leaders. Leaders who aren't part of the current "divine right of kings" crap. Personally I don't believe we have had a real choice since JFK, and before him it was Woodrow Wilson who decided to throw us all under the bus financially only to regret it later.
Perhaps the most painful moment for me this election season was the moment I realized the system is truly rigged. No clear answers were given to any one question by either candidate, nor did either of them really differ that much on anything other than gay marriage or the economy. I tried my best to like Obama but after watching him collect more campaign money than any other in history I knew without a doubt that certain individuals would want favors for their money. From the way he spoke during the 2nd debate, I'm sure a good chunk of his campaign cash came from defense contractors. :(
Party politics has no place in government. That is the sad truth. Too much time, money, and effort is spent on trying to keep the "Party" in power, push the agenda of said "Party", and hold parties for the uh, "Party".
Representative democracy would be much better served based on a straight regional system (State level) and to ensure no State is left behind various region Caucuses (West, South, North, Central, etc) that comprise of multiple States. Things would also have to be weighted based on population. Other caucuses should be created (Rural, Urban, etc) to ensure a voice and focus for states that have common issues, and things don't get bushwhacked solely on population size. Finally, the President is voted upon separately by either the people as a whole or their elected officials. I know this may not sound so different from Pres -> Senate -> Congress that you have right now, but picture the entire thing done non-partisan - no parties to begin with. Everything done on an individual based on merit. This would allow many different viewpoints instead of Democrat or Republican and be far more representative of the US people than your current two choices.
I dream of a meritocracy, Chris, both in business and in politics. Sadly, that demands an educated populace and a gutting of the "establishment". Those in power, or those who are happy with their entitlements, will fight tooth and nail to maintain their socialistic ways. Meritocracies require honesty and work, and people on the whole are just too lazy and dishonest for a true meritocracy to take hold.
A meritocracy is ideal, but the social inertia is very difficult to overcome. :(
I voted Libertarian in this election not because I supported the Libertarian candidate's platform (although my political views are strongly Libertarian) but because I couldn't (in good conscience) support McCain or Obama, and I wasn't going to Not Vote.
Too many people think that Not Voting somehow sends a message of disapproval to the candidates, that Not Voting equates to None Of The Above, but if you talk to those people about why they're Not Voting they'll often respond "I don't like either candidate."
I'm sorry but either candidate? Either candidate? There's more than two candidates, you know.
"Oh, but none of those other people have a chance of winning."
Well of course they have no chance of winning, because too many people think that way. Too many people either vote for the Lesser of Two Evils, or don't vote at all.
Just like in '04, voter turnout in '08 was approx. 50% of the U.S. adult population. In a "historical" election featuring our first potential Black President, it was pretty much business as usual with just half the people voting.
Tesh, you're absolutely right; Social inertia is very difficult to overcome.
Post a Comment