You'd here: "it's a shame that one marginal state should decide the fate of US Presidency and to an extent of the world at large"; implying that the election law must be changed. Indeed, it came as a shock to me when G W Bush was re-elected which made me lose trust in the system. When G W was first elected, I thought ok... its ok, you had the Clinton scandal and his fellow man Al Gore naturally would not fare well...but when GW was re-elected...uuuuuuhh...he lied to so many ppl...this mentally deficient person started the war in order to boost his chances of re-election and he succeeded, yet you had Fahrenheit 9/11 and all but didn't help...

US rural population, religious conservatives, social conservatives, conservative farmers and other segments, other less educated agriculture ppl in middle states like Wyoming voting in large numbers because of larger cummulative populations in the middle of the US lands (as opposed to secular, educated coastline states like NY etc--states both in the east and the west) prompted G W to get re-elected. And the thing is people in NY or Maryland or California would always be better informed, better educated and more open-minded and politically aware, even their Taxi drivers in NYC would always be better than a senior accountant or an agricultural manager in Wyoming or Idaho... That's how democrats have argued that they will have to work harder to win a larger number of those middle, peasant states voters. I think that's theoretically possible but thats a long-shot.

A better approach would be to assign numerical values to voters from any given state. For example, each vote cast by a voter from NY state would carry a weigh of 1.2; whereas, Wyoming voters would get a weight of say 0.8. The outcome would be that you value NY voters opinions more than those in say Alabama but that's the only way I see to help eradicat the deficiencies of the current system that let shameful G W get re-elected. I still remember Bill Clintons word: "the current president[G W], his vice president and myself could have gone to war in Vietnam but didn't; when it came to John Kerry, he said: send mee!" and yet, many of the voters (obviously Wyoming and Alabama voters, not NY or DC voters) thought that G W would be a better commander-in-chief than John Kerry. The choice seemed so obvious this last time but the US (and you can properly generalize) failed when making this choice. Wyoming and TX voters among other star states chose a former alcoholic and drug addict and obviously a melancholic and self-loving president with deficient mental credentials over a better looking, far more intellectual person with a real-war time experience and poignancy.

So shameful! I can see how DC population feels, 90 percent of all votes went to Kerry and yet GW sleeps in the White House and he appointed Pentagon's Woulfenson, another deficient person, to the top job at the World Bank. Think further comments are unnecessary. How do you like such a system?[/b]

What exactly did he lie about?

And why did it boost his chances? perhaps because the majority of Americans agreed with him that a war was necessary?

So much for Democracy eh?

Being a war hero does not necessarily mean you would make a good commander in chief. If Kerry did not represent the will of the people, he would not make a good command in chief.

Your post is myopic, which is typical of liberals these days. You are right, and anyone that disagrees with you is simply wrong. Evidence and logic be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed.

Yeah, because the right choice was to agree with you. right?

It seems to be working fine so far. No complaints here.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Get rid of the winner-take-all state electoral college and have one great big federal populous vote with every vote counted equally. I mean, that's only if you want a real democracy.

__________________
WARNING: In the unlikely event of an accidental agreement with any or all points made in the above post, contact a clinical psychologist immediately.

The views expressed in the above post are not necessarily those of Joker and/or any of his affiliates.

. "You have found the secret message. Do you have too much time on your hands? ...Let it go."

I'm getting de ja vu, so I may have brought this up before, but going to a nationwide popular vote would leave citizens in less populous states out in the cold. Places like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles would get all the advantages incumbents could shower on them, because that's where the largest concentrations of votes are. This would be at the expense of people living in Augusta, Maine, for example, who would be ignored completely.

Yet another beautiful shot at the sacred cow of liberalism from the steady hand of the Dr. of Democracy himself MerlinX. Well done sir, I have gotten into about 20 arguments this year alone about "election reform" and have used that argument myself. I always thought though that I was the only one who actually believed in it.

__________________
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Where have all the Conservatives Gone?

I'm just saying if you want a true democracy...

I assume you believe the current winner-take-all electoral college system is better, or more representative of actual votes. If we have to have an electoral college, at least have it vote more symbolically of its state. For example, if half the state votes one way and half the other, than the electoral college should equally split their vote, representing a similar ratio as the popular vote. If 75% vote one way and only 25% the other, the electoral college should do the same. This seems much more accurate than the current system. Only one problem- popular percentages and electoral percentage won't always add up perfectly, so sometimes percentages would have to be rounded off. Not so bad at first glance, but politicians will bicker viciously over who gets the benefit. So I admit, my idea is not perfect, but it is a start towards a better more representative electoral process. Now if we could just come up with a fair method of calculating popular and electoral percentage, we would be on our way.

__________________
WARNING: In the unlikely event of an accidental agreement with any or all points made in the above post, contact a clinical psychologist immediately.

The views expressed in the above post are not necessarily those of Joker and/or any of his affiliates.

. "You have found the secret message. Do you have too much time on your hands? ...Let it go."

I guess we shouldn't have let Mayor Daley elect JFK.

For those of you out their who still are having a hard time with the election results I recommend you visit this web sight. It shows very deeply the message I would like to present and have every one who didn't vote for Bush remember that its how us on the over isle truly feel. And yes... we do feel your pain... good luck in the healing brothers and sisters.... Make sure to watch all the video BTW its truly heart filled and with Republicans and Conservatives biggest and best attempt to make the others well feel better. We do care... and good luck next time...

http://www.newsfly.org/media/afterelection.htm

__________________
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Where have all the Conservatives Gone?

IIRC, one state did not decide this election. 31 did.

__________________
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." ~Ronald Reagan

He lied about being identified as male when in fact he was a shemale.

Realizing how inadequate he was, he was told by Karl Rove and his other "star" aids (I am sure he wouldn't even get it by himself) that he needed something big, dramatic, if he was to win. And starting a war was big enough with the assumption that many voters would traditionally exhibit a high propensity to not let down a "war-time president" whether he is a hero or a criminal. In other words, his dirty circle (identified as collective Bush), given the circumstance, made the American people "agree" with him; Bush got what he craved for by appealing to and exploiting the better angels of an average landlocked US citizen who had very little political experience and acumen.

You should assess the system on the basis of how reasonable results it produces. The outcome, the product of the system is of major importance! The system per se, or the respect for the system per se is inferior to the principal outcome for which the system has been designed. What many of them saw was a completely wrong outcome--that was easy to discern; the rest, the large part of it who thought otherwise, simply didn't care or remained very detached.

Yes, not necessarily. The question is, is it more likely? Do we need a new start? Are we complancent with what we already have? If Kerry did not...then he would not...That's true.

No, because political participation and voting have increasing become real-time occupancies that require some requisite skills drawn from one's sustained political engagement, political awareness, broad vision and the capability to isolate important, lasting issues from euphemism and political role playing. Since many view political participation as a transient yet full-time occupancy requiring relevant background and vision on voters' part, it is only in this sense that I insist that people with detached professions such as farmers in the south and elsewhere will be far more susceptible to political manipulation with the result of them either not caring enough or becoming complacent with any electoral outcome.

You have to realize that political tastes are principally created and perpetuated by the secular, but qualified minority rather than by a simple plurality and this has nothing to do with being undemocratic. The rest, they have a limited political experience or at best they don't care enough to streamline their political system, to push for a radical change and they end up with having something second tier and to be honest they are complacent with whatever they have. They won this time but they were not conscious winners.

Are you complacent?

Obviously, it's not. No complaints or no complacence?

Absolutely! the winner take all system is highly inadequate and as GW Bushes election rounds showed it provides substantial room for disguised, I would say, illicit, manipulation.

No, they would not be ignored. They would become more effecitve participants, when their voice becomes part of the larger pool where thir voice would count; otherwise, left in isolation, they are susceptible--inadvertantly or deliberately--to political manipulation and they end up with their votes being ultimately lost.

The thing is the current system prompts the voters to vote in such and such a way and allows a more deceitful candidate to literally steal the elections if he successfully focuses on some treacherous tactics instead of focusing on potentially overwhelming issues that are important to the informed American people and the world. Bush profited from the inexperience and understandable narrow-mindedness of the so called Evangelical radical right wingers and other individual groups that tipped the balance in his favor; because Bush knew that he was not and would not possible be able to sell his tricks to better informed citizens of his nation...so he neglected them and focused on those who either didn't understand or didn't care...in other words, he chose quantity over quality and even that at a very narrow margin and both times and this is where the system failed.

YES!

I will. Thanks!

Yeah, I wake up every other day thinking what kind of an example this is, I personally do feel insulted in the eyes of the rest of the people both inside of the country and outside. This system needs to be changed because it is biased! Intelligent people all over the US must unite to push for this much needed change!