home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: tx.politics
- Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!watson!johniac!johniac
- From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000)
- Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
- Sender: @watson.ibm.com
- Message-ID: <1992Nov16.235939.46253@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 23:59:39 GMT
- Distribution: tx
- References: <21887@rpp386.lonestar.org>
- Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
- Lines: 23
-
- John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org) wrote:
- : Correct. How else would you explain a candidate who receives less than
- : 50% of the popular vote getting more than 50% of the electoral vote?
- :
- : The Electoral College is a feature. That you don't understand how it
- : works agrees with the fact that you don't understand why the House
- : originates all spending and taxing bills. This can be described in
- : three words, which are left as an exercise to the reader to figure out.
-
- How about the case where a candidate loses the popular vote, but wins the
- electoral vote (it happened in 1876 and 1888 and almost happened in 1960)?
- Still a feature? How about the case where a candidate loses the popular vote
- AND the electoral vote and still becomes president (it happened in 1824)?
- Why have a popular vote at all? The electors are not obligated to vote the
- way their states voted. Why don't we just let them vote for whoever they feel
- like? We'd save a lot of money anyway. What the electoral college does very
- successfully is make sure that a 3rd party candidate will never be elected
- president.
-
- --
- John Iacoletti IBM AWS Austin Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
- My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
- "Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age" -- TMBG "I Palindrome I"
-