[Vision2020] Presidential Elections
Joshua Nieuwsma
joshuahendrik@yahoo.com
Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
--0-1908155551-1058375963=:1912
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
some thoughts:
Having a purely majority vote election would split the country. It's already becoming divided, but in my opinion choosing a leader based solely upon 50.0001% of the votes is crazy. At least right now, with the electoral college, we have a system to blame when someone gets voted in with less than the majority of the citizens votes. An entity is alot less personal than the guy down the street who we have enmity against, if it is a hotly contested election, because he voted for the other guy that got in instead of our 49.9999% guy. Simple majority is a great way to get people frustrated, upset, and eventually riotous. (Incidentally, it is also a dangerous basis for legislation.) The southern states were quite unhappy when Lincoln won the presidency without even a simple majority. He got something like 37%. But the electoral college put him in power.
And besides, no one likes runoffs. Isn't it best to avoid them? We don't live in anything remotely like an ideal state. Look at how hard it is for California to decide to replace their governor. How much worse to hold a second presidential election. It's just not feasible, in my opinion.
And Mr. Hansen, I think you missed Pastor Wilson's point. Two opposite directions (i.e. not facing same way) is not the same thing as two different choices. Both the Dems and the Reps are socialists. Just one is more open about it.
sincerely,
Joshua Nieuwsma
thansen@moscow.com wrote:
Douglas Wilson stated:
"The last presidential election where Americans had a real choice to go in one
of two opposite directions occurred a long time before I was born."
Please elaborate. Every federal presidential election in which I have
participated since I was of voting age (and that has been several days ago) has
clearly consisted of at least two choices (and in some cases three or more).
In my opinion for presidential election results to truly reflect the peoples'
choice is to eliminate the electoral college and base the outcome stricly on
popular vote. In the event that a candidate does not attract the majority vote
(defined as 50% plus one), there should be a runoff between the top two
candidates. It is clearly that simple.
Any other thoughts?
Tom Hansen
Moscow,
Idaho
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
http://www.fsr.net/
_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
--0-1908155551-1058375963=:1912
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>some thoughts:</DIV>
<DIV>Having a purely majority vote election would split the country. It's already becoming divided, but in my opinion choosing a leader based solely upon 50.0001% of the votes is crazy. At least right now, with the electoral college, we have a system to blame when someone gets voted in with less than the majority of the citizens votes. An entity is alot less personal than the guy down the street who we have enmity against, if it is a hotly contested election, because he voted for <EM>the other guy</EM> that got in instead of our 49.9999% guy. Simple majority is a great way to get people frustrated, upset, and eventually riotous. (Incidentally, it is also a dangerous basis for legislation.) The southern states were quite unhappy when Lincoln won the presidency without even a simple majority. He got something like 37%. But the electoral college put him in power. </DIV>
<DIV>And besides, no one likes runoffs. Isn't it best to avoid them? We don't live in anything remotely like an ideal state. Look at how hard it is for California to decide to replace their governor. How much worse to hold a second presidential election. It's just not feasible, in my opinion. </DIV>
<DIV>And Mr. Hansen, I think you missed Pastor Wilson's point. Two opposite directions (i.e. not facing same way) is not the same thing as two different choices. Both the Dems and the Reps are socialists. Just one is more open about it. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>sincerely,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Joshua Nieuwsma<BR><BR><B><I>thansen@moscow.com</I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; WIDTH: 100%">Douglas Wilson stated:<BR><BR>"The last presidential election where Americans had a real choice to go in one <BR>of two opposite directions occurred a long time before I was born."<BR><BR>Please elaborate. Every federal presidential election in which I have <BR>participated since I was of voting age (and that has been several days ago) has <BR>clearly consisted of at least two choices (and in some cases three or more).<BR><BR>In my opinion for presidential election results to truly reflect the peoples' <BR>choice is to eliminate the electoral college and base the outcome stricly on <BR>popular vote. In the event that a candidate does not attract the majority vote <BR>(defined as 50% plus one), there should be a runoff between the top two <BR>candidates. It is clearly that simple.<BR><BR>Any other thoughts?<BR><BR>Tom
Hansen<BR>Moscow,<BR>Idaho<BR><BR>---------------------------------------------<BR>This message was sent by First Step Internet.<BR>http://www.fsr.net/<BR><BR><BR>_____________________________________________________<BR>List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>http://www.fsr.net <BR>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://rd.yahoo.com/evt=1207/*http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/">SBC Yahoo! DSL</a> - Now only $29.95 per month!
--0-1908155551-1058375963=:1912--