[Vision2020] Presidential Elections

[Thomas Hansen]

Mr. Nieuwsma stated:

"A simple majority candidate is a bad idea and makes for bad politics. And
who says that they are preferred? Only the people who are on the simple
majority side. Those in the minority, however huge it might be, are
generally not happy with the events."

My suggestion, Mr. Nieuwsma:  Don't wait for the movie.  Read the book.  It
is titled "The Constitution of the United States of America".  Candidates
with the most votes win.  Programs that garner the most "yes" votes are
enacted.  End of discussion.

I do believe that this discussion is seriously becoming ludicrous.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho


-----Original Message-----
From: Joshua Nieuwsma [mailto:joshuahendrik@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 10:58 AM
To: vision
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Presidential Elections


A simple majority candidate is a bad idea and makes for bad politics. And
who says that they are preferred? Only the people who are on the simple
majority side. Those in the minority, however huge it might be, are
generally not happy with the events. Even in small situations, like school
student body elections, close elections cause bad feelings among the
students. The same in individual classrooms. So expand it to a national
level, and you have big trouble. That's how you get assassinations and
military states. Not everyone is as willing to accept a 49.99% defeat as you
might be, Mr. Hansen. And some people are willing to fight over it, on both
sides. That's my point. It's not a good idea. I don't like the electoral
college either, but I do think that it has served as a scapegoat in several
close elections in our nations history. I am arguing that the concept of
simple majority is misplaced and misapplied in politics. It is a very
dangerous way&! nbsp;to decide national issues and leaders. 

By the way, Mr. Hansen, most of the original founders of the united States
were against party politics, knowing that they are 1) divisive, 2)
threatening to freedom and liberty, 3) a horrible way to elect reps (i.e.
the average "republican" or "democrat" will vote party line regardless of
beliefs or morals). George Washington, in his farewell address, as I recall,
or in a similar address, warned against them. But parties and cliques being
human nature, they arose anyhow. And have caused problems ever since. 

out for today,

Joshua Nieuwsma

Thomas Hansen <tomh@FNA.fsn.uidaho.edu> wrote:
Visionaires -

Mr. Nieuwsam's argument doesn't hold water (let alone the hot air that is
intended). A majority candidate is always preferred. Last time I checked
50.000000000000001% is larger than 49.99999999999999999999999% and reflects
a majority. To maintain the electoral college just so we would have
something to blame when elections go "wrong" is beyond stupidity.

Mr. Niewsma stated:

"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."

As it should be. The current two-party system is the result of over 200
years of political evolution within the United States. One way to develope
a viable third party is to create one that a large percentage of the people
support not only with ballots but with money.

For your information, ind! ependent candidates (candidates not affiliated
with
any political party) have been elected as state governors, US
Representatives, and US Senators.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho




Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!