Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

AustonT wrote:While the water shed issue was Florida and it's, what would you call it? "irregularities" the fact that Gore won the popular vote and lost the electoral college is basically the exact scenario the college exists for.

Yeah, that's certainly correct, but when the College is discussed it isn't generally with regard to its purpose as defined by policy, but rather its philosophical goal.

My point is that the electoral college, ostensibly, exists in order to protect small states from larger ones. However, in reality, it is simply another means by which large states can levy "grievances" (quotes because states don't really have grievances against one another anymore) against one another.

Then there's the whole partisan thing regarding the absence of proportional voting.

AustonT wrote:I said a majority of the states voted for Bush II

So? I never said otherwise.

But regardless of all that, more people still voted for Al Gore than for Bush.

gorgon wrote:Are people supposed to think that Perry will accidentally eliminate the wrong government agency? Isn't this supposed to about a) your ideas, and b) your ability to govern? I say that knowing how incredibly naive that sounds, of course.

It's also about being able to get people to agree with your ideas, and that tends to go poorly if you can't even express them.

And, in a primary, it's also about sizing up how a candidate would do against the other side. Say what you will about Obama, he's a competent debater.

Would you say Obama is a Master Debater?