“The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men.”" Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787.

These quotes prove that the Founding Fathers anticipated Democrat voters!!!

How is it that

How is someones vote in WY worth more than NY? Right now, the person that gets the majority of the votes in your state does win…you are a member of a state.

the Founding Fathers always intended that the states — not the people — select the president.

Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants the power to elect the president and vice president to the states through the Electoral College system. Under the Constitution, the highest-ranking U.S. officials elected by direct popular vote of the people are the governors of the states.

“A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment.” — Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787

“The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates.” — Delegate Mason, July 17, 1787

“The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men.” — Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787.

True, but during the period between the primary and final elections, the two candidates who are left work to secure the endorsements of all the other candidates in the field. Usually the candidates who finished strongest (in this case, Bayrou and, to a lesser extent, Le Pen) end up with minister positions and get to see their pet issues become a top priority. Anyway, this seems different from winning the presidency with 51% of the electoral vote (in an election where less than 50% of eligible voters voted anyway), declaring you have a “mandate” and trying to shove through every one of your policies.

it the only way to insure that all votes count:If we went by popular vote, CA, NY and TX would elect our POTUS:That isn’t fair

How is it that, if we switch to a “one person, one vote” model, not all the votes count? As it is, someone’s vote in WY, for example, is worth much more than the vote of someone in NY. How is this fair? If we got rid of the electoral college, the candidate who received the majority of votes would win. It doesn’t make any sense to say that CA, NY, and TX would then elect the president because the election would no longer be decided state by state. Every vote would go into the same pot, so to speak. This way, the United States would elect the president and each citizen who voted would play the same role.

This is an observation that we have talked about in the past on this site…people complain about the SC, but it the only way to insure that all votes count…If we went by popular vote, CA, NY and TX would elect our POTUS…That isn’t fair…if people want to make a difference, don’t just talk about voting, do it..

The past 2 elections have been close, but guess what? We didn’t even have 1/2 the eligible voters voting….

I agree with both of you.

One interesting thing about the dozen parties, though, is that they don’t just play a spoiler role (though they certainly do that as well). I assumed the same thing and I was speaking to a French friend and asking why (relatively) so many people actually vote for, e.g., the candidate whose only platform is environmental issues. He said that a lot of French folks vote for this sort of candidate because the candidates who progress to the next round will have to seek these one-issue candidates’ endorsements (and will usually end up giving them a minister position or something to get them). In other words, someone will have to make big concessions to Le Pen, Bayrou, etc. because they both finished relatively strong. Apparently the upshot of this is that there’s a lot less of the “don’t waste your vote” rhetoric than we get in the states. The issue survives the candidate.

I’d love to see a shorter election cycle, and I’d also love to see some finance reform (is this still McCain’s pet issue?). I don’t mind all of the commercials but, being from Ohio, did I really need to see three Bush or Kerry commercials during every commercial break for six months straight?

I am with you…I’d like to see a 6 month election cycle tops and have the field opened up beyond 2 parties…

Another article – just read the first section – that talks about each of the other candidates and what their poll results were.

http://www.worldpoliticswatch.com/article.aspx?id=720

I was impressed by the fact that federal election financing seems to support anyone running, I’d like to see the pursuit of money play a much smaller part in our system.

France also has some of the more bizarre political parties I’ve encountered. There a three separate communist parties (two Trotskyist) as well as some sort of hunting and fishing party that wants France to go back to ancient times (keep in mind these people are recognizable in the way that folks like Howard Dean or John McCain are recognizable—they’re not just random weirdos).

It’s odd how much of the Royal vs. Sarkozy thing doubles some of what has gone on in the U.S. No one in Paris really cares for Sarkozy but he’ll probably be elected because he has a strong base in the French equivalent of the “heartland.” Royal doesn’t seem too bad but she’s a little robotic (as the last two U.S. democratic candidates have been).

On the other hand, there’s still no worse insult than saying that “candidate X” believes in American style politics—-even those on the far right have to pay lip-service to a strong welfare state, laicite, etc.