[Magdalen] Stupid question

[Lynn Ronkainen]

Eleanor> Without the Electoral College, Gore would have won in 2000 -- he 
won the
> national popular vote.

... or without the seemingly fractured FL state voting with the brother of a 
candidate governor...

and without, of course, the Supremes... and I'm not talkin' Motown here.

Lynn

website: www.ichthysdesigns.com

When I stand before God at the end of my life I would hope that I have not a 
single bit of talent left and could say, "I used everything You gave me." 
attributed to Erma Bombeck
 "Either Freedom for all or stop talking about Freedom at all" from a talk 
by Richard Rohr

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Eleanor Braun" <eleanor.braun at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 10:37 AM
To: <magdalen at herberthouse.org>
Subject: Re: [Magdalen] Stupid question

>
> Eleanor
>
> On Wednesday, May 4, 2016, Scott Knitter <scottknitter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've often wondered the same things. My assumptions (which may be
>> wrong, of course):
>> 1. The primaries are a function of the parties, basically, and perhaps
>> the state party organizations most of all. I assume that it would be
>> possible for the parties to select their candidates solely through
>> conventions restricted to card-carrying party members but that
>> primaries and caucuses were adopted as the best poll of the party
>> members and sympathizers in each state. So now we have that tradition,
>> with its varying rules by state (and D.C. and Puerto Rico, Democrats
>> Abroad, etc.).
>> 2. The Electoral College comes up for discussion every four years,
>> just like daylight saving time every six months, and then it all
>> quiets down again. On the one hand it seems a quaint mechanism
>> designed for a large country pre-Internet and pre-automobile (and
>> pre-radio). One advantage I can think of is that the Electoral College
>> system quickly pinpoints the location of a problem: the Bush-Gore
>> problem was pinpointed to Florida. If the general election were
>> nationwide majority, I wonder how that might have gone. Perhaps the
>> hanging chads would not have surfaced as much of a problem at all. But
>> I think Electoral College proponents have better arguments than this,
>> and so do opponents.
>>
>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Grace Cangialosi <gracecan at gmail.com
>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > I feel very ignorant in asking this, but I wonder if someone can 
>> > explain
>> to me--or point me to a source--why we don't elect by popular vote?  Why
>> can't they just add up all the votes in the primaries and declare the
>> winners in each party based on the totals?
>> > Then do the same with the general election--the one with the most votes
>> wins. Then you wouldn't have the ridiculous situation we had with
>> Bush-Gore.  And wouldn't that be likely to bring out more voters, since
>> they would feel their vote actually counted?
>> >
>> > I'm sure there is some historical reason, and it may even be a good 
>> > one,
>> but I don't know what it is...
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Scott R. Knitter
>> Edgewater, Chicago, Illinois USA
>>