[Magdalen] Stupid question

[James Oppenheimer-Crawford]

Yes. What I meant was not what I said.

Al Gore got  more votes than Bush, but still lost. That is what I should
have said.

Interesting that in that instance, it appears that neither man actually
wanted to be president. One might say that in the long run, Al won.
Unfortunately, the USA did not. It appears that straw polls indicate that
between Sanders or Clinton and the other guy, it's a dead heat. This
strongly suggests that the USA deserves that other guy.








James W. Oppenheimer-Crawford
*“A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved,
except in memory. LLAP**”  -- *Leonard Nimoy

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Kate Conant <kate.conant at gmail.com> wrote:

> 1948 Harry S. Truman (D) 57.1% 49.5%
> 1960 John F. Kennedy (D) 56.4% 49.7%
> 1968 Richard M. Nixon (R) 56.1% 43.4%
> 1992 William J. Clinton (D) 68.8% 43.0%
> 1996 William J. Clinton (D) 70.4% 49.0%
> 2000 George W. Bush (R) 50.3% 47.8%
>
> These are the presidents (during my lifetime)  that took office with a
> minority of the popular vote  (first % = electoral vote second % = popular
> vote)
>
> "What does the Lord require of you, but to do justice, love mercy, and walk
> humbly with your God?"
> Micah 6:8
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:55 PM, James Oppenheimer-Crawford <
> oppenheimerjw at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The original concept was to have a trusted group of people elect the
> > president. It was too important to leave to the electorate only (by which
> > is meant male property-owners over the age of twenty-one years).They
> named
> > this trusted group the electoral college.
> >
> > The electoral college was and is formed by people chosen by each of the
> > states.  They were the ones who cast the vote. The number of
> > representatives from each state is determined by statute, based on size
> and
> > other factors.
> >
> > Since each state has a certain number of voters and its own method of
> > selecting delegates for the electoral college, it is quite possible that
> > you can have one candidate win the popular vote and lose the election, as
> > was the case recently when Al Gore won the popular vote by a couple
> hundred
> > thousand votes, yet lost in the electoral college.  But, hold on, before
> > you say that's not fair.  The central or federal government is built from
> > top to bottom with a bunch of assumptions designed to level the playing
> > field between large states and small states.  In some instances, there
> is a
> > disproportionate power given to the smaller states in view of the obvious
> > fact that if there were not such checks and balances, the larger states
> > would always have their way, and the smaller states would be reduced to
> > utter impotence. The most obvious example of this is the Senate, where
> all
> > states have an equal voice.   Choosing the president is not merely a
> matter
> > of popular vote; it has to do with that, but also with the will of the
> > individual states as well.
> >
> > People sometimes say that times have changed, and it's time to sweep
> aside
> > all that antiquated stuff and bring the nation to a pure popular vote
> > governance system.  However, that's not really true. Look at the States
> and
> > you see some profoundly different ways of running things.  I am not often
> > very happy with the way this plays out, but it still is a matter of
> > respecting the will of the people, as represented by popular vote, but as
> > expressed by the will of each state as well.
> >
> > The attached URL discusses one aspect of how this is playing out in our
> > land which causes me to think we may be closer to a fracture than we
> know.
> >
> > http://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/southern_values_revived/
> >
> > James W. Oppenheimer-Crawford
> > *“A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved,
> > except in memory. LLAP**”  -- *Leonard Nimoy
> >
> > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Grace Cangialosi <gracecan at gmail.com>
> > 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...
> > >
> >
>