[Magdalen] Stupid question

[Grace Cangialosi]

I have to disagree, Jim. There is no circumstance that would make America "deserve that other guy"! NONE!!!
> 
> Interesting that in 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...
>>