[Magdalen] Stupid question

[Marion Thompson]

As a bystander I must agree that Cruz is really really scary and that 
you have been spared a very bad situation indeed.  Talk about the lesser 
of two evils!

Marion, a pilgrim


On 5/5/2016 10:03 AM, Jay Weigel wrote:
> The one that just dropped out (Cruz) is to me FAR scarier than Trump. His
> Dominionist theology, which he apparently fervently believes, plus his
> ability to work within the system (as evidenced by his election to the
> senate and his activities while there), even though everyone he works with
> apparently dislikes him, make me think he would have been a much worse
> thing for the country. I think Trump is dangerous, but I think he's a
> blowhard and a guy who has no idea how to work within the system, which
> would have the effect of the system uniting against him.
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Grace Cangialosi <gracecan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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...