[Magdalen] Stupid question

Fri May 6 00:55:34 UTC 2016

The only stats that matter will not show up until the evening of Election
Day.

I have begun contributing to the Democratic Party.  Fool me once, shame on
you; fool me twice, shame on me.

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 Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Charles Wohlers <charles.wohlers at verizon.net
> wrote:

> No. Clinton is currently ~10 points ahead of Trump in the polls.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/04/upshot/electoral-map-trump-clinton.html
>
> Chad Wohlers
> East Bridgewater, MA USA
> chadwohl at satucket.com
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: James Oppenheimer-Crawford
> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 2:34 AM
> To: Magdalen at herberthouse.org
> Subject: Re: [Magdalen] Stupid question
>
> 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...
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>