Thursday April 24, 2014
Jump to content
According to the East Valley Tribune, our governor says its time to scrap the electoral college.
"Brewer said the system where the president is chosen by electors and not the popular vote probably “served its purpose” when it was made part of the original U.S. Constitution."
“But it’s pretty disappointing when you think that just a few states really determine who’s been elected president,” the governor said. “And they get all the attention.”
The EVTrib explains it like this: "A state like Arizona, which also has been pretty much written off by both sides as a lock for Republicans, gets ignored."
“If it was a popular vote, I think that all the states would receive attention,” Governor Brewer says.
Frankly, though I can count, I don't get it.
If the 2000 election had been decided on the popular vote, Democrat Al Gore would have been elected president and not Republican George W. Bush.
“There’s upsides and downsides,” Governor Brewer says.
I'll leave it up to you. Should we make the change?
No matter how the elections may be changed. Not everyone will be happy. FACT not just an opinion. (:
I agree with Pat, you can not please everyone, and someone always has a complaint or wants to offer their opinion.
:-) Jan Brewer says that Arizona was ignored. Does that mean we were spared some of the political advertisements? Well, then I would say thank heavens we were ignored!! :-)
As far as the Electoral College is concerned??????????. I can see valid arguments for both sides of the issue. I guess it depends on whether or not your guy/gal wins. :-)
Do you think Hillary Clinton will run in 2016?
Hopefully back where she came from.
You said it.
I look at it this way: We've had about 60 Presidential elections since we started up back in 1780. Only three times did the winner get fewer of the popular votes than the loser, and the margin in each case was very small. In Gore's case it was less than one half of one percent.
The argument against a popular vote is that the large cities, and even more so the large states, would control the elections if popular vote were used. Looking at the votes over the years in detail, which has taken a couple of days, I can see that that is true.
A second argument I ran into is that using popular vote would create re-counts, as happened in Florida twice in two elections.
Take your choice....
Tsk! Tsk! Think of poor Grandma Rodham.
Think about Grandma now.
Well, well. I guess you guys don't approve of Hillary. :-)
I had a hard time with Hillary for a long time, the reason being because she failed to boot Bill in the behind and tell him what he needed to hear. However, i've been watching her as Secretary of State, and have no problems at all with what she has been doing and saying. She had done a good job--and in more than one way.
The Secretary of State has often been someone who did more to interfere with what the President was trying to than to help. Some Secretaries of State have tried to work outside the limits of what a cabinet member should be. I could name a few, but I won't. Hillary has been a refreshing exception, a team member, someone pulling in the same direction as the President, who---by the way--has done an excellent job of getting what could be done, done.
Foreign policy is the third rail of politics in our time. It has been ever since the Cold War finally ground to an end (Thank God!). During the Cold War, with the single exceptions of Cuba and Vietnam, the American people were more united than they have ever been, with the sole exception of WWII. But since then we have run into so many, many difficult problems around the world that our focus has become muddles.
Right now we are climbing out of a hole that George W. Bush dug for us by invading Iraq. It was THE worst move I have ever seen made by a president, and we are now paying a high price for it. Hillary seems to have found a way to balance things out a bit.
Posting comments requires a free account