curious_
New member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2005
- Messages
- 27
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
You'd here: "it's a shame that one marginal state should decide the fate of US Presidency and to an extent of the world at large"; implying that the election law must be changed. Indeed, it came as a shock to me when G W Bush was re-elected which made me lose trust in the system. When G W was first elected, I thought ok... its ok, you had the Clinton scandal and his fellow man Al Gore naturally would not fare well...but when GW was re-elected...uuuuuuhh...he lied to so many ppl...this mentally deficient person started the war in order to boost his chances of re-election and he succeeded, yet you had Fahrenheit 9/11 and all but didn't help...
US rural population, religious conservatives, social conservatives, conservative farmers and other segments, other less educated agriculture ppl in middle states like Wyoming voting in large numbers because of larger cummulative populations in the middle of the US lands (as opposed to secular, educated coastline states like NY etc--states both in the east and the west) prompted G W to get re-elected. And the thing is people in NY or Maryland or California would always be better informed, better educated and more open-minded and politically aware, even their Taxi drivers in NYC would always be better than a senior accountant or an agricultural manager in Wyoming or Idaho... That's how democrats have argued that they will have to work harder to win a larger number of those middle, peasant states voters. I think that's theoretically possible but thats a long-shot.
A better approach would be to assign numerical values to voters from any given state. For example, each vote cast by a voter from NY state would carry a weigh of 1.2; whereas, Wyoming voters would get a weight of say 0.8. The outcome would be that you value NY voters opinions more than those in say Alabama but that's the only way I see to help eradicat the deficiencies of the current system that let shameful G W get re-elected. I still remember Bill Clintons word: "the current president[G W], his vice president and myself could have gone to war in Vietnam but didn't; when it came to John Kerry, he said: send mee!" and yet, many of the voters (obviously Wyoming and Alabama voters, not NY or DC voters) thought that G W would be a better commander-in-chief than John Kerry. The choice seemed so obvious this last time but the US (and you can properly generalize) failed when making this choice. Wyoming and TX voters among other star states chose a former alcoholic and drug addict and obviously a melancholic and self-loving president with deficient mental credentials over a better looking, far more intellectual person with a real-war time experience and poignancy.
So shameful! I can see how DC population feels, 90 percent of all votes went to Kerry and yet GW sleeps in the White House and he appointed Pentagon's Woulfenson, another deficient person, to the top job at the World Bank. Think further comments are unnecessary. How do you like such a system?
US rural population, religious conservatives, social conservatives, conservative farmers and other segments, other less educated agriculture ppl in middle states like Wyoming voting in large numbers because of larger cummulative populations in the middle of the US lands (as opposed to secular, educated coastline states like NY etc--states both in the east and the west) prompted G W to get re-elected. And the thing is people in NY or Maryland or California would always be better informed, better educated and more open-minded and politically aware, even their Taxi drivers in NYC would always be better than a senior accountant or an agricultural manager in Wyoming or Idaho... That's how democrats have argued that they will have to work harder to win a larger number of those middle, peasant states voters. I think that's theoretically possible but thats a long-shot.
A better approach would be to assign numerical values to voters from any given state. For example, each vote cast by a voter from NY state would carry a weigh of 1.2; whereas, Wyoming voters would get a weight of say 0.8. The outcome would be that you value NY voters opinions more than those in say Alabama but that's the only way I see to help eradicat the deficiencies of the current system that let shameful G W get re-elected. I still remember Bill Clintons word: "the current president[G W], his vice president and myself could have gone to war in Vietnam but didn't; when it came to John Kerry, he said: send mee!" and yet, many of the voters (obviously Wyoming and Alabama voters, not NY or DC voters) thought that G W would be a better commander-in-chief than John Kerry. The choice seemed so obvious this last time but the US (and you can properly generalize) failed when making this choice. Wyoming and TX voters among other star states chose a former alcoholic and drug addict and obviously a melancholic and self-loving president with deficient mental credentials over a better looking, far more intellectual person with a real-war time experience and poignancy.
So shameful! I can see how DC population feels, 90 percent of all votes went to Kerry and yet GW sleeps in the White House and he appointed Pentagon's Woulfenson, another deficient person, to the top job at the World Bank. Think further comments are unnecessary. How do you like such a system?