An Olive Branch

"Allen" wrote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic.../countymap.htm

This is why the electoral college is in place. If it were not for the
electoral college the U.S. would be governed by the residents of large
cities and the rural population (who tend to be more conservative)
would have no say in the law-making process.

Indeed, the current elector counts in U.S. presidential elections provide a
bias towards the more rural, low-population states. Given the political
preferences you described, the existing voting system unfortunately (or
fortunately, depending on opinion) always appears to favor Republican
candidates and puts an artificial drag on Democratic candidates.

Greetings,
Markus

Unless you know something most if us don't, they did not leave a
definitive
reason why the electoral vote system was put in place. There are a a few
reasons it could have been done.

I wonder if your opinion on that would be different if the last two
elections had gone the other way but with the same electoral/popular vote
margin...


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic.../countymap.htm

This is why the electoral college is in place. If it were not for the
electoral college the U.S. would be governed by the residents of large
cities and the rural population (who tend to be more conservative) would
have no say in the law-making process.

Allen

Big deal. Atleast I capitalized "President Moron". Actually, I wasn't
all that excited about Kerry. I just can't stand having an idiot in the
White House.

From Webster's Dictionary:

Idiocy:
1 usually offensive : extreme mental retardation

If this is what you really think of our president, what does that say for
our country?

If he's dumb, it's like a fox.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Richard Hertz" wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote:
Now that it appears that George Bush has been re-elected with a true
majority of the popular vote (the first president to do so in 16
years),
let me be the first to extend an olive branch to those here who may be
disappointed in the results.

"Appalled" would better describe it.

You don't know "appalled" unless you were in NY when we voted in a carpet
bagger of the worst sort to the Senate.

Ya' know, if I lived in NY I bet I *would* have been appalled: Hillary gives
me the creeps.

--
"There ought to be limits to freedom."
- George W. Bush

I guess one of the problems I have with him is that he obviously can't
think QUICKLY. Even if you put asside the 7 minutes he sat, after the
2nd plane hit (screw the damn school kids. they'll get over it), anyone
who's watched him stumble over his words, continuously, over the last 4
years (heck, he can't even read off of a damn'ed teleprompter) has to come
to the conclusion that he is NOT a very quick thinker. If he was running
for City Council, I'd say "no big deal", but I expect more from my
President.

The second thing that bothers me is that he's a religious zealot. In
fact, you could almost argue that his religious convictions are as
extreme as the Islamic extremists that we're fighting.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

alexy wrote:

Markus Voget wrote:

Indeed, the current elector counts in U.S. presidential elections
provide a bias towards the more rural, low-population states.
If by "current", you mean "since the founding of the United States",
then I agree. If you mean to imply that it is some kind of recent
phenomenon, you might want to check your facts.

To my knowledge, the U.S. constitution was never changed on this point.
I can even see the logic in it: If, in the legislative branch, you have
proportional representation of the people in one chamber and equal
representation of the states in the other chamber, why shouldn't the
executive branch, in the name of balance of power, be elected in a
similar way (that is, using a middle ground between the House and Senate
election systems)?

At the same time, political preferences in rural vs. metropolitan areas
tend to be very persistent. They *could* change at any given moment, for
sure, but in reality this does not happen often. At least this is the
experience in my home country (Germany) but it also seems to hold true
for the United States (any counter examples are welcome). My personal
impression is that big cities and the countryside tend to attract
different lifestyles, which tend to go hand in hand with different
political affiliations.

So it still seems to be the case that a Republican generally stands a
better chance of becoming U.S. president than a Democrat. The obvious
case in point would be the 2000 election and not so much the current one.

PS: In spite of these considerations, I see no realistic chance
whatsoever that the U.S. presidential election system gets changed any
time soon. For better or worse...


Greetings,
Markus

Markus Voget wrote:

"Allen" wrote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic.../countymap.htm

This is why the electoral college is in place. If it were not for the
electoral college the U.S. would be governed by the residents of large
cities and the rural population (who tend to be more conservative)
would have no say in the law-making process.

Indeed, the current elector counts in U.S. presidential elections provide a
bias towards the more rural, low-population states.
If by "current", you mean "since the founding of the United States",
then I agree. If you mean to imply that it is some kind of recent
phenomenon, you might want to check your facts.

Given the political
preferences you described, the existing voting system unfortunately (or
fortunately, depending on opinion) always appears to favor Republican
candidates and puts an artificial drag on Democratic candidates.
Only if Republicans better meet the needs (or wants) of rural America,
and Democrats better meet the needs (or wants) of major population
centers.
Either can change that "preference" at any time by their policies.

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

In article , Bob Fry wrote:

screwup, but not today. Today I ordered East and West full sectional
coverage from Howie Keefe so I can start figuring out places to go and
things to see. Today, I turn off the talking heads, and think and
dream.


I used the Howie Keefe charts on a trip from Long Island Sound to
Puget sound (and back) this past summer. They're good for in-flight
finger-on-the-map. They're not so good for for strategic planning.

As a supplement, I had a map from (ach, ptth) Sporty's that covered
the entire U.S. We knew roughly how many inches per day we could
do, looked for likely places in range, and angled norther or souther
depending on what the weather was doing.

It really helped to have the Big Picture on one chart.

Good luck. It's an incredible trip.


Morris (dissatified Sporty's customer)

In article ,
Philip Sondericker wrote:

myself actually hopeful for the future. With Republicans enjoying an
unprecedented mandate, controlling the White House, having substantial
majorities in both Houses of Congress, and even an advantage in
Governorships and state legislatures, I'm looking forward to the following:

1. Fiscal responsibility
2. Balanced budgets
3. Smaller and less intrusive government
4. Greater personal liberties
5. A strong and all-volunteer military
6. Strong alliances and respect around the world

All of the above are, of course, the bedrock philosophy of the Republican
party. Or so I've been told my whole life. I can hardly wait for all of it
to happen.

Re-read this post 3 times, and I still, seriously, can't decide if it's
really intended to be serious or sarcasm -- particular items 3 and 4
(with the Religious Right in the ascendancy).

Scary either way, I guess.

On 04 Nov 2004 15:25:51 GMT, (Jay Masino)
wrote:


I guess one of the problems I have with him is that he obviously can't
think QUICKLY. Even if you put asside the 7 minutes he sat, after the
2nd plane hit (screw the damn school kids. they'll get over it), anyone
who's watched him stumble over his words, continuously, over the last 4
years (heck, he can't even read off of a damn'ed teleprompter) has to come
to the conclusion that he is NOT a very quick thinker. If he was running
for City Council, I'd say "no big deal", but I expect more from my
President.

Gail Sheehy wrote an article about Bush for Vanity Fair during his
first run to the presidency. In the article (among several other
things) she explored the possibility that Bush was dyslexic. She did
not call him dyslexic, she just interviewed people who were expert
with the symptoms and were willing to look at his malapropisms and
tortured english and comment, in their capacity as experts in the
field.

One of the things that was observed, which is a fact and not subject
to spin, is that dyslexia tends to run in families and Bush's brother
was a diagnosed dyslexic. The other thing that was observed was that
every symptom of Bush's speech and reading that was held up for
observation by the interviewed experts was labeled as being commonly
associated with diagnosed dyslexics.

Bush and his aides have categorically denied that he is dyslexic but
in fact he claims he has never been tested for it, so they literally
cannot know if he is or is not. The problem is, if he is not
dyslexic, as he and his aides claim, then what is causing the speech
and reading difficulties? Because no one is denying that he has
speech and reading difficulties.

Being dyslexic does NOT mean being stupid although it's possible Bush
or Bush's people think that it would be a political liability to admit
such. It is claimed that Winston Churchill, whom Bush is said to
admire, was dyslexic. They are other great thinkers who were
dyslexic, or at least showed the symptoms of dyslexia so it's not like
it should be considered a fault, and obviously, Bush has overcome
whatever is afflicting him in monumental fashion. The electorate
obviously doesn't care, they elected him twice without knowing why he
frequently mangles english.

In my opinion being dyslexic goes a LONG way towards explaining his
lack of reading ability and difficulty with the english language. For
dyslexics, reading is especially difficult, it's "hard work" ;-).
Another datapoint: Bush depends mostly on spoken briefings as opposed
to reading reports. (Aside: had Bush been a voracious reader, would he
have thoroughly read the fated Presidential Daily Briefing that
outlined the danger of el Qaida prior to 9/11 which he admits he did
not do? We'll never know). For this reason, Bush is especially
dependent on his advisors and their ability/interpretation of what's
important. But that's what they're there for.

The second thing that bothers me is that he's a religious zealot. In
fact, you could almost argue that his religious convictions are as
extreme as the Islamic extremists that we're fighting.

Bothers me too.

Corky Scott