Apparently (II) ...
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 28,318
Likes: 9
From: This is not my house!
Democracy is the worst form of government in the entire world...except for all the rest - Churchill.
Billy you're reading the news too much. FLA and OH aren't deciding any more than Indiana or Cali. If Cali changed it's vote it would impact the election just as much. When there is a tie in the Senate and the VP comes to vote... he (/she) doesn't determine the outcome any more than any one of the Senators who voted... otherwise there wouldn't be a tie... etc.
Living under the 'rule' of a Monarch isn't what most American's would have you believe. There's some idea that it is somehow restrictive. The impact and restrictions of a President are far more impactful than those of a regal.
I hate the monarchy... they're an archaic, inbred soap opera but as Queen of Canada, Lizzie has virtually no impact. None. The monach must approve any parlimentary (like Senate) legislation but has only ever rejected one... at the request of parliment. They decided they had made a mistake and asked her (or was is George?) to reject it to stop if.
One thing this system could do better... is the third candidate. Unlike a parlimentary gov't this system does not handle the third candidate/party well (because as Billy points out it was designed as a two candidate system).
I'd propose the "instant runoff" system which means you vote for (i.e.) Bush, Kerry or Nader. Then you vote for your second choice. In the case of a lack of majority vote the lowest candidate (s) is eliminated and those that voted for him/her would have their second vote counted. In my example Nader votes in Fl in 2000 would go to whoever the second choice of Nader's voters.
Electoral college BTW is a variation on the parlimentary 'riding'.
Billy you're reading the news too much. FLA and OH aren't deciding any more than Indiana or Cali. If Cali changed it's vote it would impact the election just as much. When there is a tie in the Senate and the VP comes to vote... he (/she) doesn't determine the outcome any more than any one of the Senators who voted... otherwise there wouldn't be a tie... etc.
Living under the 'rule' of a Monarch isn't what most American's would have you believe. There's some idea that it is somehow restrictive. The impact and restrictions of a President are far more impactful than those of a regal.
I hate the monarchy... they're an archaic, inbred soap opera but as Queen of Canada, Lizzie has virtually no impact. None. The monach must approve any parlimentary (like Senate) legislation but has only ever rejected one... at the request of parliment. They decided they had made a mistake and asked her (or was is George?) to reject it to stop if.
One thing this system could do better... is the third candidate. Unlike a parlimentary gov't this system does not handle the third candidate/party well (because as Billy points out it was designed as a two candidate system).
I'd propose the "instant runoff" system which means you vote for (i.e.) Bush, Kerry or Nader. Then you vote for your second choice. In the case of a lack of majority vote the lowest candidate (s) is eliminated and those that voted for him/her would have their second vote counted. In my example Nader votes in Fl in 2000 would go to whoever the second choice of Nader's voters.
Electoral college BTW is a variation on the parlimentary 'riding'.
threads are lacking in direction
Just to be safe 
