![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/wink.gif)
--A
Avatar wrote:As so often appears the case in American politics.Cail wrote:IOW, the popular vote doesn't mean squat.That's crazy...why doesn't the party just pick its nominee privately then? What a waste of time and money.
Good point Cail.Cail wrote:No, popular vote (except for ratification of a Constitutional Amendment) is a simple majority.
I think one of the larger issues (that probably deserves its own thread) is that....
-Sometimes the majority is wrong (slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc).
-Our method of governance has a way of ignoring the majority in the name of representative governance (IOW, we elect people to make our decisions for us). This is clearly happening right now with issues as diverse as gun control, abortion, and illegal immigration.
"If you can't tell the difference, what difference does it make?"
That's OK, there are skads of people here who really believe that it's thier vote that elects the president.Avatar wrote:Yeah, one of the aspects of American politics that has long baffled me. At least here, it's the party with the most votes that gets to install the president.
--A
I still would prefer someone with a bit of a power lust who is also competant to someone who is a dazzling and popular figure and completely incompetent. I would, of course, choose the dazzling figure who is extremely competent. (Churchill is a great example). I would take Nixon over Clinton any day.Avatar wrote:Sure, but on the other hand, it seems sometimes in our society that civil servant is semantically equivalent to civil master.Who hasn't met a civil servant who's drunk with the little bit of power they do have?
But I know what you mean...somebody whose focus is on the job and not on the whole political tomfoolery.
--A