The candidates would campaign differently, and visit more places.
The electoral college process is far more limiting, resulting in
much fewer campaign stops for candidates.
No, you have that wrong. Remember, that is what Hilarious tried (fewer >stops) and it DID NOT WORK. If there was no electoral college, what she did >would have worked. She would only need to campaign and play to the areas >that Bob listed. She'd never visit Kentucky or any state that surrounds it >(except maybe Northern Virginia). She'd certainly have gotten away with >ignoring Wisconsin and Michigan.
IOW, the electoral college process is nothing more than a polite
fiction. A means to con the electorate into believing it is taking
part in a fair election.
The only times it has been "unfair" is when a Democrat has not managed to
win it.
IOW, the electoral college process is nothing more than a polite >LL>fiction. A means to con the electorate into believing it is taking >LL>part in a fair election.
But it works great when it gets Indonesians elected :)
When put in its proper perspective, i,e, the President is chosen by the
States
and not by the people, it makes perfect sense.
Correct.
Our head of government, i.e. the Prime Minister, is not elected either and
I
think that's true for about every other country around here.
The difference, I think, lies in the amount of power the head of state
gets.
Or maybe the perceived amount of power. I don't think that the President
has as much power as we citizens perceive the position to have. They get >blamed, and credited, for a lot of things they don't really have much true >participation in.
Your Hole Is Our Goal
Your Hole Is Our Goal
You're QWK reader does Democrat taglines? :)
Sysop: | Coz |
---|---|
Location: | Anoka, MN |
Users: | 2 |
Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
Uptime: | 10:52:05 |
Calls: | 349 |
Files: | 6,078 |
Messages: | 232,999 |