Quote:
Originally posted by DelayedReaction
I disagree with you Scipio; the popular mandate is THE most crucial number you can have in any election. If the recorded majority of a population does not vote for an individual, and that individual is still elected, then the system is wrong.
|
You're forgetting that we have a system which doesn't elect presidents by a popular vote. I might just as well say that if the majority of states, weighted for population, vote for one candidate, and the other candidate wins, then the system is wrong.
I'll go ahead and defend the current system. Our federal system assigns rights to states. Small states get extra representation so that they don't get shut out of the system. The electoral college and the winner take all system create a campaign dynamic which demands a nation-wide campaign from every candidate.
Is it undemocratic? I see no inherent problem with breaking up a national election into a number of regional elections. Of course it's not the same thing, and of course sometimes the outcome will be different, but I see the current system as having no problems in the democracy department.
Quote:
Originally posted by Yakk
Then I assume you have the same objections to the US Senate?
|
It's not the same thing. There are two houses of congress, but only one president. In congress, we get "dual representation," or even "dual rights." There's no analogue for the White House.