Comments on: Campaign musings: Will Obama win the Presidency but lose the popular vote? http://www.bloggernews.net/117976 High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news. Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:15:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: abaragh http://www.bloggernews.net/117976#comment-1283302 abaragh Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:52:38 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/117976#comment-1283302 hi iam student in morocco i have a topic and i do not understand it which talking about obam/THE LANGUAGE USED IN OBAMA ELECTORAL CAMPAING A STYLISTIC STUDY/so.please help me in this topic . hi iam student in morocco i have a topic and i do not understand it which talking about obam/THE LANGUAGE USED IN OBAMA ELECTORAL CAMPAING A STYLISTIC STUDY/so.please help me in this topic .

]]> By: mypppoiuu http://www.bloggernews.net/117976#comment-694583 mypppoiuu Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:59:20 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/117976#comment-694583 i dont not a gree With you pEOP ur aLL STU pid i dont not a
gree With
you
pEOP
ur
aLL STU
pid

]]> By: Greg http://www.bloggernews.net/117976#comment-683989 Greg Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:54:44 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/117976#comment-683989 The popular vote should not determine the presidency. There is a reason the electoral college is set up and it is a check and balance for the country. It gives the States equal representation so that the popular vote in Los Angeles doesn't totally cancel out the Nebraska votes and so on. Also if you had strictly popular vote as many countries do like Italy and Russia, you'd have about 10 people running for president not having to carry a majority of the states or even a large percentage of the popular vote, but only having to achieve a small percentage of the total popular vote (ie. 20%) to be the winner. I understand the thinking though. Hey, that guy got more votes then he should win. But we are not a total democracy and I believe it is for good reason. We have systems of checks and balances. That way you don't have 4 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. The popular vote should not determine the presidency. There is a reason the electoral college is set up and it is a check and balance for the country. It gives the States equal representation so that the popular vote in Los Angeles doesn’t totally cancel out the Nebraska votes and so on. Also if you had strictly popular vote as many countries do like Italy and Russia, you’d have about 10 people running for president not having to carry a majority of the states or even a large percentage of the popular vote, but only having to achieve a small percentage of the total popular vote (ie. 20%) to be the winner.

I understand the thinking though. Hey, that guy got more votes then he should win. But we are not a total democracy and I believe it is for good reason. We have systems of checks and balances. That way you don’t have 4 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.

]]> By: mvymvy http://www.bloggernews.net/117976#comment-662758 mvymvy Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:50:22 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/117976#comment-662758 The current system does not reliably reflect the nationwide popular vote. The statewide winner-take-all rules makes it possible for a candidate to win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections. In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide. Nationwide popular election of the President is the only system that makes all states competitive, guarantees that the candidate with the most popular votes nationwide wins the Presidency, and makes every vote equal. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect. See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com susan The current system does not reliably reflect the nationwide popular vote. The statewide winner-take-all rules makes it possible for a candidate to win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

Nationwide popular election of the President is the only system that makes all states competitive, guarantees that the candidate with the most popular votes nationwide wins the Presidency, and makes every vote equal.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

susan

]]>