[Vision2020] Presidential Elections

[Thomas Hansen]

Visionaires -

Mr. Nieuwsam's argument doesn't hold water (let alone the hot air that is
intended).  A majority candidate is always preferred.  Last time I checked
50.000000000000001% is larger than 49.99999999999999999999999% and reflects
a majority.  To maintain the electoral college just so we would have
something to blame when elections go "wrong" is beyond stupidity.

Mr. Niewsma stated:

"And Mr. Hansen, I think you missed Pastor Wilson's point. Two opposite
directions (i.e. not facing same way) is not the same thing as two different
choices. Both the Dems and the Reps are socialists. Just one is more open
about it."

As it should be.  The current two-party system is the result of over 200
years of political evolution within the United States.  One way to develope
a viable third party is to create one that a large percentage of the people
support not only with ballots but with money.

For your information, independent candidates (candidates not affiliated with
any political party) have been elected as state governors, US
Representatives, and US Senators.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

-----Original Message-----
From: Joshua Nieuwsma [mailto:joshuahendrik@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 10:19 AM
To: vision
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Presidential Elections


some thoughts:
Having a purely majority vote election would split the country. It's already
becoming divided, but in my opinion choosing a leader based solely upon
50.0001% of the votes is crazy. At least right now, with the electoral
college, we have a system to blame when someone gets voted in with less than
the majority of the citizens votes. An entity is alot less personal than the
guy down the street who we have enmity against, if it is a hotly contested
election, because he voted for the other guy that got in instead of our
49.9999% guy. Simple majority is a great way to get people frustrated,
upset, and eventually riotous. (Incidentally, it is also a dangerous basis
for legislation.) The southern states were quite unhappy when Lincoln won
the presidency without even a simple majority. He got something like 37%.
But the electoral college put him in power. 
And besides, no one likes runoffs. Isn't it best to avoid them? We don't
live in anything remotely like an ideal state. Look at how hard it is for
California to decide to replace their governor. How much worse to hold a
second presidential election. It's just not feasible, in my opinion. 
And Mr. Hansen, I think you missed Pastor Wilson's point. Two opposite
directions (i.e. not facing same way) is not the same thing as two different
choices. Both the Dems and the Reps are socialists. Just one is more open
about it. 

sincerely,

Joshua Nieuwsma

thansen@moscow.com wrote:
Douglas Wilson stated:

"The last presidential election where Americans had a real choice to go in
one 
of two opposite directions occurred a long time before I was born."

Please elaborate. Every federal presidential election in which I have 
participated since I was of voting age (and that has been several days ago)
has 
clearly consisted of at least two choices (and in some cases three or more).

In my opinion for presidential election results to truly reflect the
peoples' 
choice is to eliminate the electoral college and base the outcome stricly on

popular vote. In the event that a candidate does not attract the majority
vote 
(defined as 50% plus one), there should be a runoff between the top two 
candidates. It is clearly that simple.

Any other thoughts?

Tom Hansen
Moscow,
Idaho

---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
http://www.fsr.net/


_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet, 
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
http://www.fsr.net 
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!