Tale typed...
I'm still confused, but whatever!
Damnit, Tale...don't make me emerse myself in a political thread....you know I hate that!!!!!....Grrrrrrr!!!
K.......
Those gay looking gents in the white wigs rejected the idea of a popular election not because they doubted the ability of the major populace as a whole to be capable of making an educated choice of leadership...but, rather because they felt that our Prez's would always be chosen by the most populous states without regard for political concern or sentiment in states much smaller.
These framers ( in there spare time while not matting pictures)...tried to create a system that would protect those inhabiting the smaller states by rejecting government by simple majority...their reasoning being that throughout history such direct vote was usually a machination of dictatorships rather than democracies. Bottom line is that these guys were pretty much up to speed on the wisdom and lessons drawn from early history.
They based this indirect election of leaders on the Roman Cenurial Assembly (pre-Shasta days and you'd be hard pressed to find a decent hoagie as well as these guys liked direct hand to grease contact without the prophylactic benefit of a nice hunk of sliced french bread) in which the men of Rome were divided up into groups of 100 (centuries) and allowed to cast votes for or against proposed actions introduced by the Senate. In like manner..the states serve as centurial representatives in the electoral system and the number of votes are determined by the number of representatives in each respective states congressional delegation.
To win the presidency, the candidates (or "can of dates" as some interns care to endearingly refer to them) have to get a majority of these electoral votes... 2 for the given Senators + whatever number of chosen U.S. Representatives each state has. This system in paractice, bestows a bit more power to racial minorities (bet you like this one Tale) who tend to live in the larger cities of the biggest states because their votes are important in tipping all the electoral votes in that state, thus making it imperative to candidates of either party to work for their votes.
One of the things that could possibly occur in the case of a purely popular vote... especialy in predominantly one party states (which I find particularly boring and would not live in...being a guy that likes 2 or even three parties in a given night) is that it could encourage a state or states to alter their voting requirements .An example being voting age could actually be lowered to dramatically increase the numbers for a particular candidate or party thus, allowing that state to affect in a very big way the national vote.
Personally I think these old codgers were damn near genius in their foresight..providing a system that promotes an over all cohesiveness of these "united states' by demanding a distribution of popular support to duly elected individuals while enhancing the importance of minority interests thus, stabilizing the country by encouraging more than a one party system and offering stability and protection and representation for all.
I'm gonna just go back to fluffing now...k?
mac, if it weren't for the inbreeding would like to have been king class
*that wsn't a typo...i actually like to say paraaaaaaaactice!
*wsn't, on the other hand was very much a typo
