This is incredible, I live in the great state of New Mexico, and as I was watching the news last night, I saw the final results of OUR recount (New Mexico had a bunch of missing ballots and the found them)

New Mexico originally went to Gore, now it's been moved to undecided, because...

The amount of votes seperating Gore and Bush are......

*Drumroll Please*

4 votes

yes 4 votes

New Mexico has 5 electoral votes so it is somewhat of an issue in this election.

Can we say closest election ever? 4 votes.. guess I did make a difference! Oh and New Mexico now favors Bush, who is in the lead... by... 4 votes

It's a helluva ride, that's for sure; and as Clinton said, it gives the lie to the idea that anyone's vote is not important.

See Hilary also stated in her latest speeches, she would like to do away with electoral college, Al Gore says majority wins, Billie Boy says lift US sanctions off Cuban Cigars.

Hillary didnt mind that her husband wond by 43% of the popular vote in '92, The majority says abortion is wrong, Billie is looking for a new intern.

This is showing a true Democracy for which this Great Nation is not about. We do not need to give a doctor the same pay as we give a guy sweeping the floor. Sorry When Bush finally gets it we will be ok for a few seconds.

Originally posted by etLux
It's a helluva ride, that's for sure; and as Clinton said, it gives the lie to the idea that anyone's vote is not important. That's one way to look at it. Or you could look at it that for those people who voted for Gore, who recieved more votes nationwide than Bush, their votes weren't too important at all.

Or you could look at it that we're still talking about hundreds of votes deciding Florida, and thousands separating the two candidates nationwide, and think that any one vote still didn't make a difference, and never has in any election of national significance in the US.

And you could look at it that the thousands of votes thrown out, and the thousands miscounted with the result that each recount has a different tally than the one before, aren't exclusive to Florida and aren't exclusive to this election. Even if you accept that your vote might be significant, you have little guarantee that it will be counted accurately, or at all.

JayC
The "C" stands for "Cynical"

I agree completely on the matter of miscounted and uncounted votes. This is, in the most literal sense, criminal.

On the other hand, the matter of the electoral college and the popular vote remains widely misunderstood.

The United States is not a constitutional democracy which elects by popular vote; nor has it ever been,

Rather, we are a republic of federated states, with each state casting its decision individually.

Within this framework, it is entirely possible to lose the popular vote nationally, yet win the Whitehouse. It is fully constitutional and proper within our law.

Changing this implies a denial of states' rights, which is amongst the reasons it has been historically difficult to do.

This election, however, will bring a great deal of focus to the issue of whether or not we should indeed restructure this method of electing our presidents.

Of course it's "constitutional and proper within our law." That doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea.

Historically, maybe it made sense. The electoral college was created as a sort of compromise between those who wanted "the people" to directly elect the president, and those who wanted that power to go to Congress. The compromise was that instead of Congress, the presidential vote would go to group of "learned members," with the assumption being that the everyday citizen of the late 18th century, a citizen who lived in for example New York, would have no way to judge a candidate who lived in Massachusetts or many of the other states. Presumably, the members of the electoral college would make an effort to educate themselves about the candidate; theoretically they'd be better prepared to make the decision than the average man (because, of course, only men could vote) would be.

None of that applies today.

There've been changes to the system -- originally, for example, there were no vice presidential candidates. Each elector voted for two presidential candidates, and the second-place candidate was the VP. That, of course, created the situation of a president and vice president from different parties, and so as the two-party system strengthened it was changed.

That change, in fact, helps illustrate the real value of the electoral system to those who could change it: it consolidates power. Look at Perot's first presidential run: a formidable showing in the popular vote, but never a threat in the electoral college.

All true, correct, and interesting history, JayC.

I never said this was a good idea... merely pointed up that it is indeed our present law.

Originally posted by etLux
All true, correct, and interesting history, JayC.Thanks. I had reason, actually, last presidential election cycle to thoroughly research the electoral process for my job. So I was prepared for the current mess! ;)

I wonder what the likelihood of a constitutional amendment is...

Few people are aware that the US is a federated republic -- most think it is a democracy.

Since this debacle has undoubtedly and very dramatically disavowed a great many citizens of their faulty understanding of our governmental process for presidential election, it might just raise enough outcry for reform to actually accomplish something.

In fact, even though you often hear both politicians and pundits say that this country was "founded as a democracy," a search through the text of the Constitution will reveal that the word never appears. The document does state: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government..." It then, of course, goes on to lay out how the representatives of the people will be chosen.

A commonly used term these days is "representative democracy," but to a political scientist or anyone careful about the definitions of such terms that's self-contradictory. A democracy by definition is direct decisionmaking by the citizens.

On the other hand, definitions and word usage are constantly evolving, and so maybe the term "democracy" doesn't mean what historically has. Once most people are using a word to mean any particular thing, how can it mean anything else?

Think of that as democracy in action.

I like to think of us as a haphazardly benevolent oligarchy.

It certainly could be argued that the United States is an aristocracy. I mean, everyone in the running is wealthy, all went to ivy league schools, etc. I've never seen "the common man" running for president (and I'll just skip that they've all been white males, another topic entirely).

It's entirely true, Chicken.

Not a one of our presidents has had feathers; nor has even one of them been a poor, down-trodden, barnyard animal of any kind.

As they say, "I feel your pain."

In fact, regarding aristocracy, we often hear today comments about the intent of the "framers of the constitution;" and that's arguably exactly the intent. Remember, only white male landowners -- the priviledged upper class -- even got to vote at that time.

In fact, wasn't the first US currency emblazoned with "Founded and Ruled by Rich Dudes"?

Chicken:

I hope never to see a "common man" in the White House. Anyone who even comes close to being elected President will have already been largely successful at just about everything they've attempted. The job attracts "uncommon" people, be it man or woman.

Of course, my wife would chime in: "You're being redundant. All men are common!"

The last thing I'd want to see in the Whitehouse is the "common man" -- who can't figure out how to pay the bills half the time, and often decides tossing back a few brews and flirting with a floozy or two is the best way to deal with his problems.

On the other hand... come to think of it... that doesn't sound too far from the mark of what we get in there anyway.

Anyone for a good cigar?