Obligatory Merkin election commentary
Nov. 3rd, 2004 12:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kingandyWhoo, check this out - I like the "Past Elections" tab. I find it fascinating that some presidents (like Nixon in '72 - not only winning the support of every state bar one, but also winning most of those states by a ratio of 2:1 or more) have won so very decisively. It's also interesting how often the map flip-flops between 90% red and an equivalent amount of blue. Though, that said, it seems to have been mostly red since about '68 (save a 50/50 split in '76, electing Jimmy Carter who - the Simpsons tells us - was one of history's monsters, and then near half-and-half again for the Clinton administration).
I find the US voting system, at least at first glance, somewhat flawed. The logistics were clearly derived in the days when communicating across country was a nontrivial feat (elect a voter who gets in his horse-drawn carriage and travels to Washington in your stead), but even so it seem very poorly thought out. I can understand giving, say, Texas more votes because there are more people there, but then giving every single vote to whatever candidate the majority of those people select (as appears to happen, based on that BBC presentation) almost seems to defeat the object. Surely it would make more sense to split the state into 34 regions, or assign the votes as a proportion of the "popular vote" or whatever. Out of interest, has a president ever won on states despite losing on the actual (popular) votes cast?
Wait, never mind, I remember now - that happened last time. Duh.
This is the most thought I have put into anything political for about five years, NWO aside. What can I say? The pretty map speaks to me.
I find the US voting system, at least at first glance, somewhat flawed. The logistics were clearly derived in the days when communicating across country was a nontrivial feat (elect a voter who gets in his horse-drawn carriage and travels to Washington in your stead), but even so it seem very poorly thought out. I can understand giving, say, Texas more votes because there are more people there, but then giving every single vote to whatever candidate the majority of those people select (as appears to happen, based on that BBC presentation) almost seems to defeat the object. Surely it would make more sense to split the state into 34 regions, or assign the votes as a proportion of the "popular vote" or whatever. Out of interest, has a president ever won on states despite losing on the actual (popular) votes cast?
Wait, never mind, I remember now - that happened last time. Duh.
This is the most thought I have put into anything political for about five years, NWO aside. What can I say? The pretty map speaks to me.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Represent!
Date: 2004-11-03 11:55 am (UTC)As for the archaic and flawed nature of the US electoral system, I read a US university paper not so long ago, regarding suggestions on change, and also read the "counter-arguments" against it. The paper was well thought through and would give more meaning to the individual votes cast, but the retorts were really very rabid and furious, saying that it was "un-american" and "an insult to the founding fathers' ideals".
Archaic and flawed are here to stay, it seems. We gave up on the Whigs a century ago - now to get rid of the Tories...
Re: Represent!
Date: 2004-11-03 01:14 pm (UTC)