
why can't they just count the votes and then tell us who won?
( ,
Wed 5 Nov 2008, 9:49,
archived)

60m voted Obama, 54m are mad fuckers. Makes me shiver.
( ,
Wed 5 Nov 2008, 10:42,
archived)

which would take Mathematics or as the Americans say (Math!) science is not yet at the stage of being able to calculate that 1 person + 1 vote = 1 vote sheesh you'd have to be Albert Einstein or something!
( ,
Wed 5 Nov 2008, 9:52,
archived)

The essence of the idea is that you vote for people wise enough to decide who should be president disinterestedly. There's no reason in principle why members of the electoral colleges should vote along party lines, though I think that there's only been one instance in the 20th century when that has not happened.
The idea is that you modify the tyrrany of the majority and account for the fact that the average joe can't reasonably be expected to have a sound enough grasp of every issue. Voting, in effect, becomes a matter of nominating people to speak on your behalf from a more informed position.
/making-it-up-as-he-goes-along blog.
( ,
Wed 5 Nov 2008, 9:54,
archived)
The idea is that you modify the tyrrany of the majority and account for the fact that the average joe can't reasonably be expected to have a sound enough grasp of every issue. Voting, in effect, becomes a matter of nominating people to speak on your behalf from a more informed position.
/making-it-up-as-he-goes-along blog.

it makes our system look really basic by comparison.
Basically each state is worth a ceratin amount of points... whoever gets the most points wins.
( ,
Wed 5 Nov 2008, 9:54,
archived)
Basically each state is worth a ceratin amount of points... whoever gets the most points wins.