"We have a duty and responsibility to cast our electoral votes behind the president if he wins West Virginia," Capehart said. "Because that's what the Republican Party expected when they chose us."
This is a telling statement. Shouldn't Capehart be more concerned about this guy representing the popular vote, in other words, the voice of the majority of people of West Virginia...instead of standing "behind the president?"
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. He said "if he wins West Virginia". The states DO represent the popular vote, and the only way this joker can be the elector would be if Bush does win the popular vote.
If Bush doesn't win the popular vote there, then the Democrat electors will cast the votes in the electorial college.
There are two sets of electoral college voters... one for each party.
The US two-party-only system has always baffled me. Every thing I learn more about the system supports the concept that it is pretty much by law only a two-party state.
For example, your above comment. What would happen if an independant candidate won a state? Who would be the electoral college voter?
It is a two party system because of emergent effects from the voting system [denbeste.nu] (about 1/3rd of the way in to that piece). I also think that link is the best defense of the current system. I used to think our voting system was flawed for the usual reasons trotted out on Slashdot but now I think not many people understand how well our system works; voting between "two evils" is actually something of a feature.
Also note that today's Republican Party is a third party. They killed off the Whig party a long time ag
Note: On the world stage, many view the entire U.S. system as skewed to the Right.
One example, politicalcompass.com [politicalcompass.com] puts Kerry nearly center on a graph of left/right and also of authoritarian/libertarian, with GWB further right and authoritarian than Kerry.
A differnt type of world leader, such as Ghandi and Nelson Mandella fall left and libertarian.
In that light, Kerry's the more "centered" to the world, which GWB is the radical. The far left in the Dems are probably quite a way over on the graph, but could be either authoritarian or libertarian depending on their views.
Of interesting note, virtually no world leaders fall in the Libertarian/Right quadrant - a rare person indeed.
> One example, politicalcompass.com puts Kerry nearly center > on a graph of left/right and also of authoritarian/libertarian, > with GWB further right and authoritarian than Kerry.
I guess it goes to show that one should be careful in labeling people. To a Nazi*, everybody's a radical leftist.
* Note to itchy Godwin** wannabes: I'm not calling Bush a Nazi
** I just thought of this; Now that there's a politics section, maybe Slashdot*** should add a moderation score for "Godwin's Law". Whether it's -
Yes, true. If he personally answered them instead of going by his policies which are tempered toward the middle by his desire to keep his approval ratings high, he'd be even further right, and probably more authoritarian.
The solution to a problem changes the nature of the problem.
-- Peer
Stand behind the president? What? (Score:2)
This is a telling statement. Shouldn't Capehart be more concerned about this guy representing the popular vote, in other words, the voice of the majority of people of West Virginia...instead of standing "behind the president?"
tcd004
Re:Stand behind the president? What? (Score:3, Insightful)
If Bush doesn't win the popular vote there, then the Democrat electors will cast the votes in the electorial college.
There are two sets of electoral college voters... one for each party.
As an outsider... (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, your above comment. What would happen if an independant candidate won a state? Who would be the electoral college voter?
Re:As an outsider... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also note that today's Republican Party is a third party. They killed off the Whig party a long time ag
Re:As an outsider... (Score:5, Informative)
One example, politicalcompass.com [politicalcompass.com] puts Kerry nearly center on a graph of left/right and also of authoritarian/libertarian, with GWB further right and authoritarian than Kerry.
A differnt type of world leader, such as Ghandi and Nelson Mandella fall left and libertarian.
In that light, Kerry's the more "centered" to the world, which GWB is the radical. The far left in the Dems are probably quite a way over on the graph, but could be either authoritarian or libertarian depending on their views.
Of interesting note, virtually no world leaders fall in the Libertarian/Right quadrant - a rare person indeed.
Re:As an outsider... (Score:3, Informative)
politicalcompass.ORG [politicalcompass.org]
Oops.
Re:As an outsider... (Score:2)
> on a graph of left/right and also of authoritarian/libertarian,
> with GWB further right and authoritarian than Kerry.
I guess it goes to show that one should be careful in labeling people. To a Nazi*, everybody's a radical leftist.
* Note to itchy Godwin** wannabes: I'm not calling Bush a Nazi
** I just thought of this; Now that there's a politics section, maybe Slashdot*** should add a moderation score for "Godwin's Law". Whether it's -
Re:As an outsider... (Score:2)
Re:As an outsider... (Score:2)