02-18-2004, 09:24 AM
I have always been a bit amazed about the system of electing a President in the USA. Admittedly, I am not aware of all the details and one of the questions would be to get some more information, but any way.
How can a election system be fair and good, were people vote âa fewâ at a time, and were they are told what the result of previous people voting are? A system were candidate can drop out after a while, thus completely altering the choice for voting for later voters, with possible drastic changes in the result. On top of that, the time frame is quite dragged out so that other things, events, information popping up along the way, may also affect peoples views and change the voting. In addition, those unlucky people âvotingâ at the end, are almost always aware that their votes really doesnât matter since the result of almost everyone else is already known. How could such a system be considered fair and good and be considered OK for a âdemocraticâ (not in the sense of democracy, republic, monarchy, whatever, but as opposed to dictatorships for example) nation? What am I missing? The fact that in this particular case the âa few at a timeâ happens to be the same as those living in the same state doesnât alter anything in my opinion. So any clarification or information would be appreciated.
On a more informational issue, it is my understanding that, at least in the actual election for a president (which will be this fall, no?) the winner of a state would get all the âvotesâ from it. How would that, work out when there is more than 2 candidates. I can see that in the final voting one can do multiple rounds, like is common in many countries when electing presidents, but in the voting of the public in the individual states, there seem to only be one round, how do one handle multiple candidates (more than 2) there?
Well, that is it for now. I am sure more questions will come when I get some more input on this whole thing which to me seems very strange and not the way elections should be done.
How can a election system be fair and good, were people vote âa fewâ at a time, and were they are told what the result of previous people voting are? A system were candidate can drop out after a while, thus completely altering the choice for voting for later voters, with possible drastic changes in the result. On top of that, the time frame is quite dragged out so that other things, events, information popping up along the way, may also affect peoples views and change the voting. In addition, those unlucky people âvotingâ at the end, are almost always aware that their votes really doesnât matter since the result of almost everyone else is already known. How could such a system be considered fair and good and be considered OK for a âdemocraticâ (not in the sense of democracy, republic, monarchy, whatever, but as opposed to dictatorships for example) nation? What am I missing? The fact that in this particular case the âa few at a timeâ happens to be the same as those living in the same state doesnât alter anything in my opinion. So any clarification or information would be appreciated.
On a more informational issue, it is my understanding that, at least in the actual election for a president (which will be this fall, no?) the winner of a state would get all the âvotesâ from it. How would that, work out when there is more than 2 candidates. I can see that in the final voting one can do multiple rounds, like is common in many countries when electing presidents, but in the voting of the public in the individual states, there seem to only be one round, how do one handle multiple candidates (more than 2) there?
Well, that is it for now. I am sure more questions will come when I get some more input on this whole thing which to me seems very strange and not the way elections should be done.
There are three types of people in the world. Those who can count and those who can't.