02-18-2004, 11:36 AM
As a non-US citizen I can not help you too much on this subject. I am replying because I have also wondered this very often. I think the main reason and benefit of this sytem is that you after the elections have no problems forming a coallition, you can more or less directly start governing.
But like you, I see more disadvantages then advantages of this sytem.
First the way the candidate is chosen (now the democratic one) is strange. I think you are right in saying that the last peoples votes don't count so much, and that the first state is very important. Now, senator Kerry is winning almost all of the states. I think the results would be different if let's say Dean won the first state. People tend to vote more for "other peoples opinion" then for their own, I think.
(then the strange thing in I believe Wisconsin where also republicans could vote for the democratic candidate). It would seem more logical that members of a certain party would cast their votes by mail (or at a meeting), all at the same time.
At the presidents election: after last elections it became clear in a painful way that the system of all votes in one state going to the winner (I forgot the name), is at least highly questionable. You can become president of the most powerful country in the world without being chosen by the majority.
Than I would like to add some questions in your post (I don't know if this is done/allowed, if not please ignore my questions).
Is it true that before you can vote, you have to register yourself somewhere as a voter (and that this costs money).?
And do you think that a candidate not backed up by representatives of large companies (so also does not get any campaign money) ( in other words really represents normal people) makes a chance of becoming president of the US?
eppie
But like you, I see more disadvantages then advantages of this sytem.
First the way the candidate is chosen (now the democratic one) is strange. I think you are right in saying that the last peoples votes don't count so much, and that the first state is very important. Now, senator Kerry is winning almost all of the states. I think the results would be different if let's say Dean won the first state. People tend to vote more for "other peoples opinion" then for their own, I think.
(then the strange thing in I believe Wisconsin where also republicans could vote for the democratic candidate). It would seem more logical that members of a certain party would cast their votes by mail (or at a meeting), all at the same time.
At the presidents election: after last elections it became clear in a painful way that the system of all votes in one state going to the winner (I forgot the name), is at least highly questionable. You can become president of the most powerful country in the world without being chosen by the majority.
Than I would like to add some questions in your post (I don't know if this is done/allowed, if not please ignore my questions).
Is it true that before you can vote, you have to register yourself somewhere as a voter (and that this costs money).?
And do you think that a candidate not backed up by representatives of large companies (so also does not get any campaign money) ( in other words really represents normal people) makes a chance of becoming president of the US?
eppie