On Nov 7, 2008, at 9:22 PM, Chris Benham wrote:
Kevin Venzke wrote (Fri.Nov.7):
Hi,
--- En date de : Ven 7.11.08, Markus Schulze <markus.schulze at
alumni.tu-berlin.de> a écrit :
> Second: It makes it possible that the elections
> are run by the governments of the individual
> states and don't have to be run by the central
> government.
I especially agree with this second point, or at least that it has
been
a good thing that the elections have not been conducted by a single
authority.
It's possible to imagine a different American history, if the federal
government had been in a position to cancel or postpone or
manipulate the
presidential election.
Presumably, under that scenario, 50 states could do that to state
elections. Not to mention a couple of dozen European democracies.
But which country has had its federal supreme court short-circuit a
national election?
Kevin Venzke
Kevin,
Why does having elections for national office run by a "central
authority"
like a federal electoral commission necessarily mean that the
"federal
government" (presumably you refer here to partisan office-holders with
a stake in the election outcome) would have the power to "cancel or
postpone or manipulate" the presidential election?
Can you please support your point by comparing the US with other
First World countries, perhaps just focussing on the last few decades?
Chris Benham
Search 1000's of available singles in your area at the new Yahoo!7
Dating. Get Started.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
