In a message dated 2/5/2008 11:19:17 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Let's use the democrats as an example, since I actually know a couple of their names. In the present campaign then, the primaries would be determining if Obama or Clinton would be the candidate in the real election, which isn't really an election since some other electing body (the Electoral College?) actually elects the president based on lord only knows what criteria?
I think my eyes are bleeding. Gads, I suppose I should just google this. William Robb ============ Technically. But I think only two times in history (okay, maybe a few more but I'd have to look it up), has the popular vote and the electoral vote differed. The thing that's throwing you is that one of those times was the Gore/Bush election, but that was the first time since I don't know when, ages ago. Gore had more popular votes and Bush had more electoral votes. (Someone really wants to get precise about it, feel free to jump in.) That part is a bit Byzantine, I agree. And periodically people get steamed up about doing away with the electoral college. But to date, it hasn't happened. The historical roots for that are that originally only white men could vote (not women, not blacks, etc.) and they didn't trust the unwashed masses and wanted to limit the power of the popular vote. Of course, now it's one person, one vote, and I think we could well do away with the electoral college. Smaller states with low population though like it because it gives them more say. Sure you could, re google, but heck we can give you the Reader's Digest version. :-) The thing is what a big country we are, it slows everything down. And it costs a lot these days to win an election, so it all takes time. But I wouldn't mind it being a tad quicker. The other confusing thing is political pundits (and ordinary people) will discuss someone's future election chances years before the primaries even roll around. It doesn't mean the election has started, it just means we are always talking about future elections, four and eight years down the road too. They were talking about Hillary's chances years and years ago. So all of that future speculation also makes it look longer than it really is. It really takes about a year, but that included prep time, not the primaries. Primaries to general vote take less than a year (and if someone wants to be specific about that, jump right in.) Bit late here and my brain is a bit fogged. HTH, Marnie --------------------------------------------- Warning: I am now filtering my email, so you may be censored. **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025 48) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
