The Existentialist Cowboy: How U.S. Elections May Violate the 14th Amendment
source: http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-us-elections-may-violate-14th.html
-
-
- Vierotchka
- added this
by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy
The ideal of 'one man, one vote' has NEVER been achieved. If your VOTE does not carry the same weight as does the vote of someone else, then YOUR rights under the 14th have been violated! For example, it is possible that a Presidential candidate could get a greater number of popular votes but, by losing a few large states, get fewer 'electoral college votes and, thus, lose the White House.
That's only one example and a more obvious one. On any given election, votes are NOT equal. Someone else's vote may be 'worth' more than yours or yours may be worth more than another person's. Votes are NOT equal. And, in some cases, some votes --perhaps your vote --may not even count.
In a democratic election between two candidates, the winner is the person with the majority of the votes. But when three or more candidates run, things are seldom so simple. The winner often amasses only a plurality, not a majority, of the votes. (Bill Clinton, for example, won the presidency with 43 percent of the vote; Jesse Ventura won the Minnesota governorship with 37 percent.) The plurality winner could be everybody else's least favorite candidate and could even lose to each of the other candidates in a head-to-head battle. As Saari puts it: "The plurality vote is the only procedure that will elect someone who's despised by almost two thirds of the voters."
--Discover Magazine, May the Best Man Lose, November 1, 2000
(click on the link for the full article)
The ideal of 'one man, one vote' has NEVER been achieved. If your VOTE does not carry the same weight as does the vote of someone else, then YOUR rights under the 14th have been violated! For example, it is possible that a Presidential candidate could get a greater number of popular votes but, by losing a few large states, get fewer 'electoral college votes and, thus, lose the White House.
That's only one example and a more obvious one. On any given election, votes are NOT equal. Someone else's vote may be 'worth' more than yours or yours may be worth more than another person's. Votes are NOT equal. And, in some cases, some votes --perhaps your vote --may not even count.
In a democratic election between two candidates, the winner is the person with the majority of the votes. But when three or more candidates run, things are seldom so simple. The winner often amasses only a plurality, not a majority, of the votes. (Bill Clinton, for example, won the presidency with 43 percent of the vote; Jesse Ventura won the Minnesota governorship with 37 percent.) The plurality winner could be everybody else's least favorite candidate and could even lose to each of the other candidates in a head-to-head battle. As Saari puts it: "The plurality vote is the only procedure that will elect someone who's despised by almost two thirds of the voters."
--Discover Magazine, May the Best Man Lose, November 1, 2000
(click on the link for the full article)
-
- groups:
- Community, KB723's Den of Iniquities
-
- tags:
- Politics, Elections, Constitution, US Elections, 1 more
-
- recommended by:
- Vierotchka
-
-
FoosMaster
-
Maybe have a "run-off" election? I kinda think that we should have a requirement of getting at least 51% of the vote to be elected and if nobody gets that then we should have a new group run till someone gets 51% or better.
- 4 months ago
-
FoosMaster
-
-
FoosMaster
-
FoosMaster:
Then again, that might take YEARS in the current political environment with Money being the key factor. :-(
- 4 months ago
-
FoosMaster
