[GCFL-discuss] Our voices

[gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net]

Hi Lance,

Its nice to be in agreement with you for a change. I have a sense that
most of the "hot-button" political issues could be resolved in a manner
that 75-85% of us could live with, except the questions are always
defined by someone with a political interest in getting someone riled up
over it. I think this approach to elections could help move things toward
some kind of consensus building, which might even give us back some sort
of national unity.

And, yes, I have been thinking about it for a long time, off and on. When
I was finishing high school there was serious talk about getting rid of
the electoral college, especially looking at what could have happened in
the 1968 election. But nobody ever agreed on how to do it. All kinds of
little constituencies came to the idea that the electoral college did
give their little crowd some special influence, and the idea was
gradually dropped. So I did keep thinking now and then, how could it
work?

(The electoral college was NOT originally a way to divide presidential
votes by state. It was based on the theory that most of the voters didn't
know enough about the candidates or about what the president should do,
so they should elect some local people they knew and trusted, who would
examine the best qualified candidates and vote to elect someone).

Anyway, maybe if enough people like this approach, we could start a five
or ten or fifty year campaign to get it adopted.

Siarlys


On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:06:47 -0700 gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net writes:
>Wow Siarlys, that's an AWESOME! suggestion! I like that idea VERY
>much. Reads like you put much thinking into this proposal and I very
>much agree with it.
>
>God bless you,
>Lance


________________________________________________________________
Get your name as your email address.
Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more
Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today!