quote Originally posted by crashyoung: I have never met a poor business owner. I like your ploy to say I am an uneducated, dishonest, unsuccessful, recluse. My attitude is to converse with ray b and ask what his opinion of the past and the present is. You may continue to try to bait me, but it will fail. I wish you well! Turn your gaze inward and see your faults as I see them, before you try to point out mine...

You probably did however, meet a lot that were deep deep in debt, without 2 real nickels to rub together, but still presented all the trappings of wealth and success. There are also many individuals just like that as well--a few right here at PFF.
This is especially true in the service sector one owner business world--lots look successful--act successful--seem successfu--project success, but in reality don't have the proverbial pot to pee in or a window to throw it out of that doesn't belong to someone else--then eventually the house of cards falls thru and the world sees the reality of their facade. Posers, wannabes, dreamers, and wishful thinkers.
I've known lots who were like that, no real wealth and I've met lots who were truly successful and independently wealthy with little or no debt. It's not difficult to pick out what's real and what isn't either.

quote Originally posted by tbone42: I do to.. one person, one vote... my vote in Ohio should be every bit as valuable as a vote in California... it should not be "all or nothing" with electoral votes...I think the electoral college is a joke and not indicative at all of the will of "the people".

While I am hesitant to change a system that has stood all this time, I have lived in three states recently. California it didn't matter whether I voted or not. It would go Dem. Idaho would go republican. Washington would go Dem. The only way my vote would count is "one person, one vote".

If individual votes weren't important, they wouldn't had bothered to count all the chads in Florida!

THEY NEVER EVER DID COUNT THEM

THE COURT VOTED 4-5 TO STEAL THE ELECTION

AND BuSh2 LOST BY A 1/2 MILLION REAL VOTES
BUT THEY DID NOT COUNT

It is actually extremly ironic that the progressives are so in favor of this. After all, didn't they change the way that delegates to the 08 convention were apportioned out? If the old winner take all rules had been in effect, Hilary would have been the candidate.

quote Originally posted by ray b: THEY NEVER EVER DID COUNT THEM THE COURT VOTED 4-5 TO STEAL THE ELECTION AND BuSh2 LOST BY A 1/2 MILLION REAL VOTES BUT THEY DID NOT COUNT

The Electoral College voted bush in by delegates. The court in FL backed them up. Then the Supreme Court validated it.

Is this still a tender spot? Really, you should concentrate in helping the current regime stay in power, not revisiting an old election.

The 2000 election is history, let it go.

Ive always thought the electoral college method was stupid. I think a better way would be to give each state so many points for their percentage of the national population they have. Like if Ohio has 10% of the population by census, they should get say 10 points for the person who wins that state by popular vote. Then total up all the states and see who gets the most total national points. Either that or go really simple and make the whole election by popular vote across the board and do away with all other options completely.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: Ive always thought the electoral college method was stupid. I think a better way would be to give each state so many points for their percentage of the national population they have. Like if Ohio has 10% of the population by census, they should get say 10 points for the person who wins that state by popular vote. Then total up all the states and see who gets the most total national points. Either that or go really simple and make the whole election by popular vote across the board and do away with all other options completely.

Umm wow...

quote The United States is the only current example of an indirectly elected executive president, with an electoral college comprising electors representing the 50 states and the federal district. Each state has a number of electors equal to its total Congressional representation (in both houses), with the non-state District of Columbia receiving three electors and other non-state territories having no electors.

That's pretty close to what you said. Consider this, every state has 2 Senators and 1 Representative at a minimum. So every state has 3 Electoral votes. Now a state with a larger population has more Representatives because the number of Representatives is based off of the states population. So, California for example has more Representatives then Utah because it has a larger population. So basically, every state gets 3 votes plus more if they have a higher population. In essence the number of Electoral votes is based off of population outside those initial 3. Most states have a winner take all system, which is what you describe as being your opinion of design. Only 2 states split their Electoral votes based of the % each person receives. In reality, what you describe is basically how it works now.

Now, there are a fixed number of Representatives, but they are divided based off the current census based on the population of each state.

quote The total number of seats in the House of Representatives was fixed at 435 by the Reapportionment Act of 1929, creating one congressional district for each 674,000 residents (approximately). Each state is guaranteed at least one Representative, regardless of population. The remaining 385 seats are apportioned according to the individual states' populations as a percentage of the total US population, determined by the most recent census.

[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 09-04-2012).]