Forum Archive Index - January 2004

["Allan Potts" <ajp7079@excite.com>]

Dear David,

I guess what I was trying to say, indirectly, was that the American people, are 
the one's pulling the strings of W, which is as it should be. The "silent 
majority" you speak of encompasses those lobby groups cited and a few others.

Your point of the "50:50 balance of influence on the direction of government, 
more particularly internationally, which is naturally our outsider's main area 
of concern" is accurate.  However, W is not seeking the votes of citizens of 
any country other than the U.S.

Again, IMO this is the way it should be.  We elected him, if he started to pay 
attention to the whim of the French, he would certainly not be re-elected.

As to the "legality" of George Bush's win -- that has been settled.  The news 
media, with a collective and bitter hate of George Bush ran a recount after the 
election and concluded that he did indeed win Florida.  Winning Florida, meant 
he won the election.  I don't know if you are familiar with our system, but we 
have 50 sovereign states.  The candidate who obtains the majority of votes in 
each of those states wins all the electoral votes of that state.  This makes it 
possible for a candidate to be duly elected as  President without receiving a 
majority of the votes cast throughout the country, but having a majority of 
enough states to win the electoral college vote.

As a quick example lets take three states and for simplicity sake say they have 
equal populations and equal electoral college votes.  Candidate A wins state 1  
2 by 1 vote each.  Candidate B wins state 3 by 40,000,000 votes.  Result:  
Candidate A wins the election since the total electoral college votes of states 
1  2 are twice the votes of state 3, although the popular vote of all three 
states was 39,999,998 greater for candidate B.  THIS IS OUR SYSTEM AND ALWAYS 
HAS BEEN.  The election of W is no longer disputable, except by dishonest 
partisan's.

It might also shock Kiwi's to find out that this compartmentalization of ours 
extends to many areas.  NZ for instance (as I understand it) has one policed 
department throughout many locations.  In our little San Diego County we have 
some 14 separate police departments.  Each one is different, rules, uniforms, 
laws and police cars.  The reason is we do not like centralization.  Each city 
and county has it's own laws and tax rates.  Multiply this by the thousands of 
jurisdictions we have in our country and you can see we do not like 
centralization.  This extends to the election of our President ergo each state 
has "it's own say" in the  election.

This is probably very foreign to Kiwi's, but then we are foreigners.  Nice 
foreigners, but nevertheless foreigners.  Unfortunately we're not quite as nice 
as Kiwi's, but some of us try.

At the end of the day, I accept your impartiality claim;I did wish  however to 
test your concept of just who was  pulling W's strings.

Allan 

 




_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/chat/forum/