1. The founding fathers called for democratic elections in the house of representatives.

   These elections had a population base of 30,000.

   In these elections, voters would either know personally the candidates, or would have friends who knew the candidates personally.

   A national election from a population base of 280 million people has got to be the most inaccurate way to select the nation’s foremost executive leader.

   How many people out there know George Bush/John Kerry personally, or have a friend of Bush/Kerry who can tell you what they are really all about?

   I voted for Badnarik. A lot of my friends who know him said he was the best candidate.

2. It would be foolish to say, “I met Michael Badnarik. I didn’t meet Bush or Kerry. So I preferred Badnarik because I knew him.”
   However, I also read a lot about the campaign and the various promises and other statements, including lies and general hogwash, made by Bush and Kerry and Nader and Peroutka.
   Even taking into account the bias and ignorance of the “news” media, any intelligent voter can make choices among many candidates, even without meeting any of them personally.
   Which is why, of course, I knew Badnarik was far and away the best choice.
   Caveat: “intelligent.”
   Because of the miserable failure of the government schools and because of the bias and ignorance of the “news” media, added to the intentions of the Founders, added to plain common sense as to what the federal government ought and ought not to be, it should be apparent, even obvious that the Electoral College system is far, far preferable to the popular election of the president.

3. I have to strongly disagree with the two previous posters. What can be more accurate than what the plurality of the American voters decide?

4. Chris,

   Voters will invest the amount of time researching their votes proportional to the amount of value their vote has.

   If 280 million people are voting, how valuable do you you think your vote is?

   Not very valuable. That is one reason why half the people don’t even vote.

   For those that did research, they soon learned that only Bush and Kerry had a chance to win, two candidates with the same positions on most of the issues, making your vote even less important.

   I’d say working one hour at minimum wage is more productive than spending one hour researching your vote for president or spending an hour of your day to go and vote.

   In the NFL and the NBA the best teams usually win. In our current presidential elections, the best president never wins.

   Hence, the election is “inaccurate”.

5. I’d like to add another point.

   We use the jury system because it is “more accurate” in determing guilt or innocence than trying people in the media.

   In a 21st century presidential election, we are “trying” our candidates in the media and not getting accurate results.

   The quality of who is acceptable is so bad, that we just confirmed a new CIA Director, in public hearings, that doesn’t even know what the 4th amendment says. Please see:

   Senators Confirm their Disdain for the Constitution
   http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/05/27/senators-confirm-their-disdain-for-the-constitution/

6. Chris, “accuracy” must be in the eye or mind or something of the beholder.
   A majority can vote to take away the rights of the minority.
   And that has happened often.
   The president is supposed to be merely a, in effect, CEO of the federal government, not of the country.
   The Constitution set up THESE United States, a union of sovereign states.
   The president is supposed to be chosen by those states, not by the (usually misinformed and/or misled) masses.
   The problem is, simply, the very nature of government.

7. Michael, would you rather have the minority take away the rights of the majority?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.