Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Kal Alexander" wrote:

wrote:
In rec.food.cooking John Gaquin wrote:

The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as a national
election in the USA, and that is what was intended. When any
country holds a broad-based national vote, there is great danger
that the direction of entire country can be controlled by the
desires of one or two densely populated urban areas, a circumstance
the framers specifically and particularly wished to prevent.

So its better to have one state control the election over all the
other states when that state's own balloting methods were clearly
inconsistent state-wide and in some counties such as West Palm
Beach, were antiquated, poorly designed, and too fragile to be
counted accuratedly? Makes sense to me! NOT!

I would just like to point out that this system that is being
derided, and Florida's rules that are being trashed were just fine
with everybody when they thought Gore had taken Florida. They were
just fine for Clinton, too.

Why are they a problem only now?

--
Later
Kal



Is the concept of actually counting the votes and basing the results
on
that so foreign to GOPs?

No. That system was acceptable when Clinton was elected, twice.
That same system was objected to by demo-rats only AFTER Gore
lost.

--
Later
Kal

--

---------------------------------------------------------
/ /
/ /
/ This space for rent /
/ /
/ /
---------------------------------------------------------