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?

Who says they are? They'd only be a problem if the obvious weaknesses in the
process remain unrepaired to the point that they would likely reappear in the
next election. I understand that the State has addressed those problems
although there may be some residual questions about the effectiveness of their
efforts. I imagine that time will tell.

--
Later
Kal