Can someone help me out with this?

[seetiger33]

So the people choose who they would like there representative to be pres. based on delegates and states won correct?

SOOOO WHY IS IT NO MATTER IF THE PEOPLE OF THIS GREAT NATION CHOOSE THERE REPRESENTATIVE DO THEY SAY WELL WE DONT CARE WE WILL WIN BECAUSE OUR GOVERNMENT HAS THIS THING OF SUPERDELEGATES? WHAAAAAAT SO ARE THEY SAYING WE CAN BE OVERRULED? IM LOST ON THIS ISSUE

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/ ... rrelevant/

[Swayde]

Sounds like the same way someone can win the popular vote and still not be president just because they happen to get enough delegates in the key states with more power. It doesn't seem entirely fair or democratic, but then again I don't think politics were ever meant to be fair.

[natebell]

super delegates are for the democratic party, NOT our government do not mix the two

the electoral college however is similar but not as bad. simply put the reason the electoral college allows for someone to be elected but not get the popular vote is because say a state has 51% of the population of the US, they get 51% of the electoral college votes for pres. just like they would get 51% of the house of reps votes. that is how it works. if only 1% of that state's population voted, all voted for candidate A then candidate A would have 1% of 51% (or .51%, half of a percent, small) of the entire vote of the US, then lets say that everyone else in the US from other states (the other 49%) voted for B, the other states had 100% voter turn out, so B gets 49% of the vote while A gets only .5% of the vote, then you have a small percentage of people electing A without a majority. that sounds bad right?

not really when you think of cities vs. rural area voting. socialists/communists would love for us to get rid of the electoral college because it would allow them to use cities to control the rest of the country, it would only be a great idea to get rid of the electoral college if you also required states to split their votes up instead of a candidate getting the entire states points, when only 51% voted for that candidate. but even that might not be fair, the electoral college is protecting the states more so than protecting our direct popular vote

bottom line, if we start changing our system now and allow "blue" america (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/) to control the nation we are doomed politically, we will REALLY be ruled by a few

read up on why our founding fathers DID NOT make this nation a true outright democracy. they wanted the states to rule themselves, and not have the people in other states dictating how everyone in the nation had to live. we'd have to live like CA and NY if we allowed a popular vote nationwide

if we want this country to be truly free, where people are free to do as they please, even things you might not like, then you have to move the power back to the states and away from the federal government. otherwise you will have the Bible being outlawed, in the entire nation, not just some states, be careful what you ask for when it comes to the "popular" vote on national issues

note on the link above: this site shows the state by state and the county by county votes in the 2004 pres. election. however, notice that the authors of the cartograms are probably of a political persuasion opposite of myself, they are arguing why the county by county is unfair, because they want the popular vote to matter more, because they want the city dwellers on either coast to dictate what the rest of us have to do with our money and liberty!

NEVER vote to take away the rights of others, or someday you will have your rights voted away from you, it would only be a matter of time