"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
ScottW wrote:
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
thlink.net...
"New Geoff" m.gjb SPHERICAL wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote stuff...
I'm sorry - I seem to have missed the references to audio and
equipment .
.
.
What was the point you were making?
Remembering that most of us in Europe have no interest in your
inherently
corrupt election system . . .
Inherently corrupt? What bull****.
I think the primary system is definitely corrupt. How else do you
explain the quality of candidate we see year in and year out?
ScottW
In a strange sort of way, I think Nader has a valid criticism when he
describes
both the Republican and Democratic candidates as being controlled by
corporations who foot the bills.
Which is why we need to get rid of most of the "protection" that are
targeted at business. It turns the system into a bribe fest.
Sure, it's somewhat hyperboolic, but there's
more than a grain of truth in this.
Also, thanks to our antiquated "Electoral College: system and
winner-take-all
state voting systems, the US has the dubious distinction of being one of
the
few "democratic" countries in which candidates for President can lose the
popular, majority vote, but get elected anyhow.
It forces candidates to run towards the middle. They can't be to extreme or
they lose.
The number of times when the electoral college and the electorate didn't
agree is 3 IIRC. Hardly something to worry about.
I fear what would happen if the electoral college disappeared and the east
and west coasts were electing the president.