This is going to be a confused, rambling mess, but bear with me. ;)

If you'll remove the 2 electoral votes of each state that are based on its senators from your example you'll find that the number of votes is based on population, but of course, population alone isn't the only consideration in America.

No one’s vote counts more than anyone else's. My North Carolina vote should be no more important that someone's from Hawaii or Nevada, and no less important than someone's from Florida or California or New York.

Remember, the US Senate seats are not based on population. Every state gets two Senators and, therefore, an equal say in the Union. No matter how large or small the state, they receive equal representation on this level.

The House of Representatives' seats are based on population, so that large states do get their fair share of representation in that way.

When the founding fathers worked out this plan, they had to find something that would bring both large and small states together. Dividing the power between the house and the senate over population versus statehood is the compromise that was developed over 200 years ago, and it still works today. All states are equal under the US government and receive equal representation in the senate, while population provides for the level of representation in the House. It's the best of both worlds. ;)

The House and Senate representatives of each state are a representation of population and statehood. That's how the combined population votes of states are balanced against the fact that each state is important to the Union and equal within the Union. We have rights, not only as Americans, but also as citizens of our state, and as such, rural states are entitled to the same statehood benefits provided urban states. In this way, a number of smaller states can rival the votes of a large one.

It may seem unfair on the surface, but if you’ll look deeper, you’ll see that the two electoral votes each state receives for their senators are actually “equalizing” votes. The entire Electoral process was implemented to balance the rights of large and small states.

And if that didn’t confuse you, nothing ever will…lol. :D

<font color="#33cc33">Good Post B-Man, That pretty well explains it [img]smile.gif[/img] And just so that Johnny is not completely ragged. I think that there is no way to tell whats going to change in China due to this latest proclamation.. For all we know, it may just be another ruse to lure foreign hard currency into the country, after wich everything built can be re-nationalized.</font>

Did it really make sense? I had my doubts...lol. :D

Regarding China, it is any man's guess whether this is real or rhetoric or some combination.

I remember being in a state of disbelief when the Berlin Wall came down, and it seemed the Soviet Union was helpless to stop it and was beginning to dissolve. When the protestors in Tiananmen Square were allowed to stay day after day and voice their protests, I thought, this is really the end of Communism as we know it. Of course, those thoughts were before the tanks rolled and the open fire orders were given.

We'll have to wait and see what the "old school" Communists think about these changes. ;)

[ 11-10-2002, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

All of you political debatists need to take a look at this link:
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame55.html

Taken in good spirits I'm sure you'll agree there's a little bit of 'Idealogue' in all of us [img]smile.gif[/img]

ps: Check out the rest of the site too. Phucking hilarious! :D

<font color="#33cc33">Waaay funny site dude : Trogledites and weenies [img]smile.gif[/img] hehehee thanks for the monday morning laugh [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

LOL, that kind of goes with your thread MagiK. Troglodytes vs. weenies.
P.S. About Chinas. Remember Mao and "Let a thousand flowers bloom?"

A very reasonable comparison can be made,
Depriving people of the right to vote, is the act of a tyrant, plain and simple.
The chief executive officer of the state, the governor, and ultimate overseer of election statutes, was Jeb Bush, younger brother of the candidate. It is relevant to note that the exit polling data from Voter News Service, based on strategically-placed questioning of large numbers of actual voters who just voted, has an incredible record of historical accuracy. If their data shows the election to be excessively close (as in New Mexico, Oregon and Wisconsin) they say it is "too close to call." Their record is so impressive and reliable that Dan Rather (using their numbers) said that "if we call a state, you can put it in the bank." The data reflecting the intended votes in Florida showed that it was close, but that Gore was the clear winner, which is why the state was called for him early on, and consistent with the calculations by the Miami Herald cited previously. Voter News Service and the networks have been criticized for this rare "mistake" but based on the facts, it appears that Voter News Service and the networks were not wrong at all. When the state was first called for Gore, Jeb Bush and his staff objected, saying they knew there were more votes for Dubya. How did they know that? The actual votes had not been counted yet! If Jeb Bush "knew" something, it could only have been because he "knew" he could control the delivery of enough votes to make the difference. This is the same governor who had previously VETOED a voter education measure passed by his own Republican legislature ... and then joined the chorus of those critical of senior citizen or inexperienced voters who were confused by ballots that clearly violated legal requirements.
</font>[/QUOTE]

Well, the above excerpt, along with the rest of your post is exceptional. There is no doubt that the "butterfly ballots" of very Jewish and very Democratic Palm Beach, the Tallahassee Black Voters, the interrelations of the Republican administration officials in FL, and the conflicted interests of Supreme Court justices (SD OConnor made a very vocal comment during election returns) came together to result in a breakdown of the American election process. And very embarrassing it was.

While this whole endeavour runs way [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] , I will add that the Wall Street Journal ran a wonderful account of how Bush won the recount - where the real victory was. Thousands of ballots were dealt with on an individual basis, examining them in court in Florida. The lawyers went through literally piles of ballots, arguing over whether the vote should count or not. The WSJ quoted the same Bush lawyers making exactly opposite statements regarding ballots with the same defects cast by Republicans as they made when such deficient ballots were cast by Democrats. As with the Clinton years, the victor was the one who had the best lawyers. :D

[ 11-11-2002, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

This was hilarious. I started recognizing folks from IW immediately!

This was hilarious. I started recognizing folks from IW immediately!</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#ff6666">I couldn't pin any of those tags on anyone here at IW, TL just about everyone fits more than one description [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

<font color="#ff6666">I couldn't pin any of those tags on anyone here at IW, TL just about everyone fits more than one description [img]smile.gif[/img] </font> [/QB][/QUOTE][QUOTE]

Not true, MagiK. *I* was the only one that you couldn't pin this tag on - as too many fit me depending on my mood. The rest of you, being stock characters put here merely to entertain me, fit neatly into a precise little stereotype. Oh... wait.. did I say that out loud? S**t, I did it again! Memo to self: shut mouth about being the only one in the universe who really has a soul. Damn.

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[ 11-11-2002, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]