Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Personally, *I* think we want moral leadership, and Carter is looking
    better all the time.  I don't believe any one of those guys--not
    a one of them!  I think they really only want the office, and they
    care not one whit about issues!
    
    I think I could have done a better job in planning Bush's campaign
    than his high-priced advisors did.  I didn't believe a bit of it--
    the presidential limo, the semi-oval office.
    
    The thought of Robinson is truly frightening, but I think the people
    of Iowa voted their hopes when they voted for him--at least he is
    what he is.

Perhaps to start us on the wrong foot, but for the benefit of those of us who 
are bewildered by the American system of government: What is the difference
between a caucus and a primary?

				Nigel

    A Caucus:
    		Voters gather to vote for their favorite candidates
    		in a public forum - no secret ballot.  Several
    		ballots are taken, and candidate who recieve less
    		than 15% (In Iowa's rules, anyway) are considered
    		"not viable".  The supporters of those candidates
    		can then 'defect' to other candidates.  The delegates
    		to the convention are then alloted based on the number
    		of voters for each candidate.  (Each caucus is held
    		in a voting district, and each district gets a certain
    		number of delegates).  In Iowa's case, these delegates
    		elect the delegates to the state convention, who elect
    		delegates to the national convention.  Delegates are
    		legally bound to vote for the candidate they represent
    		on the first ballot only - after that they can switch.
    
    		Complicated enough?  :-)
    
    	Primary:
    
    		People vote by secret ballot to select a candidate.
     		The delegates to the national convention are determined
    		by the %of votes each candidate recieves.
    
    It's easy to see why a primary is considered more 'real' than a
    caucus...
    
    --  Dave
    

    Re: the high numbers for Robertson:
    
    Yesterday the radio station I listen to on the way home (which does not
    always get high marks for journalistic accuracy) predicted that
    Roberston would do much better than expected because the weather in
    Iowa was bad yesterday.  Apparently bad weather always favors minority
    candidates since their followers tend to be much more devoted (fanatic,
    if you will) while the majority is more likely to stay home, especially
    if they feel their vote doesn't mean much. 

    Cynically, however, I'm afraid that a great many people in this country
    right now do agree with the Robertson point of view.  They don't want
    freedom, they don't want justice, they just want to sit in their boxes
    and be comfortable and pretend that problems don't exist. 
    
    I never thought I'd be hoping for a Bush win, but even he's better
    than so many of the alternatives . . . 
    
    sigh.  
    
    --bonnie

 I am originally from N.H. and think it is possible that Robinson 
could make big gains there, if the N.H. voters decide he is a viable
candidate. N.H. is conservative and really likes the president.I
believe that is why bush is currently leading.I fear Robinson has
the potential of becoming a much more powerful candidate.I am no
longer able to say he is definitely not going to become president.
All I can say now is that it is very very unlikely.I think that
it will be close between Dukarkis and Simon.I also think that 
Robinson now has the potential to come in second in N.H. behind Bush.  
The country may be turning even further to the right if it does, 
the more liberal minded (myself included) are in for a ruff ride.  
What if Robinson wins? It boggles the mind.

     P.S. I do not know who I am going to vote for,but I do know
some I am not going to vote for.

              George D.

    re: .4
    
    Bonnie, while I'm also somewhat dismayed by the Robertson showing,
    (tho' not particularly surprised), I disagree a bit with what you
    said about ". . a great many people in this country. . .don't want
    freedom, they don't want justice, they just want to sit in their boxes
    and be comfortable and pretend that problems don't exist." 
    
    I think the problem may be "worse" in that I suspect that these
    people do indeed want justice, freedom and the solutions to
    all sorts of troubles.  The problem is that their definitions
    of freedom, justice, and "problems" differ greatly from yours
    (and mine, to be sure).  I have no doubt that they think Pat
    Robertson is the best person to solve those troubles.
    
    Steve (whose "optimistic" thought for the day is:  hey - it 
    coulda been Larouche. . .)
    

    re: .6
    
    Steve, thank you for the cheering thought.  That is just what I
    needed on a day like this.
    
    --bonnie

    Re: .5
    Not to pick nits, but it's "Robertson" and "Dukakis".  (As much
    as I'd like their names to be forgotten... ;-))
    
    Robertson is still not a viable candidate for President.  He is
    far too 'right' - even for the Republican party.  He has a higher
    'disapproval rating' than even Jesse Jackson.  However, he is still
    scary for one reason.  If he is able to take 15% of the Republican
    delegates (he did better than that in Iowa), he may be able to 
    use his power in the national convention to strike a deal making
    him the vice-presidential candidate.  (What a scary thought!).
    
    That would probably make the Democrats very happy, since they could
    probably beat any ticket with Robertson on it.  However, if they
    were to lose, and Robertson was elected VP, then we would all be
    one heart attack (or bullet) away from a facist theocracy.  Fun
    thought, huh?  A national law forbidding abortion and more 
    fundamentalist morals are yours!  By law!  
    
    OK, so there's still a congress.  A Robertson presidency would be
    the supreme test of the system of checks and balances...
    
    Dave
     

 RE:8  Good point,but I fear that I disagree, he now has to be
considered a long shot.

                 George D.

 As I understand it (from listening to radio shows and reading the paper),
Robertson has made a number of "strong showings" because he has mobilised
a bunch of people who were never before active in the process, namely those 
who know him from his days as a television evangelist.
 The simple-minded people who watch and send money to TV evangelists provide
an ideal power base for a candidate; they are willing (nay, eager) to vote for
Robertson NOT because they are complacent, NOT because they approve of his
policies, NOT because they want to keep America to the right of Reagan, but 
simply because they have been told that a vote for Robertson will keep God in
America (I may be paraphrasing his election campaign, but I heard a speech on 
CNN the other night when Pat Robertson used a phrase something like that). 


 Isn't here something in the Constitution about the separation of Church and
State???

			Nigel

    re: .9, sort of:
    
    I'm in New Hampshire (Nashua), and I'm worried.  
    
    Since the stock market plunge last fall, people here are running
    scared.  Nothing bad has happened yet, but they're waiting for the
    other shoe to fall.
    
    And there are hints that things are not as cool as they could be--
    housing prices are high, lots of two-income families are not living
    as comfortably as they used to be, lots of small companies are looking
    shaky, retail stores still have lots of merchandise left from Christmas
    that even big sales won't persuade anybody to buy.  
    
    So people have pulled their heads into their shells and don't want to
    come out.  PSNH went bankrupt?  Fine, as long as service continues
    and Seabrook doesn't come on line.  Problems in education?  My kid's
    doing all right, and he's not using drugs either.  Just shoot the
    dealers and get out of my hair, will you?
    
    
    DEC's kind of like an ivory tower.  Too many of us go from our good
    professional jobs to our nice passive-solar subdivisions in our
    air-conditioned imported cars and never even think about the problems
    faced by the people who are flipping hamburgers, making caskets,
    and shaping steel in the rest of town.  But there are a lot more
    of them than us, and they're running scared.  The people with jobs
    are afraid they're going to lose everything. 
    
    Before I came back to DEC, I spent a lot of time downtown, in places
    where the working class hangs out.  My favorite coffee shop is a
    hangout for workers for various candidates, mostly Democratic. Some of
    them were in their second campaign for Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson;
    they agreed that this time they were encountering not just apathy but
    outright hostility to any discussion of most social issues.  Deficit
    spending, trade balances, the arms talks, yes, but mention education or
    Affirmative Action or soup kitchens and you'd better duck. 
    
    I'm worried.  I'm real worried. 
    
    --bonnie

>     Isn't here something in the Constitution about the separation of Church and
>State???

    Yes, sort of, it's the Second Amendment and it forbids the State
    from creating a state religion (as in Church Of England) or from
    limiting the practice of religion. Certainly it does not ban people
    who believe in religion from participating in politics. (Thank
    goodness)
    
    I was not surprised by Pat Robertson's showing in Iowa. A caucus
    (a semi-unAmerican way of doing things if you ask me) is designed
    to put forward candidates with strong organizations and committed
    workers. It is *not* good at reflecting popular opinion. It was
    designed to let the Party bosses pick the candidates and still look
    like the people have a voice. This time it backfired on the party
    hacks. New Hampshire doesn't work that way.
    
    I don't expect Pat Robertson to pick-up much headway in NH based
    on Iowa. I expect him to do no better then third (at best) or fourth
    (behind a surging Jack Kemp). Bush and Dole should be 1 - 2 in NH.
    For Robertson to really be taken seriously as a success he has to
    be a clear second in New Hampshire. I don't see that happening.

    The really scary thing is Dukakis' third place finish. I shudder
    to think that that man has a chance.
    
    			Alfred

One little BIG difference between the Iowa Caucus and any other 
Primary...

In the caucus you do NOT have to be a registered voter, just a 
resident of legal age. 

In a primary you must be a REGISTERED voter.  

In one of the commentaries I heard this morning, that was a 
critical point in determining Robertson's incredible showing.  
His organization was all out there, getting people who had 
committed to vote ( registered or unregistered) to the caucusing 
centers.  Getting them transportation, etc.  The story should 
come out a little different in NH. -- at least according to the 
commentary I heard this morning.

I'm making sure I'm registered -- for the Massachusetts primary.

Roxanne

    
    I still find it hard to believe that Robertson has a realistic
    chance of winning the Republican party nomination, but if he
    gets a lot of votes, he may be able to influence the party ticket.
    So we may see someone like Dole or Bush reaching out to the more
    conservative voters on issues like abortion, drug testing, HIV testing,
    etc.  I sure hope that the Democrats can win this one.
                 
    Justine
    

    What might happen with a strong showing by Robertson is that more
    people will get out and vote "against" him.  (This is a hopeful
    result.)  Also, many people who DON'T care about politics might
    get involved.  It is very scary to think that he could influence 
    the Republican platform.  However, it is nearly equally as 
    scary to think that Bush could be president. Apparently, some of
    Reagan's teflon coating has rubbed off on Bush, but not enough!
    Why are we waiting until now to show displeasure for Reagan's antics?
    
    On the Democratic side, I am so tired of hearing - no good candidates.
    Then what about the issues?  Do you want Contra aid or SDI?  What
    about school prayer?  On any number of issues the Republicans and
    Democrats have opposing views.  When it get to this level - go on
    the issues and not the personalities involved.  If Mike Dukakis
    gets the nomination, I would vote for him, not because I like him
    (I wouldn't vote for him in the primary), but because I am against
    Contra aid and SDI among lots of other things.  If any Republican
    gets elected, we'll have four more years of Contra aid, SDI and
    maybe the chance that our children will be involved in a war in
    Latin America.  
    
    Nope, I'll go with the candidate's stand on the issues - not their
    personalities - Reagan supposedly has a great personality (I've
    never seen his appeal), but will he be remembered as a good president?

    re: .15 and personalities --
    
    It's all very well and good to say that you should vote the issues

    and not the candidates.  One's media appearance has so little to
    do with one's true qualifications for any public office, and often
    the best-qualified candidates have the poorest public appearance.
    
    However, a great part of the President's job is that elusive quality
    called leadership.  That's an aspect of personality.  
    
    In difficult international situations, such as the Persian gulf
    situation, the president often has to deal directly with high-ranking
    officials of possibly hostile states.  If she doesn't get along well
    with people and can't present this country's wishes effectively, she
    will be less likely to be able to resolve the crisis.  People skills
    are an aspect of personality.
    
    Many candidates express what appear to be acceptable attitudes toward
    certain issues.  However, when one looks closely at their records,
    one doubts their devotion to these views.  One's strength of
    conviction, integrity, and willingness to stand for what one believes
    in the face of opposition are all aspects of one's personality.
    
    Certain candidates convey the impression that they do not have the
    strength of character to stand by their expressed positions on the
    issues if the moral majority, etc., really turned the pressure on.
    
    Other candidates convey the impression that they would embrace almost
    any position that they felt would get them elected.  Is it popular
    to bash gays right now?  They'll bash gays.  If the pendulum swings
    and it becomes popular to denounce military spending again, they'll
    be cutting the military budgets they're passing now.  Such candidates
    are demagogues, not leaders.
    
    --bonnie

When I moved to Lincoln Ma, I remember a form that came by mail for registering
for voting.  I filled it out, and sent it back.

Yet, in MI, I remember having to register in person...

So, my question is... am I registered or not?

The other question I have is that I will no longer be living in Lincoln after
this month, but in Leominster...  Well I still be able to vote? 

Dumb questions I'm sure, but you gotta ask sometime...

Jim.

    jim,
    the best thing to do is to call town hall. in your case, it sounds
    like your move may complicate things a bit, so you might want to
    call both town halls.
    
    liz

    Re: .16
    
    About the President getting along with foreign leaders and so forth,
    the problem we have now is we have Mr. Charm (to some people, anyway),
    only he's brain dead.  Just for a change, it would be nice to have
    an administration in power that knows the difference between foreign
    policy and a cowboy shoot out and has some sense of responsibility in
    domestic affairs.
    
    At least, Gary Hart's 1% was cheering; someone or other said that
    it "restored their faith in the democratic process".
    

    Yowzer...I grew up in Lincoln...small world...
    
    generally the Town Hall can tell you, and there might be a special
    form, particularly if you voted somewhere else last year, but almost 
    certainly if you are on the census (another thing you can register
    for while you are there) and are over a certain age you can 
    
    a) go to town meeting (which is sometimes a 3-ring circus in that
       town)
    
    b) vote (in the Smith School gym, generally)
    
    -Jody
    

    
    I hear British Columbia's a beautiful place to live....
    
    Musing...
    
    --DE
    

    RE .21
    Dawn, you read my mind! What about Barbados?? Sunshine, beaches...
    
    -karen

    
    If Dukakis wins the Democratic nomination....
    
    try to think of it as a vote for Evelyn Murphy for Governor :-)
    
    Justine

    
    
    What a great way to put it.  Thanks Justine.
    
    
    _peggy
    
    		(-)
    		 |		Entering the Crone stage of Life
    				makes even limited goodness look
    				worthwhile.
    
    

    
    Did anyone watch the Democratic debate this weekend?  I heard part
    of it on the radio, but I missed what the member of the audience
    shouted at Dukakis.  I watched the Republican debate yesterday;
    I thought Bush did pretty poorly.  I'm certainly glad to see Bush
    coming under close scrutiny, but I was hoping it would happen in
    the general election.  I worry that Dole will be a lot tougher to
    beat than Bush.  I've heard a lot of Democrats saying that they
    would vote for Dole over any of the Democrats currently in the race.
                          
    Dole would certainly be an improvement over Reagan but:
    
    1. He agreed with the characterization of AIDS as a "moral" issue.
    
    2. He's pro Contra Aid and vows to support "Freedom Fighters" around
       the world.
    
    3. I strongly believe that 4 (or 8) more years of a Republican
       administration will mean (among other things):
         - a continued emphasis on and increased spending for weapons 
           like SDI
         - a lack of concern and consistent under-funding of programs for 
           the poor and the elderly, for children, and for people who
           are physically or mentally challenged
         - fixation on the issue of HIV testing and not enough emphasis
           on providing quality care for People with Aids (PWA)
         - continued and increased discrimination against PWAs and against 
           those who test positive for the HIV antibody
         - continued and increased discrimination against Women, Gays
           and Lesbians, and People of Color
         
    Justine
                          

    Has anyone heard how the NH primary is going?
    
    -Tracy
    

    Well Pat Robertson didn't pull any NH miracle out of his pulpit
    yesterday.  This weeks time magazine had articles on most of the
    candidates - the author seemed to feel that Robertson is a serious
    contender and should not be written off by his KOOK factor.  The
    article said something to the effect that Pat Robertson filled in the
    Moral Gap left by Reagan.  Reagan talked of prayer in school,
    anti-abortion, traditional families (one head of house = man) in his
    state of the union addresses but didn't accomplish too much in that
    direction.  Robertson is getting people out and voting who never voted
    before - telling them they must vote for him to bring God back into our
    country. 

I used to get all worked up about what presidential candidates said they
would do and not do.  Then I went and read the Constitution where it talks
about the powers of the executive branch and you know what?  THEY CAN'T
DO IT.

The president does not have the power to increase or descrease spending
on welfare, defense, social security, or anything else.  He can't raise
taxes or lower them.  He can't institute universal AIDS tests nor ban them.
He can't erect or dismantle trade barriers.  He can't create a deficit,
nor can he eliminate one.

Because he can't pass any laws, and only a federal law can change any of
those things.

Only Congress can pass a law.  The president can only recommend that a law
be passed.  Congress can ignore him or pay attention as they wish.  Remember
when Tip O'Neill refered to the Reagan budget as "dead on arrival"?  They
took one look at his recommendations and decide to write their own budget.

All the president can do is veto a bill, and Congress can always over-ride
the veto.  Congress has the last word on just about every policy issue there
is.  (Any law that a third of Congress is opposed to is probably not something
that should be forced onto the entire country, anyway.)

So there are two results from this:

   1.  Discount anything a candidate for the presidency says he will do
	about budgets, schools, social security, deficits, or any of that.
	Also discount anything one candidate says about another candidate
	involving these issues.  "Mr X will raise your texes.  Mr X will
	eliminate college loans."  No he WON'T because he CAN'T.

   2.	Anything anyone says about how some previous or
	sitting president caused a deficit, raised taxes, lowered taxes,
	decimated this or that program, created this or that bogus program
	is unjustified.  Presidents are just not responsible for that stuff.

People in Congress, whether running for president or not, love to blame
presidents for the mess the government is in (especially the budget).  Well,
it just doesn't wash.  Congress is responsible.

So what to look for in a president?  An administrator with some knowledge
of foreign policy, to run the bureaucracy.

One thing to look out for though is a president of the same party as the
majority in congress, because that situation lends itself to bandwagon
effects where congress passes whatever the president suggests out of
"party loyalty" or some such horse poop.  The president has to be principled
enough to veto a bill passed by his own party.

Anyway, the final responsiblilty lies in Congress, so go put the heat on
your Senators and Representatives.  What's THEIR excuse for their past
behavior?

    re; .28
    ...and who has been the majority party in the Congress for the last
    two terms?

    re: 28    I'd have to agree with you.
    
    So which one of the candidates would take care of foreign policy
    with dignity, respect and honor/trust?
    
    I cringe at the thought of Dole negotiating with the Soviets.
    Saw a brief newsclip where he was asked a question by a young man,
    and Dole told him to crawl back into the cave he came from.
                 
    I'd like to know more about Dukakis.  Perhaps some of you folks
    who live in MA could fill me in?
    
    Theresa.

I live in NH and so can't comment at close range on how good of an
administrator Dukakis is.  My impression of him is favorable on that score,
however.

He claims to have gone on foreign trade missions.  That may be the only
"foreign policy" he has had a hand in, but it is probably more than some
governors.  At least he understands the mechanisms of foreign trade better
than Gephardt.

The only big caution for me is that being a Democrat (and a liberal one
at that) with a Congress controlled in both houses by Democrats (a situation
that is unlikely to change in the near future), there is somewhat less of
a natural check-and-balance activity.  I spoke of this in .28 as a bandwagon
effect.  He has to be willing to veto something that he doesn't like (like
a budget that doesn't balance) to keep the congressional feet to the fire
and force Congress to own up to its own responsibilities, even though the
majority is of his party.  I don't know if Dukakis would do that.

I think Bush probably *would* veto stuff, but I don't think he would be
as good an adminstrator as Dukakis.  (At least my impression is that Dukakis
is more intelligent than Bush.  But Bush may just be so dull that you can't
tell.)

Several years ago David Stockman (ex budget advisor to Reagan) wrote a book
titled "The Triumph of Politics".  I recommend it for a peak behind the
scenes of how executive/congressional deals really work, and the truely
massive incompetence of some people on both sides.

    Could someone please explain how the process of presidential election
    works? I keep hearing about `primaries', `caucuses' (or should it
    be caucii ?) and now `Super Tuesday' but haven't taken much of an
    interest to investigate further, however I'm starting to get curious...
    
    	Thanks,
    		Sarah. 

       With several oversimplifications, this is the general idea:
       
       I. Choosing candidates
       
       The Republicans and Democrats each choose their candidates for
       President and Vice President at national conventions, which take
       place every four years.  The delegates to the conventions choose
       the candidates; a candidate is selected when more than half of
       the delegates vote for one candidate.
       
       The national parties apportion a specified number of delegates to
       each state, based mostly on population but also based on how well
       that party's candidates fare in the state, and then each state
       selects its own delegates to the convention. In many states, a
       primary election is held to determine the delegates. In Florida,
       for example, suppose Dukakis got 50% of the vote and Jackson and
       Gore each got 25%: then 50% of Florida's delegates to the
       convention would be committed to Dukakis, 25% would be committed
       to Jackson, and 25% to Gore. 
              
       Some states use the caucus system rather than a primary election.
       Caucuses are usually held in each town (or each precinct in
       cities).  Everyone who shows up for a caucus votes for one of the
       candidates, and the delegates are apportioned more or less in the
       same way as with primary elections.  The main difference between
       a caucus and an election is that a caucus is a meeting, where you
       have to show up at a specific time and where the vote may either
       be secret or public. 
       
       Once the delegates are chosen, the national conventions are held.
       Depending on the rules of each state party, delegates who are
       committed to a particular candidate may only have to vote for
       that candidate on the first ballot, or maybe even not at all. If
       no candidate gets a majority the first time around, they keep
       voting until someone does get a majority -- that is when the
       wheeling and dealing starts.  The Presidential candidate who is
       chosen then selects a Vice Presidential candidate, who gets voted
       on by the convention (as a formality).
       
       II. The General Election
       
       The general election is the final election.  The people don't
       actually vote for the individual candidates -- we vote for
       electors who are committed to those candidates.  The number
       of electors for each state is proportional to the state's
       population, and the candidate who wins the state gets all
       of the state's electors.  Each of these electors is called
       an "electoral vote".
       
       This can create some controversial results.  Suppose California
       and New York each have 40 electors.  If Dukakis beats Bush by 100
       votes in New York, and Bush beats Dukakis by 4,000,000 votes in
       California, then they'll each get 40 electoral votes, even though
       their actual vote totals were very far apart. 
       
       Anyway, in December, the electors all get together (called the
       Electoral College) and vote for the person they represent. If none
       of the candidates gets a majority, then the House of
       Representatives (lower house) chooses a President.  This has only
       happened once, in the 1800s. 
       
       III. Questions
       
       Don't ask any.  Don't ask about exceptions.  Don't ask "yah,
       but what if..."
       
       --Mr Topaz
       

    re: .32
    
    For a REAL understanding of a caucus race, you must read
    Lewis Carroll (Alice in Wonderland -or- Through the Looking
    Glass).
    
    Summary:  In a caucus race, all the animals run around in
    circles and at the end they each get a comfit.  
    
    That's better than real life! :*]
    					Penelope

    RE: .33 / Explanation by Mr_Topaz of how it works in the US.
    
    Thanks a lot for the explanation. I had never realised that it was
    not the PEOPLE, i.e. individual votes that made the President. Probably
    from being used to another system, I'd can't help but think I'd
    feel cheated if somebody else voted for me. I like putting in the
    urn a piece of paper with the name of "my" president. I feel
    responsible for his acts if he is elected, and I feel I have at
    least done my duty if he is not elected.
    
    For those who don't know the French system:
    
    Candidates are chosen by their parties. 1 per party enters the race
    for President. Election day, 1st tour, every French citizen above
    18 goes and votes for "his" candidate. There is usually 1 very-much-
    left, 1 communist, 1 socialist, 1 moderate-center, 1 moderate-right, 
    1 very-much-right, 1 ecologist. The 2 or 3 with more votes go off
    for a second tour, everybody goes back to vote. If the majority
    is not reached then , off we go for a third tour. The simple majority
    is sufficient to be elected (50+ % of all total votes).
                                                           
    Right now, everybody is pulling economic rabbits out of their hats,
    and we open our eyes in wonder at the things they are going to do
    for us, if we elect them!
    
    Joana

    re:.35
    
    Actually, in at least one election --- I believe it was Nixon/Humphrey
    in '68, but I could be wrong --- the winner of the electoral vote
    (and thus the winner of the election) actually got a smaller number
    of popular votes, though not much smaller. There was some controversy
    as to whether we should abandon the electoral college concept and
    go with straight popular voting, but it obviously didn't fly.
    
    --- jerry

    
    Omigod, it's worse than I thought !!!!
    
    Thanks for your explanation Mr Topaz, however having read it several
    times, I'm still confused.
    
    I think what confuses me is that people are voting for people to
    vote for them (am I right), but those people don't have to vote
    the way they say they will ???
    
    And this is the explanation "With several oversimplifications" ?!!!!!
    
    	Hmmm, I think I'll have to mull over this one a bit more...
    
    		Sarah.
    
    

        The reason that we vote for delegates to the conventions, and
        electors to the college is that he system was designed in a day
        when communications was very slow. This had two effects which
        the indirect system was trying to counter.
        
        First of all, there were very few men who were known to the
        general populace of the entire country. Not all of them were
        known for qualities that make a good president. The electors and
        deligates were expected to be people who were involved in the
        nations affairs and thus who would know the other "nationally
        prominent" men, and thus could make an educated decision amongst
        them. Since the average man couldn't be expected to personally
        know the candidates, they voted for someone they knew personally
        and who in turn new the candidates and could choose the one the
        that the voter would have had he known them all.
        
        The second problem is merely the length of the process of
        voting. With the country stretching 1500-3000 miles in days of
        25 MPH transportation, merely collecting the votes and
        determining the results of a single round of voting could take
        many days or weeks. Short of preferential voting schemes such as
        the so called "Australian ballot", which are viewed as
        complicated, most methods of voting require multiple rounds
        ("tours") of voting, and so the process of merely casting the
        vote could take months.
        
        Of course with today's proliferation of media and higher
        communications speeds, these factors don't apply as much.
        Additionally, because of the greater population, the chances
        that the average man will know the deligate who represents him
        is smaller. The system doesn't fit nearly as well today as when
        it was created, but since it's been working for 200 years or so,
        and there are seldom big differences between the outcome of the
        popular and electoral votes, there hasn't been much of a push
        for direct elections.
        
        Another reason that the system doesn't change is that it isn't
        really one system. It's more like 20 or 30 systems. The exact
        way of selecting convention delegates varies from state to state
        and party to party. 
        
        For instance, in the Southern states that voted on Tuesday, the
        Democratic primaries were generally proportional, whereas the
        Republican primaries in the same states were generally all-or-
        nothing. In The Iowa caucus, the Democratic caucus is run by a
        system of very public voting--you vote for someone by going to
        his corner of the room or to his room in the building. In the
        Republican caucus, however, the vote is by secret ballot.
        
        The result of all of this variety from state to state and party
        to party is that to completely implement a new system, you
        basically have to get the two house of the federal legislature
        to change the national election laws, the state legislatures
        (typically two houses) to change the state primary laws and the
        national and state and territorial party organizations to change
        their systems. Of course how the actual voting is conducted--by
        paper ballot or voting machine etc, also involves the municiple
        governments, but let's ignore that headache.
        
        JimB. 

    
    It's beginning to get a bit clearer now ! I think taking it in a
    historical context helps ! 
    
    re .40
    
    You're right that what you are used to is usually easier to understand,
    but I still think the English system is easier to understand, it
    works like this ;
    
    The country is divided into constituencies, each person votes for
    one of the candidates standing in their constituency. Anyone can
    stand, however there is a deposit which you have to pay which is
    refunded if you get more than a small percentage of the votes, I
    think the idea of this is to discourage people who aren't really
    serious, although we do get the odd candidate from the monster raviing
    loony party occasionally ! The person which is elected in your
    constituency ias then your MP (member of parliament).
    
    Government is then formed by whichever party has the most seats
    (ie the number of constituencies they have won). If one party does
    not have a majority then they start talking about coalitions and
    things - I don't know much about how that works out, not having
    had experience of one !
    
    The problem with this system (or rather I should say, some people
    think that the problem is ) that the no of votes a party gets does
    not tend to relate very well to the number of seats in parliament.
    For example in the last election ( from what I can remember, I can't
    remember the exact figures ) the conservative government won the
    election with about 40% of the total vote, whereas the Alliance
    ( I think ) got about 17 - 20% of the vote and only got 4 seats
    out of about 600ish. (sorry I'm a bit vague about the exact figures.)   
    
    Who (from within a party) stands in a particular constituency is
    decided within the party, as is their leader (who will become prime
    minister if their party wins, then she or he chooses their cabinet)
    (not a sideboard, but ministers to help them govern the country,
    gosh it's amazing how many little terms there are, MP's, candidates,
    ministers etc etc. The terminology is probably more confusing than
    the system itself.)
    
    Well that's enough about our political system. (I'll probably get
    someone else from England writing in now and telling me I've got
    it all wrong !!!)
    
    	Sarah.
    

	I believe the only person to be elected to the presidency without
    carrying a majority of the popular vote was Lincoln.  (This was
    covered in the Boston Globe a few weeks ago).
    
    Douglas

From an appendix to "The National Experience" copyright 1968, 
Harcourt, Brace & World                                    


In 1824 John Quincy Adams became president with 30% of the popular
vote.  It was a four way race with noone getting a majority of the
Electoral Votes.  It was sent to the House of Representatives where
one of the other three candidates (Henry Clay) threw his support 
behind John Quincy Adams.  Andrew Jackson, who had received 43% of
the popular vote was somewhat upset at this, (especially after
Adams made Clay the Secretary of State).

In 1860 Abraham Lincoln won with 40% of the popular vote.  He was 
the highest vote getter of a 4-way race.

In 1876  Rutherford B. Hayes won with 48% of the popular vote.  
His opponent, Samuel Tilden had 51% of the popular vote.  This was
during the reconstruction period, and a lot of disputed factors let to 
Hayes' victory.

In 1888 Benjamin Harrison won with 47.9% of the popular vote.  Grover
Cleveland had received 48.6%.


The following Presidents received less that 50% of the popular Vote:

1824  John Quincy Adams 30.5%
1844  James K. Polk     49.6%
1848  Zachary Taylor    47.4%
1856  James Buchanan    45.3%
1860  Abraham Lincoln   39.8%
1876  Butherford Hayes  48.0%
1880  James A. Garfield 48.5%
1884  Grover Cleveland  48.5%
1888  Benjamin Harrison 47.9%
1892  Grover Cleveland  46.1%
1912  Woodrow Wilson    41.9%
1916  Woodrow Wilson    49.4%
1948  Harry Truman      49.5%
1960  John F. Kennedy   49.9%

Didn't Richard Nixon recieve less than a majority in 1968?

/Mike

    re:.45
    
    I brought that up earlier. Now that I've reflected on it a bit,
    I think he *did* receive a majority, but it was damn close, even
    though his electoral majority was by a wide margin. I believe
    that at the time, there was some discussion about what, if anything,
    would be done if he *hadn't* received a popular majority ("what
    would be done" being something along the lines of considering
    a chance in the election process).
    
    --- jerry

        Nixon received 31,785,480 popular votes, Humphrey received
    31,275,166 popular votes, and Wallace received 9,906,473.
    
        They received 301, 191, and 46 Electoral votes respectively.
    
        The victors in 1824, 1876, 1888 all received less popular votes
    that their opponents.  In 1800 Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied
    in electoral votes.
    
    ASP

    Now that we have our candidates it time to start thinking presidential
    election again.  I read a really interesting article last night in MS.
    about the 'gender gap'.  It seems Dukakis is ahead of Bush and one of
    the reasons they sight is the huge amount of Democratic Women voters.
    For the first time it seems the Republicans are actually considering
    the POWER of the woman's vote.  Bush can't shake the last eight years
    of anti-woman, anti-feminism so how can he steal the women's votes.
    Right now the latest buzz is a female VP on the ticket: Kirkpatrick,
    O'Connor are two of the big names I remember but there were at least 6
    of them on the unofficial list.  Some people are speculating that it is
    just all talk - to send out a message that Bush would actually consider
    a woman - doesn't that make the last 8 years better????!!! 
    
    Right now the Republicans are gambling that if they choose a woman VP a
    lot of women will change their vote just to get a 'first' in the office
    and not vote the issues. I admit to me it would be very tempting
    to help a woman get into office; but when it boils right down to
    it I have to vote the issues.  Just wanted to know what the womannoters
    thought about this?   What would you do?
    
    Suzanne