Re: Tie-vote situations (Sticky!)
--- In email@example.com, "Ram Lau" <ramlau@y...> wrote:
> Finally, recalling the 2000 election, if the decision
> was to be made in the House chamber and if there was a
> tie vote between the top two candidates, and if there
> was no "Henry Clay" who would throw his support for
> either one of the top two candidates, who was to break
> the tie in the House? Is it the Speaker of the House?
Hmm... I'm not sure, but an easier solution would be to toss out the
antiquated electoral college system. It probably made sense when it
was developed, but in today's information age, it is not necessary.
Simple is often best, and I believe this would translate to "One
person, one vote, most votes wins."
Every four years the value of the electoral college system is
discussed, and then the issue is dormant until the next election
As for Henry Clay... we haven't seen much "compromise" in the last
several years. Instead we've been treated to steamroler politics.
It's very sad.
- The status quo is the bitch. It will create chaos if only the
popular votes matter. They won't have the need to go to the "swing
states" to campaign anymore, and all ads will have to be aired
nationwide. Obviously too much uncertainty for both parties.