One major reason behind it is it makes corruption more difficult. Say I bribe a voting commissioner in my district and add 100,000 false votes for my guy into the system. Under a straight popular vote, I've added exactly 100,000 votes. Under the electoral college, I have swung exactly one state. Doesn't matter if I add a hundred thousand or a million, I still only get that one state's vote in the electoral college. To really make a difference I would need to bribe voting commissioners in multiple states, which is much harder.

On the other hand, when elections are as close as they've been in recent years, one state is usually all that matters nowadays.

United States Electoral College

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ctoral_College

I see. I guess ours isn't too disimilar, in that the result goes off how many seats a party wins rather than the number of votes cast overall.

Libertarians are about personal responsibility and freedom, for reasons I cannot fathom many have issues with that concept.

But do they really change their positions or just their campaign strategy. Campaign promises are an ongoing joke.

Good point. One of the problems with the current political culture (in my country and I suspect in yours also) is that instead of coming to a postion on something and then trying to sell that position, win the argument and secure people's support for your stance, parties and politicians try to work out what people will vote for and base their policy statements on that.

Liars.

Bruce reads xkcd? *swoon*

The series is correct only if the world is one dimensional. Vietnam was a classic example of two parties both being bad for America. Did we vote for Republicans who wanted more war (bomb them into the stone age)? Or vote for Democrats who simply wanted to expand that current war? Welcome to a world where reality is multi-dimensional. As a result, the whole world was watching and four dead in Ohio. Who represented the interests of the American soldier? No one on that one dimensional line.

Do we vote for the Republicans who see enemies everywhere? Or Democrats who were led by the backboneless such as Tom Daschle? If there is a good and a bad in a one dimensional world, then all choices were bad.

Why was Ross Perot so important? His 20% shook up anti-American Republicans and Democrats who suddenly realized neither was working for America.

Good and bad does not exist. The extreme left and extreme right only represent those who routinely know - facts be damned. If there is anything approaching bad, then bad are both extreme left and extreme right. A one dimensional analysis implies that a person closest to the center is the only good choice. But in America for most of the past decade, intelligent people did not even exist on that one dimensional line. Where is the politician who routinely told the truth about "Mission Accomplished"? He is nowhere on that one dimensional line.

Informed people accurately described "Mission Accomplished" for what it really was - a lie. Where on that one dimensional line was the accurate position? The line assumes good and bad - completely ignores another dimensions called accuracy, honesty, or what is called the true American patriot. Where on that one dimensional line were people who told the truth? Neither existed on that line because wacko Republicans see enemies everywhere and wacko Democrats had no backbone (went right along with the lies).

Back o' the line honey, xoB already has an extensive fan club.

I'm quite aware jinxy...I can lust from afar...no way I'm competin' against the lovely ladies of the cellar for it anyway.

That's not what is says at all. It says the candidate that tailors his campaign promises closest to the peak of the voter curve will usually win, with two candidates.

@Razzmatazz13. Afar? Again? Why is it always from afar? sigh