Is this fair to some voters?

[Tprspouse]

Hey, I submitted a question to CNN's Crossfire. So if you're watching tonight between 7-8 EST keep an ear out. LOL I doubt that it'll be answered but hey..I tried. I asked the guy with the bowtie...what's his name again?

Anyway, here in Vermont the governor has to get 51% of the vote in order to be elected. The thing is, when the Independent got 10% and a few other parties got 1%, it took away from Douglas. Douglas ended up with 45% and Racine got 42%. So, that means that the governor will have to be formally elected by the VT house of reps.

Not that it's even an issue anymore, because local news stations are saying it's just a "formality", that the house will vote with the majority of Vermonters. (They dare not). So, I am happy to hear that. BUT...

We are new to the state and most of the lawmakers in Montpelier, we had no hand in electing. We weren't even here. We went out and cast our vote for Douglas yesterday and if they hadn't decided to vote with Vermonters, what if they took our votes and threw them away by voting along party lines? As far as I know it, the house has more republicans than democrats. But if it didn't, new residents to Vermont or ANY state could have had their vote nulled and voided.

I hate this 51% rule. What's wrong with who got the majority of the vote?

Oh and get this....there was a party on the ballot called, "legalizing marajuana party". LOL That was a good laugh!

[ 11-06-2002, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Tprspouse ]

[Delta_V]

That's just the way the law reads. If enough people have a problem with the way that candidates are elected, representatives should introduce legislation to change the law. It's the same argument that the Democrats used in 2000 about the Electoral College. They didn't like the end result, so they blame the system.

You have to remember that some time ago, Vermonters voted for the election system that they have in place now.

[Tprspouse]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I know it was voted upon. BUT it doesn't make it fair. They're already talking about how the system needs to be changed.

Electing a president, in my opinion is different. In order for Bush to win, he'd need to EARN electoral votes from each state that he won. Each state must be representing with some sort of "value" put on them. We're not dealing with electoral votes for the governor, there isn't such a thing, is there? If they wanted to have electoral votes from each district, that'd be fine with me. THEN if that didn't get someone elected with less than 50% of the vote, let the house vote.

I understand your point, but I think that in statewide elections, the winner should be determined by the popular vote. With a race as important and crucial as the presidency, there has to be a fair way to represent all states because some states are bigger than one another. Vermont is what it is.

[ 11-06-2002, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: Tprspouse ]

[WHC166]

Trprspouse,

It is a nutty system, I agree! Since I'm moving back next week I watched the races, and am certainly glad that it seems VT is ready for a change. Unfortunately the legislature is made up mostly of Democrats, but hopefully they will do the right thing!

[Pigskin]

51% is considered the majority. Here if a candidate does not receive the majority, there is a run-off election between the top two. Once it gets down to two, there has to be a majority.

[Tprspouse]

One thing I am thankful for is that there isn't a run off! So I guess I should be happy. If there were, I think Racine would have taken the independent votes.

[CinaC]

I don't see how the situation as described could result in the State House voting for the candidate who recieved the most votes. It's a good thing states don't have electorates -- who would the State reps vote for? The guy who got the most votes, or the guy who got the most electorate votes?

quote:

---

but hopefully they will do the right thing!

---

I tried to find an emoticon sticking its tongue out, but I couldn't.