Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kane
the checks and balances system as a whole is somewhat flawed.
say 55 of the 100 senetors are repubs. There is a democrat in the white house who, like clinton, got about 40% of the vote in a three way race but won the electoral college. The senate writes a bill and passes it 55 to 45 and sends it to the white house. the president vetos the bill. the senate can now override his veto with a 2/3 votes but can't get enough votes so the bill dies.
this is a great case of the minority ruling. the majority of the states elected a republican senator. Only 40% of the people in the country voted for the president, but that minority wins.
The checks and balances system is not in place to assure that the majority rules, it is there to make sure the process is fair and that no one branch can run roughshot over the government.
|
And Bush get less votes than Gore in 2000 so fucking what. So Gore should have been president because more people voted for him then.
Also if in your scenario since a bill got 55 votes it should be law no matter what the President wants? The why have a fucking President then? In your scenario the President may have only got 40% of the votes he got more votes than the other 2 guys. Besides as you know the President is elected by the electoral college not the people. And Clinton got WAY over 50% both times