[Leprucky Cougar]

Originally Posted by ChronoGrl

Mea culpa. I actually meant the 2000 Election in terms of the disenfranchised voter, not the 2004 Election.

Of the many issues that lead to the Democrats losing in 2004, disenfranchisement wasn't one of the major ones.

To that topic, though, I think the statement "the 18-30 group let Kerry down" is an incredible oversimplification and an oversight of the bigger issues at hand at the time - Quite frankly, John Kerry wasn't a particularly strong candidate for office. Take that weakness coupled with the fact that the Democrats had been essentially made impotent by the aftermath of 9/11 and the incredibly well-implemented spin campaign generated by the Bush administration - The Democrats were essentially fighting a losing battle.

But that was 2004.

Disenfranchisement was 2000.

But, regardless, the individual is still disenfranchised by the electoral college system. I'd like to believe that there truly is One Person, One Vote, but that simply isn't the case. And, in fact, that's intentional. The electoral college was built as a system of governmental checks and balances over the masses.

The one person, one vote thing is applicable to the House however. When we vote for HOR-we elect them directly--it's solely population vote. And I'm certainly not saying the "oversimplication of the JK let down" was the pinnacle of it all...not by a long shot. I was just saying this + the lack of democratic unity & repulican's winning a lot of people over with the post 9/11 events as you and I both reference.