24th July 2004, 7:33 AM
It happened around three times in the 1800s, but never in the 1900s...until 2000, that is. The previous 'most contested' election was probably 1878, I think. Hayes vs Tilden.
Oh yeah, and if the prime minister is chosen by parliament and the prime minister is the chief of state, it's not really any better than what we have. It's still state-by-state (or district-by-district) so you definitely could have the winning side have less votes. And you can't vote out someone without voting their party out in congress, which is something that doesn't happen that often... the Republicans have held the House since 1994. Before that I think the Democrats had had it for decades... The Senate is more back and forth, but if it was a parliamentary system there would be no Senate. Wouldn't the big states be happy then...
That's another thing. The Senate is there to provide balance between the bigger and smaller states. If you have one house and it's by population, like the house, the small states would get overwhelmed... who'd listen to a state with one representative when California has fifty?
Oh yeah, and if the prime minister is chosen by parliament and the prime minister is the chief of state, it's not really any better than what we have. It's still state-by-state (or district-by-district) so you definitely could have the winning side have less votes. And you can't vote out someone without voting their party out in congress, which is something that doesn't happen that often... the Republicans have held the House since 1994. Before that I think the Democrats had had it for decades... The Senate is more back and forth, but if it was a parliamentary system there would be no Senate. Wouldn't the big states be happy then...
That's another thing. The Senate is there to provide balance between the bigger and smaller states. If you have one house and it's by population, like the house, the small states would get overwhelmed... who'd listen to a state with one representative when California has fifty?