Did FPTP kill People in the USA?

[Finder]

But I think it raises the ethical question which Katrina, brought up. It is evident that Bush didn't care two sh*ts about Louisiana, his slow reaction time in acting to avoid first a catastophy and then reacting to it, mirrors almost is ability to visit states which are battle grounds during an election and totally jump Louisiana since it is completely usless to him during an election. However I'm not saying this was the only cause but it could be an ethical argument to change the electoral collage to not reflect the winner take all aditude it currently has. FPTP in the states you could argue has killed people by making Louisiana a state where the president has no interest in since he has very little support in it. However if they changed the system so a postion depending on the vote results goes to the loser then Bush would have a reason, or any president would have a reason to care about every state.

From your point of view, any President would have the same reaction during the time this occured. Bush had already won, he was in his second and final term in office. You have to realize there is also a political cost of what happened. Bush's approval rating dropped like a brick in the aftermath of Katrina. He is President, but he is still part of the Republican party, and there have been consequences already from mishandling Katrina. You're trying to tie the electoral college with deaths related to disasters? I can't see any connection.

Please quote me where I actually said a president was bound by the electoral collage on any question or situation, nor would I say Bush was. However I said it leaves enough doubt behind the reasons of why he basically ignored Louisiana, yet during the election he was able to concentriat effectly on visiting TX.

Though this is only a theory and would be extremly hard to prove it highlights a problem with the american electoral system. That a president could comepletely ignore a state because he has nothing to gain from it. I'm sure if TX, CA or New York were in danager we'd see him run into action. I say New york even though it's a democratic state just as much as Louisiana, because it's one of the 7 states with real electoral power and an upset in any of these states would almost likely to insure the vistory of a president or a canidate. Just something to think about.

 

[I think not]

Please quote me where I actually said a president was bound by the electoral collage on any question or situation, nor would I say Bush was. However I said it leaves enough doubt behind the reasons of why he basically ignored Louisiana, yet during the election he was able to concentriat effectly on visiting TX.

Though this is only a theory and would be extremly hard to prove it highlights a problem with the american electoral system. That a president could comepletely ignore a state because he has nothing to gain from it. I'm sure if TX, CA or New York were in danager we'd see him run into action. I say New york even though it's a democratic state just as much as Louisiana, because it's one of the 7 states with real electoral power and an upset in any of these states would almost likely to insure the vistory of a president or a canidate. Just something to think about.

Well first of all, Bush lost New York and California, so your theory sort of collapses. The federal government was not in charge of search and rescue operations during 9/11. That is a local issue first, like it was with Katrina, only when the local governments request federal disaster aid do they provide it. I think you are not familiar with the mechanics of federal assistance.