Is the electoral college on it's way out? Poll.

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I know this isn't a realistic scenario, but I wanted to see what was the fewest number of actual votes a candidate could become President with under our current electoral college system and I figured others might be interested as well.

My scenario is that the candidate in question wins 51% of the vote in enough of the lowest electoral vote states (since they have fewer people per electoral vote) to become President, and none of the votes in the rest of the states. The electoral votes don't quite work out so nicely, so the candidate loses Massachusetts but wins North Carolina and Virginia, despite those two states having more electoral votes than Massachusetts. But it's close enough, and the candidate gets exactly 270 electoral votes.

The results? If everyone of voting age voted, the winner would get about 49 million votes while his opponent would get about 125 million. In other words, the electoral college allows someone to win the Presidency with about 22% of the popular vote in his favor compared to 78% of the popular vote going to his opponent. Like I said, a contrived scenario, but tell me a system that allows something like that is a good idea.

Not sure where you are getting your math from, but only 121 million people voted in the last election.
Based on that how does one person end up with 125 million votes???

Edit: I figured it out, you must be using Chicago election math huh?

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We want to throw out the whole system based on the results of one election? :roll:

Members of a certain political party want to abolish the Electoral College. Many of them are still bitter and frustrated over the 2000 Election. Sad yet very true...

There was no election. The person who got the most legal votes in Florida was not elected because the count that established that fact took place after the Supreme Coup prevented the people from making the determination first.

Sorry Moon you seem to be missing the point. Although a popular vote is a legal vote, it is irrelavant in the elction of our prez. Let me remind you it has zip zero nada to do with the supreme court.

Get over it.

Oh brother. The popular vote in Florida was never determined until after the election because of the Supreme Coup. Gore was shown later to have won the state. That means he actually won the electoral votes that would have made him President.

Who said he won?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We want to throw out the whole system based on the results of one election? :roll:

Members of a certain political party want to abolish the Electoral College. Many of them are still bitter and frustrated over the 2000 Election. Sad yet very true...

There was no election. The person who got the most legal votes in Florida was not elected because the count that established that fact took place after the Supreme Coup prevented the people from making the determination first.

Sorry Moon you seem to be missing the point. Although a popular vote is a legal vote, it is irrelavant in the elction of our prez. Let me remind you it has zip zero nada to do with the supreme court.

Get over it.

Oh brother. The popular vote in Florida was never determined until after the election because of the Supreme Coup. Gore was shown later to have won the state. That means he actually won the electoral votes that would have made him President.

eh? I think youre confused about the electoral process lol

Actually? hahahaha nice try.

Instead of telling me I am confused why don't you tell me how so? I was under the impression that the person who wins the majority of the votes in the electoral college wins the election and that in 2000 it came down to who won the Florida electoral vote. The Supreme Coup stopped the vote count in Florida which was how the person who won the Florida electoral vote was supposed to be determined. In other words the popular vote in Florida should have determined by who won the Presidency but the supreme court stepped into that count and decided to pick the winner themselves in effect instead of demanding a full recount of the entire state according to what was a legal vote by existing state law at the time of the election, the way election winners should be determined.

After the election the valid legal vote of the whole state was counted and Gore won.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We want to throw out the whole system based on the results of one election? :roll:

Members of a certain political party want to abolish the Electoral College. Many of them are still bitter and frustrated over the 2000 Election. Sad yet very true...

There was no election. The person who got the most legal votes in Florida was not elected because the count that established that fact took place after the Supreme Coup prevented the people from making the determination first.

Sorry Moon you seem to be missing the point. Although a popular vote is a legal vote, it is irrelavant in the elction of our prez. Let me remind you it has zip zero nada to do with the supreme court.

Get over it.

Oh brother. The popular vote in Florida was never determined until after the election because of the Supreme Coup. Gore was shown later to have won the state. That means he actually won the electoral votes that would have made him President.

eh? I think youre confused about the electoral process lol

Actually? hahahaha nice try.

Instead of telling me I am confused why don't you tell me how so? I was under the impression that the person who wins the majority of the votes in the electoral college wins the election and that in 2000 it came down to who won the Florida electoral vote. The Supreme Coup stopped the vote count in Florida which was how the person who won the Florida electoral vote was supposed to be determined. In other words the popular vote in Florida should have determined by who won the Presidency but the supreme court stepped into that count and decided to pick the winner themselves in effect instead of demanding a full recount of the entire state according to what was a legal vote by existing state law at the time of the election, the way election winners should be determined.

After the election the valid legal vote of the whole state was counted and Gore won.

They did recount in those 3 counties... Bush still won. Then If I remember correctly then a statewide recount was court ordered by some lefty judge at the prodding of Gore lawyers then the supreme court said he was wrong to force it then the illegal ordered recount was stopped. Subsequently finding Bush gained ~400 votes. That is my recollection.

I asked you this before. No hack website please. No Blogs, no left agenda sites. I never saw any Gore won Florida later stuff other than partisan bloat. Links?

regardless I'm Glad Gore ddin't win as I think President Bush did a great Job on 9/11 and good ole Gore would have talked it to death instead of doing things... Sure the Pres made alot of mistakes and had some really bad policies after that but the economy is strong and we had no more attacks except from south of the boarder. One of the presidents worst failures.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Yeah I'd like to see it ended but I doubt it will.

that is what happens when your come from a high population/density state.

More power for the taking.

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: blackllotus

The electoral college makes some people's votes count more than others

And as the results in 2000 demonstrate that's not a good thing.

The above observation is the result of 20/20 hindsight and also of political greed.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We want to throw out the whole system based on the results of one election? :roll:

Members of a certain political party want to abolish the Electoral College. Many of them are still bitter and frustrated over the 2000 Election. Sad yet very true...

There was no election. The person who got the most legal votes in Florida was not elected because the count that established that fact took place after the Supreme Coup prevented the people from making the determination first.

Sorry Moon you seem to be missing the point. Although a popular vote is a legal vote, it is irrelavant in the elction of our prez. Let me remind you it has zip zero nada to do with the supreme court.

Get over it.

Oh brother. The popular vote in Florida was never determined until after the election because of the Supreme Coup. Gore was shown later to have won the state. That means he actually won the electoral votes that would have made him President.

eh? I think youre confused about the electoral process lol

Actually? hahahaha nice try.

Instead of telling me I am confused why don't you tell me how so? I was under the impression that the person who wins the majority of the votes in the electoral college wins the election and that in 2000 it came down to who won the Florida electoral vote. The Supreme Coup stopped the vote count in Florida which was how the person who won the Florida electoral vote was supposed to be determined. In other words the popular vote in Florida should have determined by who won the Presidency but the supreme court stepped into that count and decided to pick the winner themselves in effect instead of demanding a full recount of the entire state according to what was a legal vote by existing state law at the time of the election, the way election winners should be determined.

After the election the valid legal vote of the whole state was counted and Gore won.

The USSC stated that the Fla Supreme court erred in allowing cherry picking of the recount and not forcing the means of providing consistent methods/guidelines.
Then while every one complained, they stated that Fla still had to deliver the official count by the required deadline.

Had Gore been confident of the outcome, he would not have requested SELECTIVE recounts and wasted then so much time making a full recount unable to be completed.

 

[manowar821]

Electoral college is pointless and nonsensical.

The only thing it DOES is makes sure that some peoples votes are worth more than others, based on location.

It's complete BS.

 

[imported_redlotus]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I know this isn't a realistic scenario, but I wanted to see what was the fewest number of actual votes a candidate could become President with under our current electoral college system and I figured others might be interested as well.

My scenario is that the candidate in question wins 51% of the vote in enough of the lowest electoral vote states (since they have fewer people per electoral vote) to become President, and none of the votes in the rest of the states. The electoral votes don't quite work out so nicely, so the candidate loses Massachusetts but wins North Carolina and Virginia, despite those two states having more electoral votes than Massachusetts. But it's close enough, and the candidate gets exactly 270 electoral votes.

The results? If everyone of voting age voted, the winner would get about 49 million votes while his opponent would get about 125 million. In other words, the electoral college allows someone to win the Presidency with about 22% of the popular vote in his favor compared to 78% of the popular vote going to his opponent. Like I said, a contrived scenario, but tell me a system that allows something like that is a good idea.

Not sure where you are getting your math from, but only 121 million people voted in the last election.
Based on that how does one person end up with 125 million votes???

Edit: I figured it out, you must be using Chicago election math huh?

There ya go, PJ--I bolded the part you missed.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: redlotus

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I know this isn't a realistic scenario, but I wanted to see what was the fewest number of actual votes a candidate could become President with under our current electoral college system and I figured others might be interested as well.

My scenario is that the candidate in question wins 51% of the vote in enough of the lowest electoral vote states (since they have fewer people per electoral vote) to become President, and none of the votes in the rest of the states. The electoral votes don't quite work out so nicely, so the candidate loses Massachusetts but wins North Carolina and Virginia, despite those two states having more electoral votes than Massachusetts. But it's close enough, and the candidate gets exactly 270 electoral votes.

The results? If everyone of voting age voted, the winner would get about 49 million votes while his opponent would get about 125 million. In other words, the electoral college allows someone to win the Presidency with about 22% of the popular vote in his favor compared to 78% of the popular vote going to his opponent. Like I said, a contrived scenario, but tell me a system that allows something like that is a good idea.

Not sure where you are getting your math from, but only 121 million people voted in the last election.
Based on that how does one person end up with 125 million votes???

Edit: I figured it out, you must be using Chicago election math huh?

There ya go, PJ--I bolded the part you missed.

And if pigs flew we could use them as free transportation.

The fact is, the American public is too apethetic to care. Since 1960 the highest voter turnout was 63.1% in 1960. If if if. It sooo doesnt mater if this or if that. Im not pessimistic, just realistic.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: redlotus

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I know this isn't a realistic scenario, but I wanted to see what was the fewest number of actual votes a candidate could become President with under our current electoral college system and I figured others might be interested as well.

My scenario is that the candidate in question wins 51% of the vote in enough of the lowest electoral vote states (since they have fewer people per electoral vote) to become President, and none of the votes in the rest of the states. The electoral votes don't quite work out so nicely, so the candidate loses Massachusetts but wins North Carolina and Virginia, despite those two states having more electoral votes than Massachusetts. But it's close enough, and the candidate gets exactly 270 electoral votes.

The results? If everyone of voting age voted, the winner would get about 49 million votes while his opponent would get about 125 million. In other words, the electoral college allows someone to win the Presidency with about 22% of the popular vote in his favor compared to 78% of the popular vote going to his opponent. Like I said, a contrived scenario, but tell me a system that allows something like that is a good idea.

Not sure where you are getting your math from, but only 121 million people voted in the last election.
Based on that how does one person end up with 125 million votes???

Edit: I figured it out, you must be using Chicago election math huh?

There ya go, PJ--I bolded the part you missed.

And if pigs flew we could use them as free transportation.

The fact is, the American public is too apethetic to care. Since 1960 the highest voter turnout was 63.1% in 1960. If if if. It sooo doesnt mater if this or if that. Im not pessimistic, just realistic.

It really doesn't matter what the voter turn out is. The example was to prove the point that the majority are getting screwed under the electoral college. But if you want go multiple both numbers by 63.1% or what ever you want and you will see that the same ratio applies.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Instead of telling me I am confused why don't you tell me how so? I was under the impression that the person who wins the majority of the votes in the electoral college wins the election and that in 2000 it came down to who won the Florida electoral vote. The Supreme Coup stopped the vote count in Florida which was how the person who won the Florida electoral vote was supposed to be determined. In other words the popular vote in Florida should have determined by who won the Presidency but the supreme court stepped into that count and decided to pick the winner themselves in effect instead of demanding a full recount of the entire state according to what was a legal vote by existing state law at the time of the election, the way election winners should be determined.

After the election the valid legal vote of the whole state was counted and Gore won.

Go to wikipedia, they have a nice section on this.

If the Supreme Court had done NOTHING Gore would have still lost.
There were not enough votes in the counties that Gore wanted to count for him to win.
The only way Gore wins is if they count the 'over votes' from the whole state. Something Gore never asked for.

So if the Supreme Court had said "No we are not getting involved" they would have finished the recount in three counties and Bush would have still won.
Therefore, it is NOT the Supreme Court that put Bush in office.
You can blame Democrats for that.
1. Democrats designed the ballots in counties that had all the problems.
2. Democrats unable to understand how to vote disqualified themselves by over voting or under voting.
3. Democrats in the form of Gore's team picked a strategy that would have not won them the election even if the courts never got involved.

BTW the courts did the right thing you can?t have votes in one place counted by hand and then not count them statewide by hand. It would have been a clear violation of the 14th amendment.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: redlotus

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I know this isn't a realistic scenario, but I wanted to see what was the fewest number of actual votes a candidate could become President with under our current electoral college system and I figured others might be interested as well.

My scenario is that the candidate in question wins 51% of the vote in enough of the lowest electoral vote states (since they have fewer people per electoral vote) to become President, and none of the votes in the rest of the states. The electoral votes don't quite work out so nicely, so the candidate loses Massachusetts but wins North Carolina and Virginia, despite those two states having more electoral votes than Massachusetts. But it's close enough, and the candidate gets exactly 270 electoral votes.

The results? If everyone of voting age voted, the winner would get about 49 million votes while his opponent would get about 125 million. In other words, the electoral college allows someone to win the Presidency with about 22% of the popular vote in his favor compared to 78% of the popular vote going to his opponent. Like I said, a contrived scenario, but tell me a system that allows something like that is a good idea.

Not sure where you are getting your math from, but only 121 million people voted in the last election.
Based on that how does one person end up with 125 million votes???

Edit: I figured it out, you must be using Chicago election math huh?

There ya go, PJ--I bolded the part you missed.

And if pigs flew we could use them as free transportation.

The fact is, the American public is too apethetic to care. Since 1960 the highest voter turnout was 63.1% in 1960. If if if. It sooo doesnt mater if this or if that. Im not pessimistic, just realistic.

It really doesn't matter what the voter turn out is. The example was to prove the point that the majority are getting screwed under the electoral college. But if you want go multiple both numbers by 63.1% or what ever you want and you will see that the same ratio applies.

I'm willing to bet 100 dollars that people would be quite a bit more interested in voting every four years if the electoral college did not exist anymore. I know I would!

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: smack Down
It really doesn't matter what the voter turn out is. The example was to prove the point that the majority are getting screwed under the electoral college. But if you want go multiple both numbers by 63.1% or what ever you want and you will see that the same ratio applies.

Only ONE time in the last hundred years has this happened though.
Now if we have another election or two where the popular vote winner loses then we can talk.

BTW Gore's popular vote victory came exclusively from California which he won by over a million votes. Throw out the Electoral College and go with a straight popular vote and Bush would have put time and effort into getting votes in California. Would that have changed the outcome of the popular vote? Who knows.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: smack Down
It really doesn't matter what the voter turn out is. The example was to prove the point that the majority are getting screwed under the electoral college. But if you want go multiple both numbers by 63.1% or what ever you want and you will see that the same ratio applies.

Only ONE time in the last hundred years has this happened though.
Now if we have another election or two where the popular vote winner loses then we can talk.

BTW Gore's popular vote victory came exclusively from California which he won by over a million votes. Throw out the Electoral College and go with a straight popular vote and Bush would have put time and effort into getting votes in California. Would that have changed the outcome of the popular vote? Who knows.

Yeah and how many times in the last one hundred years has won the Kentucky derby.

I think your very confused if you think this discussion has anything to do with Bush or gore.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: SuperFungus
Link, may need login

Basically, this Birch Bayh fella is trying to lobby state legislatures into pledging to devote all their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. The plan's called 'The National Popular Vote' and if Bayh can get more than half the electoral votes on board he'll have killed the electoral college without a constitutional amendment. I think it's a pretty ingenious plan.

Pray it never happens. The system is borked now as it is. The Electorial college is all thats left of some of the better ideas the founding fathers had.

Popular election of Senators ruined the states influence in National politics and it shows... why not throw out the will of the rural people next.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

also, there is NO right to vote for President. If the states want to get power over the Federal government they could just decide who the electors vote for thus ending the reign of big money candidates.

 

[Moonbeam]

To those above with all their counter arguments, the facts are as determined by recounting the votes later, that Gore won the election state wide with the most legal votes according to Florida state law. That is all that matters, those were the votes which should have been counted because those votes, the state wide total, is all that ever mattered or should have been counted. It makes no difference what Gore did or didn't do, asked for or didn't ask for, what the Florida court did or didn't do. The fact is that the only objective and fair answer to the Florida problem was to recount all the votes that were legal by state law and determine who won. That person was Gore. The winner of an election is who wins the election not whose interpretation a court decides to favor. The Supreme Coup should have ordered a total recount and kept their totally backward interpretation to themselves. I laugh when I hear O'Connor say is was not our finest hour. No, they paved the way for the worst disaster in American history to take office.

It is so sad that after all the evidence of the catastrophe know as George Bush some of you genuine imbeciles really believe that Gore would have been worse. The mental deficiency that can come to that conclusion is truly staggering. The genius of Bush has turned a our nation from one that had tremendous world wide sympathy into one that is viewed as the world's greatest threat.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
To those above with all their counter arguments, the facts are as determined by recounting the votes later, that Gore won the election state wide with the most legal votes according to Florida state law. That is all that matters, those were the votes which should have been counted because those votes, the state wide total, is all that ever mattered or should have been counted. It makes no difference what Gore did or didn't do, asked for or didn't ask for, what the Florida court did or didn't do. The fact is that the only objective and fair answer to the Florida problem was to recount all the votes that were legal by state law and determine who won. That person was Gore. The winner of an election is who wins the election not whose interpretation a court decides to favor. The Supreme Coup should have ordered a total recount and kept their totally backward interpretation to themselves. I laugh when I hear O'Connor say is was not our finest hour. No, they paved the way for the worst disaster in American history to take office.

It is so sad that after all the evidence of the catastrophe know as George Bush some of you genuine imbeciles really believe that Gore would have been worse. The mental deficiency that can come to that conclusion is truly staggering. The genius of Bush has turned a our nation from one that had tremendous world wide sympathy into one that is viewed as the world's greatest threat.

On my first bolded issue, Im not sure why you keep hammering on this legal vote cr@p. The popular vote doesnt friggin matter. Recount or no recount, it wouldnt have made any difference to the electors. This is such a worthless argument.

My second bolded point is also a worthless argument, no matter which side of the aisle youre on. Why? We'll never know for sure. One side says theres no way he coulda been worse, one side says he woulda been worse. How about we talk about tangible facts? Arguing over speculation is like the special olympics. Even if you win, youre still retarded.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
To those above with all their counter arguments, the facts are as determined by recounting the votes later, that Gore won the election state wide with the most legal votes according to Florida state law. That is all that matters, those were the votes which should have been counted because those votes, the state wide total, is all that ever mattered or should have been counted. It makes no difference what Gore did or didn't do, asked for or didn't ask for, what the Florida court did or didn't do. The fact is that the only objective and fair answer to the Florida problem was to recount all the votes that were legal by state law and determine who won. That person was Gore. The winner of an election is who wins the election not whose interpretation a court decides to favor. The Supreme Coup should have ordered a total recount and kept their totally backward interpretation to themselves. I laugh when I hear O'Connor say is was not our finest hour. No, they paved the way for the worst disaster in American history to take office.

It is so sad that after all the evidence of the catastrophe know as George Bush some of you genuine imbeciles really believe that Gore would have been worse. The mental deficiency that can come to that conclusion is truly staggering. The genius of Bush has turned a our nation from one that had tremendous world wide sympathy into one that is viewed as the world's greatest threat.

On my first bolded issue, Im not sure why you keep hammering on this legal vote cr@p. The popular vote doesnt friggin matter. Recount or no recount, it wouldnt have made any difference to the electors. This is such a worthless argument.

My second bolded point is also a worthless argument, no matter which side of the aisle youre on. Why? We'll never know for sure. One side says theres no way he coulda been worse, one side says he woulda been worse. How about we talk about tangible facts? Arguing over speculation is like the special olympics. Even if you win, youre still retarded.

Wait, if a full recount had been completed in time to show Gore won Florida before the EC vote, Bush would still be president? I'm confused.

It's most certainly over, and Bush has done what he has done. It's hard to imagine someone being worse, but anything is possible.

That part isn't the point though. The point is that 'the popular vote' need not be referenced in arguing that Bush was incorrectly declared rather than elected President in 2000.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If you live in a small state you would be foolish to get rid of it.

And since there are more small states than large states and since you need the small states in order to change the system, you?ll never see that change.

If a political party pushes it, then snow would be sold to an Eskimo.

So since the electoral college gave us GWB, the liberals will campaign to abolish it. After all, they are the ones most prevalent in the impoverished over crowded metropolises. It would be their voice that grows louder with such a change.

Hahahahahahaha, Gore won the electorial college. It was the Supreme Coup that stole the election.

Actually thats not what happened at all.

Why am I not surprised that someone who posts on here as much as you and has beliefs as strong as yours has no concept of what actually happens/happened.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

And since there are more small states than large states and since you need the small states in order to change the system, you?ll never see that change.

Bullsh1t. The following 11 states could get 271 electoral votes if they all passed such a law.

California
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Michigan
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
To those above with all their counter arguments, the facts are as determined by recounting the votes later, that Gore won the election state wide with the most legal votes according to Florida state law. That is all that matters, those were the votes which should have been counted because those votes, the state wide total, is all that ever mattered or should have been counted. It makes no difference what Gore did or didn't do, asked for or didn't ask for, what the Florida court did or didn't do. The fact is that the only objective and fair answer to the Florida problem was to recount all the votes that were legal by state law and determine who won. That person was Gore. The winner of an election is who wins the election not whose interpretation a court decides to favor. The Supreme Coup should have ordered a total recount and kept their totally backward interpretation to themselves. I laugh when I hear O'Connor say is was not our finest hour. No, they paved the way for the worst disaster in American history to take office.

It is so sad that after all the evidence of the catastrophe know as George Bush some of you genuine imbeciles really believe that Gore would have been worse. The mental deficiency that can come to that conclusion is truly staggering. The genius of Bush has turned a our nation from one that had tremendous world wide sympathy into one that is viewed as the world's greatest threat.

Link to a non-hack biased site (like yourself) that states this?

Gore lost his case because he wanted to cherry pick which counties to recount by hand and ignore the other ones. That means the left leaning counties should be gone over with a fine comb to make sure Gore got every vote intended for him while the other counties that weren't so left leaning should be ignored.

There was no way he was going to get a court to agree with that, well the 9th circuit maybe but this was Florida, and that was the only way he was getting into office.


Move on, stop being so bitter.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
To those above with all their counter arguments, the facts are as determined by recounting the votes later, that Gore won the election state wide with the most legal votes according to Florida state law. That is all that matters, those were the votes which should have been counted because those votes, the state wide total, is all that ever mattered or should have been counted. It makes no difference what Gore did or didn't do, asked for or didn't ask for, what the Florida court did or didn't do. The fact is that the only objective and fair answer to the Florida problem was to recount all the votes that were legal by state law and determine who won. That person was Gore. The winner of an election is who wins the election not whose interpretation a court decides to favor. The Supreme Coup should have ordered a total recount and kept their totally backward interpretation to themselves. I laugh when I hear O'Connor say is was not our finest hour. No, they paved the way for the worst disaster in American history to take office.

It is so sad that after all the evidence of the catastrophe know as George Bush some of you genuine imbeciles really believe that Gore would have been worse. The mental deficiency that can come to that conclusion is truly staggering. The genius of Bush has turned a our nation from one that had tremendous world wide sympathy into one that is viewed as the world's greatest threat.

On my first bolded issue, Im not sure why you keep hammering on this legal vote cr@p. The popular vote doesnt friggin matter. Recount or no recount, it wouldnt have made any difference to the electors. This is such a worthless argument.

My second bolded point is also a worthless argument, no matter which side of the aisle youre on. Why? We'll never know for sure. One side says theres no way he coulda been worse, one side says he woulda been worse. How about we talk about tangible facts? Arguing over speculation is like the special olympics. Even if you win, youre still retarded.

Wait, if a full recount had been completed in time to show Gore won Florida before the EC vote, Bush would still be president? I'm confused.

It's most certainly over, and Bush has done what he has done. It's hard to imagine someone being worse, but anything is possible.

That part isn't the point though. The point is that 'the popular vote' need not be referenced in arguing that Bush was incorrectly declared rather than elected President in 2000.

You dont actually believe electors are really influened by the votes in their districts do...do you? heh

As to your 2nd point, he was elected. Like it or not, he was elected as directed by our Constitution. Period.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

And since there are more small states than large states and since you need the small states in order to change the system, you?ll never see that change.

Bullsh1t. The following 11 states could get 271 electoral votes if they all passed such a law.

California
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Michigan
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas

You are not understand what he is saying, and probably also do not understand how the constitution works in this matter.

In order to pass an amendment to remove the Electoral College the small states would have to agree to it and they wouldn't.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
To those above with all their counter arguments, the facts are as determined by recounting the votes later, that Gore won the election state wide with the most legal votes according to Florida state law. That is all that matters, those were the votes which should have been counted because those votes, the state wide total, is all that ever mattered or should have been counted. It makes no difference what Gore did or didn't do, asked for or didn't ask for, what the Florida court did or didn't do. The fact is that the only objective and fair answer to the Florida problem was to recount all the votes that were legal by state law and determine who won. That person was Gore. The winner of an election is who wins the election not whose interpretation a court decides to favor. The Supreme Coup should have ordered a total recount and kept their totally backward interpretation to themselves. I laugh when I hear O'Connor say is was not our finest hour. No, they paved the way for the worst disaster in American history to take office.

It is so sad that after all the evidence of the catastrophe know as George Bush some of you genuine imbeciles really believe that Gore would have been worse. The mental deficiency that can come to that conclusion is truly staggering. The genius of Bush has turned a our nation from one that had tremendous world wide sympathy into one that is viewed as the world's greatest threat.

On my first bolded issue, Im not sure why you keep hammering on this legal vote cr@p. The popular vote doesnt friggin matter. Recount or no recount, it wouldnt have made any difference to the electors. This is such a worthless argument.

My second bolded point is also a worthless argument, no matter which side of the aisle youre on. Why? We'll never know for sure. One side says theres no way he coulda been worse, one side says he woulda been worse. How about we talk about tangible facts? Arguing over speculation is like the special olympics. Even if you win, youre still retarded.

Wait, if a full recount had been completed in time to show Gore won Florida before the EC vote, Bush would still be president? I'm confused.

It's most certainly over, and Bush has done what he has done. It's hard to imagine someone being worse, but anything is possible.

That part isn't the point though. The point is that 'the popular vote' need not be referenced in arguing that Bush was incorrectly declared rather than elected President in 2000.

You dont actually believe electors are really influened by the votes in their districts do...do you? heh

As to your 2nd point, he was elected. Like it or not, he was elected as directed by our Constitution. Period.

It might be better if each elector in a state were tied to a district.

In any event, my understanding is that the voters dictate who the electors pick, even if only by tradition. So yes, if the count showing Gore won Florida had been completed in time to be meaningful, this would have changed the results of the election to abide by the wishes of the voters, as interpreted by the constitution.

If by 'elected' you mean elected in by the EC, you are right.

If by 'elected as directed by [your] constitution', you mean the USSC is the final arbiter of 'what the constitution means' then you are right.

If you mean to suggest that Bush was elected in accordance with the wishes of the voters, or what the consititution actually means, to anyone with half a brain, then you are wrong. The result of that election was the opposite of what would have happened if all votes were counted as intended by the constitution.