Once and for all, Bush won in 2000 fair and square.

[Caminetto]

The electionis over and Bush is president. It's behind us now. I don't like the electoral college but it is part of the system. We move on.
But please, give me a f*cking break with the "fair and square"!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Caminetto
The electionis over and Bush is president. It's behind us now. I don't like the electoral college but it is part of the system. We move on.
But please, give me a f*cking break with the "fair and square"!

One break coming up. Don't waste it!😉 BTW, I'll be the first to agree that the Dub won fair and square according to the system we use!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Caminetto
The electionis over and Bush is president. It's behind us now. I don't like the electoral college but it is part of the system. We move on.
But please, give me a f*cking break with the "fair and square"!

One break coming up. Don't waste it!😉 BTW, I'll be the first to agree that the Dub won fair and square according to the system we use!

Based on the votes actually cast, yes, Bush won fair and square.

However, there is strong evidence that many in Florida were not allowed to even cast their vote, courtesy Katherine Harris and Diebold.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Doboji
So here we are 4 years after the Florida fiasco, and I'm still reading posts from people bztching about the fact that Gore won the popular vote but lost the election.

And I realize this was probably all discussed 4 years ago... but I feel the need to scream this one more time.

The electoral college is fair and moral, allowing the presidency to be determined by the popular vote would be immoral, unfair, and could bring this country to the brink of civil war. Because of the overwhelming populations in California and the East Coast Megalapolis, the election would be extremely biased and would snatch all voting power from enourmous swaths of land throughout the middle of the country.

Do you really think Kansas is going to be happy with absolutely no voting power whatsoever?... It is the electoral college that allows our unique form of democracy to function. If you abolish the electoral college you will immediately find yourself in a hard conflict with all the smaller states who's interests will be completely ignored.

What baffles me, is how anyone cannot see these simple realities?

-Max

Nope. Sorry but you are just WRONG.

There is no motivation for a Republican in California to even vote in this election. There is no motivation for a Democrat living in Texas to vote either. Your argument is terribly flawed and you have presented nothing new that has not been debunked over and over. The EC should be put on the ballot. This IS a democracy, right? Put it to the people and let them decide.

Americans should not be punished because of where they live. 1 person, 1 vote, all counted equally.

You do remember that all these little red and blue states with a small number of EC votes have the same representation as every other state in the Senate, right? You do remember that you also have representatives in congress, right? These people are elected to represent your states needs in Washington. Please try and explain to me some more how these small states aren't equally represented again. We are talking about ONE JOB guy. Please try and explain a little more clearly how smaller states interests will be completely ignored if the President of the United States does not happen to be the person they voted for. You have not done a very good job of explaining it yet. You are just talking circles around the issue and are being overly dramatic.

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
What is wrong with the system where it is simply a country-wide popular vote count? Some of you guys are arguing that candidates won't spend as much time in lower population states, so they'll spend more time in California than Iowa. How is that not fair? Iowa would get exactly the amount of time it's 2 million people deserve. They are a very small slice of the country, why should individuals in Iowa have more voting power than individuals in California? Remember, it's not states that have voting rights...it's people.

The only thing I can think of to say here is... you are some kind of moron, and haven't read the thread...

Clearly Kansas has completely different issues than New York... If we are to truly have a 50 state democracy, then we cannot ignore the issues of Kansas, otherwise, why would Kansas bother being part of the USA, they would be better of seceding and looking after their interests.

-Max

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Doboji
So here we are 4 years after the Florida fiasco, and I'm still reading posts from people bztching about the fact that Gore won the popular vote but lost the election.

And I realize this was probably all discussed 4 years ago... but I feel the need to scream this one more time.

The electoral college is fair and moral, allowing the presidency to be determined by the popular vote would be immoral, unfair, and could bring this country to the brink of civil war. Because of the overwhelming populations in California and the East Coast Megalapolis, the election would be extremely biased and would snatch all voting power from enourmous swaths of land throughout the middle of the country.

Do you really think Kansas is going to be happy with absolutely no voting power whatsoever?... It is the electoral college that allows our unique form of democracy to function. If you abolish the electoral college you will immediately find yourself in a hard conflict with all the smaller states who's interests will be completely ignored.

What baffles me, is how anyone cannot see these simple realities?

-Max

Nope. Sorry but you are just WRONG.

There is no motivation for a Republican in California to even vote in this election. There is no motivation for a Democrat living in Texas to vote either. Your argument is terribly flawed and you have presented nothing new that has not been debunked over and over. The EC should be put on the ballot. This IS a democracy, right? Put it to the people and let them decide.

Americans should not be punished because of where they live. 1 person, 1 vote, all counted equally.

Why don't you try reading the gawdamn thread before you stick your foot all the way down your throat?

-Max

 

[Spencer278]

I think the biggest problem with the electral college comes from the physical size of the states. Look at new england for example if the six states where one they would lose about 10 votes maybe more.

I think that number of people in the house should be double or maybe trippled which would then shift more votes towards populated centers. The red neck states defintly have to much power compared to there population.

 

[conjur]

A Brief History of the Electoral College
http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

Including:

Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S.
Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may
change each decade according to the size of each State's population as
determined in the Census).

And:

The Pro?s and Con?s of the Electoral College System
There have, in its 200-year history, been a number of critics and
proposed reforms to the Electoral College system -- most of them trying to
eliminate it. But there are also staunch defenders of the Electoral College
who, though perhaps less vocal than its critics, offer very powerful
arguments in its favor.


Arguments Against the Electoral College

Those who object to the Electoral College system and favor a direct
popular election of the president generally do so on four grounds:
n the possibility of electing a minority president
n the risk of so-called "faithless" Electors,
n the possible role of the Electoral College in depressing voter turnout, and
n its failure to accurately reflect the national popular will.

Opponents of the Electoral College are disturbed by the possibility of
electing a minority president (one without the absolute majority of
popular votes). Nor is this concern entirely unfounded since there are three
ways in which that could happen.

One way in which a minority president could be elected is if the
country were so deeply divided politically that three or more presidential
candidates split the electoral votes among them such that no one obtained
the necessary majority. This occurred, as noted above, in 1824 and was
unsuccessfully attempted in 1948 and again in 1968. Should that happen
today, there are two possible resolutions: either one candidate could throw
his electoral votes to the support of another (before the meeting of the
Electors) or else, absent an absolute majority in the Electoral College, the
U.S. House of Representatives would select the president in accordance with
the 12th Amendment. Either way, though, the person taking office would
not have obtained the absolute majority of the popular vote. Yet it is unclear
how a direct election of the president could resolve such a deep national
conflict without introducing a presidential run-off election -- a procedure
which would add substantially to the time, cost, and effort already devoted to
selecting a president and which might well deepen the political divisions
while trying to resolve them.

A second way in which a minority president could take office is if, as
in 1888, one candidate's popular support were heavily concentrated in a few
States while the other candidate maintained a slim popular lead in enough
States to win the needed majority of the Electoral College. While the country
has occasionally come close to this sort of outcome, the question here is
whether the distribution of a candidate's popular support should be taken
into account alongside the relative size of it. This issue was mentioned
above and is discussed at greater length below.

A third way of electing a minority president is if a third party or
candidate, however small, drew enough votes from the top two that no one
received over 50% of the national popular total. Far from being unusual,
this sort of thing has, in fact, happened 15 times including (in this century)
Wilson in both 1912 and 1916, Truman in 1948, Kennedy in 1960, Nixon in
1968, and Clinton in both 1992 1nd 1996. The only remarkable thing about
those outcomes is that few people noticed and even fewer cared. Nor would
a direct election have changed those outcomes without a run-off requiring
over 50% of the popular vote (an idea which not even proponents of a direct
election seem to advocate).

Opponents of the Electoral College system also point to the risk of socalled
"faithless" Electors. A "faithless Elector" is one who is pledged to
vote for his party's candidate for president but nevertheless votes for
another candidate. There have been 7 such Electors in this century and as
recently as 1988 when a Democrat Elector in the State of West Virginia cast
his votes for Lloyd Bensen for president and Michael Dukakis for vice
president instead of the other way around. Faithless Electors have never
changed the outcome of an election, though, simply because most often their
purpose is to make a statement rather than make a difference. That is to
say, when the electoral vote outcome is so obviously going to be for one
candidate or the other, an occasional Elector casts a vote for some personal
favorite knowing full well that it will not make a difference in the result.
Still, if the prospect of a faithless Elector is so fearsome as to warrant a
Constitutional amendment, then it is possible to solve the problem without
abolishing the Electoral College merely by eliminating the individual
Electors in favor of a purely mathematical process (since the individual
Electors are no longer essential to its operation).

Opponents of the Electoral College are further concerned about its
possible role in depressing voter turnout. Their argument is that, since
each State is entitled to the same number of electoral votes regardless of its
voter turnout, there is no incentive in the States to encourage voter
participation. Indeed, there may even be an incentive to discourage
participation (and they often cite the South here) so as to enable a minority
of citizens to decide the electoral vote for the whole State. While this
argument has a certain surface plausibility, it fails to account for the fact
that presidential elections do not occur in a vacuum. States also conduct
other elections (for U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, State Governors,
State legislators, and a host of local officials) in which these same
incentives and disincentives are likely to operate, if at all, with an even
greater force. It is hard to imagine what counter-incentive would be
created by eliminating the Electoral College.

Finally, some opponents of the Electoral College point out, quite
correctly, its failure to accurately reflect the national popular will in at
least two respects.

First, the distribution of Electoral votes in the College tends to overrepresent
people in rural States. This is because the number of Electors for
each State is determined by the number of members it has in the House
(which more or less reflects the State's population size) plus the number of
members it has in the Senate (which is always two regardless of the State's
population). The result is that in 1988, for example, the combined voting age
population (3,119,000) of the seven least populous jurisdictions of Alaska,
Delaware, the District of Columbia, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont,
and Wyoming carried the same voting strength in the Electoral College (21
Electoral votes) as the 9,614,000 persons of voting age in the State of Florida.
Each Floridian's potential vote, then, carried about one third the weight of a
potential vote in the other States listed.

A second way in which the Electoral College fails to accurately reflect
the national popular will stems primarily from the winner-take-all
mechanism whereby the presidential candidate who wins the most popular
votes in the State wins all the Electoral votes of that State. One effect of this
mechanism is to make it extremely difficult for third-party or independent
candidates ever to make much of a showing in the Electoral College. If, for
example, a third-party or independent candidate were to win the support of
even as many as 25% of the voters nationwide, he might still end up with no
Electoral College votes at all unless he won a plurality of votes in at least
one State. And even if he managed to win a few States, his support
elsewhere would not be reflected. By thus failing to accurately reflect the
national popular will, the argument goes, the Electoral College reinforces a
two-party system, discourages third-party or independent candidates, and
thereby tends to restrict choices available to the electorate.

In response to these arguments, proponents of the Electoral College
point out that it was never intended to reflect the national popular will. As
for the first issue, that the Electoral College over-represents rural
populations, proponents respond that the United States Senate -- with two
seats per State regardless of its population -- over-represents rural
populations far more dramatically. But since there have been no serious
proposals to abolish the United States Senate on these grounds, why should
such an argument be used to abolish the lesser case of the Electoral
College? Because the presidency represents the whole country? But so, as
an institution, does the United States Senate.

As for the second issue of the Electoral College's role in reinforcing a
two-party system, proponents, as we shall see, find this to be a positive
virtue.


Arguments for the Electoral College

Proponents of the Electoral College system normally defend it on the
philosophical grounds that it:
n contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution
of popular support to be elected president
n enhances the status of minority interests,
n contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a twoparty
system, and
n maintains a federal system of government and representation.

Recognizing the strong regional interests and loyalties which have
played so great a role in American history, proponents argue that the
Electoral College system contributes to the cohesiveness of the country
by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president.
Without such a mechanism, they point out, presidents would be selected
either through the domination of one populous region over the others or
through the domination of large metropolitan areas over the rural ones.
Indeed, it is principally because of the Electoral College that presidential
nominees are inclined to select vice presidential running mates from a
region other than their own. For as things stand now, no one region
contains the absolute majority (270) of electoral votes required to elect a
president. Thus, there is an incentive for presidential candidates to pull
together coalitions of States and regions rather than to exacerbate regional
differences. Such a unifying mechanism seems especially prudent in view
of the severe regional problems that have typically plagued geographically
large nations such as China, India, the Soviet Union, and even, in its time,
the Roman Empire.

This unifying mechanism does not, however, come without a small
price. And the price is that in very close popular elections, it is possible that
the candidate who wins a slight majority of popular votes may not be the
one elected president -- depending (as in 1888) on whether his popularity is
concentrated in a few States or whether it is more evenly distributed across
the States. Yet this is less of a problem than it seems since, as a practical
matter, the popular difference between the two candidates would likely be so
small that either candidate could govern effectively.

Proponents thus believe that the practical value of requiring a
distribution of popular support outweighs whatever sentimental value may
attach to obtaining a bare majority of the popular support. Indeed, they
point out that the Electoral College system is designed to work in a rational
series of defaults: if, in the first instance, a candidate receives a substantial
majority of the popular vote, then that candidate is virtually certain to win
enough electoral votes to be elected president; in the event that the popular
vote is extremely close, then the election defaults to that candidate with the
best distribution of popular votes (as evidenced by obtaining the absolute
majority of electoral votes); in the event the country is so divided that no one
obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes, then the choice of president
defaults to the States in the U.S. House of Representatives. One way or
another, then, the winning candidate must demonstrate both a sufficient
popular support to govern as well as a sufficient distribution of that
support to govern.

Proponents also point out that, far from diminishing minority
interests by depressing voter participation, the Electoral College actually
enhances the status of minority groups. This is so because the votes of
even small minorities in a State may make the difference between winning
all of that State's electoral votes or none of that State's electoral votes. And
since ethnic minority groups in the United States happen to concentrate in
those States with the most electoral votes, they assume an importance to
presidential candidates well out of proportion to their number. The same
principle applies to other special interest groups such as labor unions,
farmers, environmentalists, and so forth.

It is because of this "leverage effect" that the presidency, as an
institution, tends to be more sensitive to ethnic minority and other special
interest groups than does the Congress as an institution. Changing to a
direct election of the president would therefore actually damage minority
interests since their votes would be overwhelmed by a national popular
majority.

Proponents further argue that the Electoral College contributes to
the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system.
There can be no doubt that the Electoral College has encouraged and helps
to maintain a two- party system in the United States. This is true simply
because it is extremely difficult for a new or minor party to win enough
popular votes in enough States to have a chance of winning the presidency.
Even if they won enough electoral votes to force the decision into the U.S.
House of Representatives, they would still have to have a majority of over
half the State delegations in order to elect their candidate -- and in that case,
they would hardly be considered a minor party.

In addition to protecting the presidency from impassioned but
transitory third party movements, the practical effect of the Electoral
College (along with the single-member district system of representation in
the Congress) is to virtually force third party movements into one of the two
major political parties. Conversely, the major parties have every incentive to
absorb minor party movements in their continual attempt to win popular
majorities in the States. In this process of assimilation, third party
movements are obliged to compromise their more radical views if they hope
to attain any of their more generally acceptable objectives. Thus we end up
with two large, pragmatic political parties which tend to the center of public
opinion rather than dozens of smaller political parties catering to divergent
and sometimes extremist views. In other words, such a system forces
political coalitions to occur within the political parties rather than within
the government.

A direct popular election of the president would likely have the
opposite effect. For in a direct popular election, there would be every
incentive for a multitude of minor parties to form in an attempt to prevent
whatever popular majority might be necessary to elect a president. The
surviving candidates would thus be drawn to the regionalist or extremist
views represented by these parties in hopes of winning the run-off election.
The result of a direct popular election for president, then, would likely
be a frayed and unstable political system characterized by a multitude of
political parties and by more radical changes in policies from one
administration to the next. The Electoral College system, in contrast,
encourages political parties to coalesce divergent interests into two sets of
coherent alternatives. Such an organization of social conflict and political
debate contributes to the political stability of the nation.

Finally, its proponents argue quite correctly that the Electoral College
maintains a federal system of government and representation. Their
reasoning is that in a formal federal structure, important political powers
are reserved to the component States. In the United States, for example, the
House of Representatives was designed to represent the States according to
the size of their population. The States are even responsible for drawing the
district lines for their House seats. The Senate was designed to represent
each State equally regardless of its population. And the Electoral College
was designed to represent each State's choice for the presidency (with the
number of each State's electoral votes being the number of its Senators plus
the number of its Representatives). To abolish the Electoral College in favor
of a nationwide popular election for president would strike at the very heart
of the federal structure laid out in our Constitution and would lead to the
nationalization of our central government -- to the detriment of the States.
Indeed, if we become obsessed with government by popular majority
as the only consideration, should we not then abolish the Senate which
represents States regardless of population? Should we not correct the
minor distortions in the House (caused by districting and by guaranteeing
each State at least one Representative) by changing it to a system of
proportional representation? This would accomplish "government by
popular majority" and guarantee the representation of minority parties, but
it would also demolish our federal system of government. If there are
reasons to maintain State representation in the Senate and House as they
exist today, then surely these same reasons apply to the choice of president.
Why, then, apply a sentimental attachment to popular majorities only to the


Electoral College?

The fact is, they argue, that the original design of our federal system
of government was thoroughly and wisely debated by the Founding Fathers.
State viewpoints, they decided, are more important than political minority
viewpoints. And the collective opinion of the individual State populations is
more important than the opinion of the national population taken as a
whole. Nor should we tamper with the careful balance of power between
the national and State governments which the Founding Fathers intended
and which is reflected in the Electoral College. To do so would
fundamentally alter the nature of our government and might well bring
about consequences that even the reformers would come to regret.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Say what you want about the election of 2000, but one thing is for certain. Gore accepted his "loss" like a real honorable man. He made me proud when he stepped down without throwing a hissy fit or parading around the country like he had a right to the presidency. I know if the shoe were on the other foot, Bush wouldn't have accepted losing nearly as gracefully, neither would the Republicans.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
What is wrong with the system where it is simply a country-wide popular vote count? Some of you guys are arguing that candidates won't spend as much time in lower population states, so they'll spend more time in California than Iowa. How is that not fair? Iowa would get exactly the amount of time it's 2 million people deserve. They are a very small slice of the country, why should individuals in Iowa have more voting power than individuals in California? Remember, it's not states that have voting rights...it's people.

But the people in the state of Kansas have different needs than the people in the State of California. Never mind...

[edit]Apparently, The majority of your current elected officials think that the electoral vote is correct or there would be changes being made. So how are these people you've elected be wrong?[/edit]

This is an honest suggestion for those against the Electoral system. You need to get together and form a group that will come up with a clear VIABLE option and take it to your leaders in Washington. Bitching and Moaning about this system on AT P&N will do nothing. And in all honesty.. You may even come up with a better system that will be enacted.

You can bitch and moan about policy but until you do something to proactively change the policy using the appropriate methods, nothing will change.

You can think that Gore lost illegally all you want but what does that fix for the future? Come up with a better system and propose it as a group and see where it goes.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Say what you want about the election of 2000, but one thing is for certain. Gore accepted his "loss" like a real honorable man. He made me proud when he stepped down without throwing a hissy fit or parading around the country like he had a right to the presidency. I know if the shoe were on the other foot, Bush wouldn't have accepted losing nearly as gracefully, neither would the Republicans.

Gore did? I believe if the shoe had been on the other foot the Republicans would have whined and snviveled just like the Democrats did.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Say what you want about the election of 2000, but one thing is for certain. Gore accepted his "loss" like a real honorable man. He made me proud when he stepped down without throwing a hissy fit or parading around the country like he had a right to the presidency. I know if the shoe were on the other foot, Bush wouldn't have accepted losing nearly as gracefully, neither would the Republicans.

He shouldn't have.

Thanks to the selective throwing out of legitimate voters by Jeb, Harris and all other Bush minions the Florida fiasco shoud've been ruled Unconstitutional.

There should've been another Election held under closer scrutiny especially Florida. I am sure that Bush would not even have been close without the cheating.

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Say what you want about the election of 2000, but one thing is for certain. Gore accepted his "loss" like a real honorable man. He made me proud when he stepped down without throwing a hissy fit or parading around the country like he had a right to the presidency. I know if the shoe were on the other foot, Bush wouldn't have accepted losing nearly as gracefully, neither would the Republicans.

Gore did? I believe if the shoe had been on the other foot the Republicans would have whined and snviveled just like the Democrats did.

My sentiments exactly... But I think if people got out and voted even when they thought they had no impact, then we could at least tell by the election results who the country wanted to be elected.

-Max

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Say what you want about the election of 2000, but one thing is for certain. Gore accepted his "loss" like a real honorable man. He made me proud when he stepped down without throwing a hissy fit or parading around the country like he had a right to the presidency. I know if the shoe were on the other foot, Bush wouldn't have accepted losing nearly as gracefully, neither would the Republicans.

Gore did? I believe if the shoe had been on the other foot the Republicans would have whined and snviveled just like the Democrats did.

and I would bitch slap the republicans for doing it too. It's like going to the Stanley Cup Finals and bitching about the "Icing" rule. The rule/policy is there, It is clear and you knew about it before starting.

[edit]OMG... I'm from Oklahoma and I'm using a Hockey Analogy.... [/edit]

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Rainsford
What is wrong with the system where it is simply a country-wide popular vote count? Some of you guys are arguing that candidates won't spend as much time in lower population states, so they'll spend more time in California than Iowa. How is that not fair? Iowa would get exactly the amount of time it's 2 million people deserve. They are a very small slice of the country, why should individuals in Iowa have more voting power than individuals in California? Remember, it's not states that have voting rights...it's people.

But the people in the state of Kansas have different needs than the people in the State of California. Never mind...

Exactly, never mind. Please try and explain to me how the people in Kansas needs aren't met because the person they wanted to be president does NOT become president. Does the presidnet typically impune entire states like you are saying because they as a whole, did not vote for them? No logic behind your argument. They have 2 senators just like California. The President does not only represent Californians if he happens to be a Democrat. The President does not only represent the Red states if he is a Republican. That's why we have checks and balances. So this tired old argument that the poor little states feel slighted if only one large state gets to decide the election is played out and tired. Big deal. The EC discriminates against where people live and that is wrong.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Say what you want about the election of 2000, but one thing is for certain. Gore accepted his "loss" like a real honorable man. He made me proud when he stepped down without throwing a hissy fit or parading around the country like he had a right to the presidency. I know if the shoe were on the other foot, Bush wouldn't have accepted losing nearly as gracefully, neither would the Republicans.

Gore did? I believe if the shoe had been on the other foot the Republicans would have whined and snviveled just like the Democrats did.

My sentiments exactly... But I think if people got out and voted even when they thought they had no impact, then we could at least tell by the election results who the country wanted to be elected.

-Max

And I contend if people had gone out and voted instead of being discouraged by the Electoral College that Bush actually would have won the popular vote. The Electoral College no longer suits it's purpose.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: Rainsford
What is wrong with the system where it is simply a country-wide popular vote count? Some of you guys are arguing that candidates won't spend as much time in lower population states, so they'll spend more time in California than Iowa. How is that not fair? Iowa would get exactly the amount of time it's 2 million people deserve. They are a very small slice of the country, why should individuals in Iowa have more voting power than individuals in California? Remember, it's not states that have voting rights...it's people.

The only thing I can think of to say here is... you are some kind of moron, and haven't read the thread...

Clearly Kansas has completely different issues than New York... If we are to truly have a 50 state democracy, then we cannot ignore the issues of Kansas, otherwise, why would Kansas bother being part of the USA, they would be better of seceding and looking after their interests.

-Max

Why don't you just go sit in the corner and drink a big tall glass of calm down juice while the adults have their conversation WITHOUT name calling? :roll:

I realize Kansas has different issues than New York. They also have about 1/7 the population. What you have to remember is that states don't have issues, PEOPLE do. And if we're being fair...a Kansas person's issues are just as important as a New York person's issues...but there are 7 times as many New Youk persons than Kansas persons. But Kansas only has 1/5 the electoral votes of New York...which seems fair to you I guess. Essentially this is taking 1 Kansas person, and 1 New York person, and telling the New York person that, as an individual, their views are worth less than those of that Kansas person over there.

I see what you are saying...without our current system, smaller states wouldn't have very much say. But here's the thing, is it fair to people that live in larger areas to have less of a say in an election than a Kansas person? I guess the argument is that although a New York person has less say, they have a whole bunch of friends who agree with them to back them up. And I guess I can see that in our system we want to protect the rights of minorities against huge majorities.

I see the concept behind the system, but I still don't see how you can tell someone from San Francisco that their vote counts less than that of someone in Ames, Iowa just because we'll assume their views are shared by the rest of the people in California who will "make up for it". Because I got to tell ya, as anyone who's lived in SF knows, that is certainly NOT the case. You cheapen their (my) votes because of some huge generalizations.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Doboji
So here we are 4 years after the Florida fiasco, and I'm still reading posts from people bztching about the fact that Gore won the popular vote but lost the election.

And I realize this was probably all discussed 4 years ago... but I feel the need to scream this one more time.

The electoral college is fair and moral, allowing the presidency to be determined by the popular vote would be immoral, unfair, and could bring this country to the brink of civil war. Because of the overwhelming populations in California and the East Coast Megalapolis, the election would be extremely biased and would snatch all voting power from enourmous swaths of land throughout the middle of the country.

Do you really think Kansas is going to be happy with absolutely no voting power whatsoever?... It is the electoral college that allows our unique form of democracy to function. If you abolish the electoral college you will immediately find yourself in a hard conflict with all the smaller states who's interests will be completely ignored.

What baffles me, is how anyone cannot see these simple realities?

-Max

Nope. Sorry but you are just WRONG.

There is no motivation for a Republican in California to even vote in this election. There is no motivation for a Democrat living in Texas to vote either. Your argument is terribly flawed and you have presented nothing new that has not been debunked over and over. The EC should be put on the ballot. This IS a democracy, right? Put it to the people and let them decide.

Americans should not be punished because of where they live. 1 person, 1 vote, all counted equally.

Why don't you try reading the gawdamn thread before you stick your foot all the way down your throat?

-Max

Uh yes, I read your post. Care to discount what I said or will you just blowing smoke?

Cliff notes version:

You say, EC is good (and your rant about Gore falls on deaf ears with me, I could care less about 2000, this is 2004).

You say the EC promotes fairness and equal representation.

I say: The EC is shite. It punishes the majority in some instances (like 2000) for where they live geographically. Which is EXACTLY what you are saying it SHOULD NOT DO. You are saying it is not right to punish people living in Kasas but it is OK to punish people living in California when you say the EC still has merit.

It should be a referendum, not left up to our elected officials to determine its usefullness any longer.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Chodaboy
2000 was an embarrassment to most people on the left that I've talked to. Any American kid that graduates high school should know that the electoral college elects the president, and while the popular vote is usually representative of who will win, it is by no means binding.

The manner that organized Dems protested the outcome was immature and totally unproductive. If the Electoral College is no longer the most effective way to decide who the American public want as president, that's OK, but don't whine about it ex post facto.

All this Selected not Elected junk gets us nowhere. If people want a different system, write your Congressman, organize, etc., but I'm gonna slap the next person who says "He's not my president"- that does nothing but polarize our country and make us look weak to other nations.

The fundies in office are doing a good enough job dividing this country, don't help them.

If my memory serves me correctly didn't Nixon lose to JFK even though he won the popular vote? I guess it works both ways. In my opinion to get rid of the electoral college would just centralize the federal goverment worse then it is and that would be a "bad thing" IMO.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Rainsford
What is wrong with the system where it is simply a country-wide popular vote count? Some of you guys are arguing that candidates won't spend as much time in lower population states, so they'll spend more time in California than Iowa. How is that not fair? Iowa would get exactly the amount of time it's 2 million people deserve. They are a very small slice of the country, why should individuals in Iowa have more voting power than individuals in California? Remember, it's not states that have voting rights...it's people.

But the people in the state of Kansas have different needs than the people in the State of California. Never mind...

Exactly, never mind. Please try and explain to me how the people in Kansas needs aren't met because the person they wanted to be president does NOT become president. Does the presidnet typically impune entire states like you are saying because they as a whole, did not vote for them? No logic behind your argument. They have 2 senators just like California. The President does not only represent Californians if he happens to be a Democrat. The President does not only represent the Red states if he is a Republican. That's why we have checks and balances. So this tired old argument that the poor little states feel slighted if only one large state gets to decide the election is played out and tired. Big deal. The EC discriminates against where people live and that is wrong.

This has been explained a thousand times. I'll do it for you one more time.....

Lets just say for sake of this argument that CA has all 270 electoral votes that is needed. The president and the candidate will spend all of their time in that state to get that states votes. The candidates will do nothing but listen to CA needs and requests. They will mold their administration (or should) around those needs. That would leave all other states out to dry hoping that the President's policies he created for CA fit their needs too. If the President doesn't stand by what he said he would do for CA and form all of his policies around CA then CA will vote for another president next time.

I don't know why this is such a confusing concept for you to follow. Maybe it is because you are from one of the 11. Either way, read my suggestion above and follow it. Telling me I have no logic is fruitless and also pretty ignorant since Congress thinks and has always thought that this was the best way to do it. Give them a better way as a group and see where it goes.

Good luck if anyone want's to do this the correct way.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Gore won the popular vote and he won the electoral college. His victory was assured by the Supreme Coup by their stopping the vote count in Florida at a point the illegitimate Bush was ahead. A later recount of the total legal vote in Florida determined that Gore won that popular vote too and won the Florida election. The legitimate government of the United States was overthrown and the will of the people thwarted by the Supreme Thwart. The enormous disaster of the God Chimp Presidency has been a catastrophe for our nation. Our children will pay a tremendous price for that ass and those of you who support him are responsible. Enjoy your denial because you will be condemned down through history, especially by your children and grandchildren.

It all depends on who funded the study on who was the "winner".



Bush Won
Gore Won

Nope the Bush won link clearly states that Gore won. Bush only wins under various strategies that exclude legal votes. Gore won state wide with legal votes which is what winning a state means. You don't win elections by stopping a vote count or counting only some of the state. You win by having a majority of the legal votes of the whole state which is the vote Gore won.

The media burried the truth after 9/11

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Say what you want about the election of 2000, but one thing is for certain. Gore accepted his "loss" like a real honorable man. He made me proud when he stepped down without throwing a hissy fit or parading around the country like he had a right to the presidency. I know if the shoe were on the other foot, Bush wouldn't have accepted losing nearly as gracefully, neither would the Republicans.

He shouldn't have.

Thanks to the selective throwing out of legitimate voters by Jeb, Harris and all other Bush minions the Florida fiasco shoud've been ruled Unconstitutional.

There should've been another Election held under closer scrutiny especially Florida. I am sure that Bush would not even have been close without the cheating.

I think you have a valid point there. It is too late now to do anything about it though, except to try and make sure that it doesn't happen again.

 

[daveshel]

So, what - if you say it enough times it becomes true? It wasn't the fault of the electoral college, the problem was the shenanigans in Florida with the purged voter rolls, the hanging chads and all that.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Gore won the popular vote and he won the electoral college. His victory was assured by the Supreme Coup by their stopping the vote count in Florida at a point the illegitimate Bush was ahead. A later recount of the total legal vote in Florida determined that Gore won that popular vote too and won the Florida election. The legitimate government of the United States was overthrown and the will of the people thwarted by the Supreme Thwart. The enormous disaster of the God Chimp Presidency has been a catastrophe for our nation. Our children will pay a tremendous price for that ass and those of you who support him are responsible. Enjoy your denial because you will be condemned down through history, especially by your children and grandchildren.

It all depends on who funded the study on who was the "winner".



Bush Won
Gore Won

Nope the Bush won link clearly states that Gore won. Bush only wins under various strategies that exclude legal votes. Gore won state wide with legal votes which is what winning a state means. You don't win elections by stopping a vote count or counting only some of the state. You win by having a majority of the legal votes of the whole state which is the vote Gore won.

The media burried the truth after 9/11

This is an honest suggestion for those against the Electoral system. You need to get together and form a group that will come up with a clear VIABLE option and take it to your leaders in Washington. Bitching and Moaning about this system on AT P&N will do nothing. And in all honesty.. You may even come up with a better system that will be enacted.

You can bitch and moan about policy but until you do something to proactively change the policy using the appropriate methods, nothing will change.

You can think that Gore lost illegally all you want but what does that fix for the future? Come up with a better system and propose it as a group and see where it goes.

[edit] What the hell... Here is the opening paras in that story you said "Clearly states gore won."

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies, including CNN.

NORC dispatched an army of trained investigators to examine closely every rejected ballot in all 67 Florida counties, including handwritten and punch-card ballots. The NORC team of coders were able to examine about 99 percent of them, but county officials were unable to deliver as many as 2,200 problem ballots to NORC investigators. In addition, the uncertainties of human judgment, combined with some counties' inability to produce the same undervotes and overvotes that they saw last year, create a margin of error that makes the study instructive but not definitive in its findings.

All I am saying is that both sides have stated that they won and it depends on who studied it. Just read what I copied above that I posted previously and try changing the system to be more "fair" and I really wish you luck. Like I said also... the group of you might actually come up with a better plan.

 

[Darkhawk28]

The better system is to have an equal popular/electoral vote ratio... this way skewed setup we have now is gonna cause us more problems in future elections than anything else.