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

[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

 

[nageov3t]

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.

you say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[TheGameIs21]

doboji: I completely agree with you but what you have done is given the libs a place to discuss how GWB will bring on his own "Civil War"... I am tired of hearing that too....

Stop trying to talk logic here... It doesn't exist.

 

[Red Dawn]

So according to you people from smaller states votes should be worth more than those from larger states? Have you ever considered the reason that Gore won the Popular Vote was because Republicans in states like Mass, NY and CA didn't bother to vote because it was a forgone conclusion that Gore was going to win the Elelctoral Votes from those states? Seeing that Gore only had less than 500,000 more votes than the Dub it's pretty easy to understand why the Electoral College prevented the Dub from garnering those 500,000 votes. I bet he could have got a good portion of those in CA if there was no Electoral College.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
doboji: I completely agree with you but what you have done is given the libs a place to discuss how GWB will bring on his own "Civil War"... I am tired of hearing that too....

Stop trying to talk logic here... It doesn't exist.

Hannity, is that you?

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So according to you people from smaller states votes should be worth more than those from larger states? Have you ever considered the reason that Gore won the Popular Vote was because Republicans in states like Mass, NY and CA didn't bother to vote because it was a forgone conclusion that Gore was going to win the Elelctoral Votes from those states? Seeing that Gore only had less than 500,000 more votes than the Dub it's pretty easy to understand why the Elelctoral College prevented the Dub from garnering those 500,000 votes. I bet he could have got a good portion of those in CA if there was no Electoral College.

No.... If we were saying that our votes should be worth more then we'd demand the same number of Electoral Votes as California. Example: California has 55 Votes and Oklahoma has 7. If Oklahoma's votes were to be worth more than CA's then OK would also have 55 votes.


Source

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So according to you people from smaller states votes should be worth more than those from larger states? Have you ever considered the reason that Gore won the Popular Vote was because Republicans in states like Mass, NY and CA didn't bother to vote because it was a forgone conclusion that Gore was going to win the Elelctoral Votes from those states? Seeing that Gore only had less than 500,000 more votes than the Dub it's pretty easy to understand why the Elelctoral College prevented the Dub from garnering those 500,000 votes. I bet he could have got a good portion of those in CA if there was no Electoral College.

No.... If we were saying that our votes should be worth more then we'd demand the same number of Electoral Votes as California. Example: California has 55 Votes and Oklahoma has 7. If Oklahoma's votes were to be worth more than CA's then OK would also have 55 votes.


Source

We aren't talking about "States Votes" we are talking about individuals votes. I'm saying that the Electoral College keeps people from voting in states where the outcome is a forgone conclusion and without it more people would vote because their vote would actually count.

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So according to you people from smaller states votes should be worth more than those from larger states? Have you ever considered the reason that Gore won the Popular Vote was because Republicans in states like Mass, NY and CA didn't bother to vote because it was a forgone conclusion that Gore was going to win the Elelctoral Votes from those states? Seeing that Gore only had less than 500,000 more votes than the Dub it's pretty easy to understand why the Electoral College prevented the Dub from garnering those 500,000 votes. I bet he could have got a good portion of those in CA if there was no Electoral College.

What I'm saying is that in order for a 50 state democracy to work, there has to be some sort of balance of power... if all the power is contained in a few states you will inevitably find yourself in an unstable democracy... The electoral college provides for this. If you have a better system in mind... by all means I'd love to hear it.

As for the the reasons why Gore won the popular vote, and who didnt vote where... I don't see that I can really begin to address that since we don't know who these people are, or WHY they didnt vote. See my previous thread... everyone should vote... regardless of which way you think the state's electoral votes are going to go. Otherwise you are a non-statistic.

-Max

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So according to you people from smaller states votes should be worth more than those from larger states? Have you ever considered the reason that Gore won the Popular Vote was because Republicans in states like Mass, NY and CA didn't bother to vote because it was a forgone conclusion that Gore was going to win the Elelctoral Votes from those states? Seeing that Gore only had less than 500,000 more votes than the Dub it's pretty easy to understand why the Elelctoral College prevented the Dub from garnering those 500,000 votes. I bet he could have got a good portion of those in CA if there was no Electoral College.

No.... If we were saying that our votes should be worth more then we'd demand the same number of Electoral Votes as California. Example: California has 55 Votes and Oklahoma has 7. If Oklahoma's votes were to be worth more than CA's then OK would also have 55 votes.


Source

Dont bother explaining..they just won't get it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So according to you people from smaller states votes should be worth more than those from larger states? Have you ever considered the reason that Gore won the Popular Vote was because Republicans in states like Mass, NY and CA didn't bother to vote because it was a forgone conclusion that Gore was going to win the Elelctoral Votes from those states? Seeing that Gore only had less than 500,000 more votes than the Dub it's pretty easy to understand why the Electoral College prevented the Dub from garnering those 500,000 votes. I bet he could have got a good portion of those in CA if there was no Electoral College.

What I'm saying is that in order for a 50 state democracy to work, there has to be some sort of balance of power... if all the power is contained in a few states you will inevitably find yourself in an unstable democracy... The electoral college provides for this. If you have a better system in mind... by all means I'd love to hear it.

As for the the reasons why Gore won the popular vote, and who didnt vote where... I don't see that I can really begin to address that since we don't know who these people are, or WHY they didnt vote. See my previous thread... everyone should vote... regardless of which way you think the state's electoral votes are going to go. Otherwise you are a non-statistic.

-Max

If you are a Democrat in Texas or a Republican in CA your vote will be a waste due to the Electoral College.

 

[nageov3t]

but the population of Oklahoma is 3,450,654, compared with California's 33,871,648.

OK has 1 electoral vote for every 230,043 people, whereas California has 1 electoral vote for every 615,848 people

even though California has more electoral votes, the vote of an Oklahoman is worth a lot more. for them to be on equal footing, CA would have to be worth almost three times as many electoral votes as it is now.

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So according to you people from smaller states votes should be worth more than those from larger states? Have you ever considered the reason that Gore won the Popular Vote was because Republicans in states like Mass, NY and CA didn't bother to vote because it was a forgone conclusion that Gore was going to win the Elelctoral Votes from those states? Seeing that Gore only had less than 500,000 more votes than the Dub it's pretty easy to understand why the Elelctoral College prevented the Dub from garnering those 500,000 votes. I bet he could have got a good portion of those in CA if there was no Electoral College.

No.... If we were saying that our votes should be worth more then we'd demand the same number of Electoral Votes as California. Example: California has 55 Votes and Oklahoma has 7. If Oklahoma's votes were to be worth more than CA's then OK would also have 55 votes.


Source

We aren't talking about "States Votes" we are talking about individuals votes. I'm saying that the Electoral College keeps people from voting in states where the outcome is a forgone conclusion and without it more people would vote because their vote would actually count.

That may be true but thats not the point... Presidential candidates in a popular vote run election would inevitably gravitate their attention, and issues to the nations population centers... New York, California etc... This would leave all the small states without influence.

-Max

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Yeah instead of the candidates trying to get the majority of the states they only go to the "battleground states" now. In whatever form Electoral or Majority you'll always have candidates that cater to certain groups. The biggest difference is that my one vote here in Florida will count the same as the guy in the middle of Kansas if the majority vote was put in place. Not 3/5 or 1/5 which is happening in the electoral college right now.

Someone here compared the electoral college in votes to population between Wyoming and California. It was pretty sad that votes aren't one to one. Not even close. Just like those that are Republican and live in New York and California don't feel like voting because it's already going to Democrats. The same can be said for Democrats in Texas and Georgia.

In an electoral, one vote really doesn't matter unless you are in a battleground state. In a majority vote you'll be damned sure everyone vote will matter. I also believe it will be an easier way to open up for 3rd parties which is always a good thing.

 

[nageov3t]

That may be true but thats not the point... Presidential candidates in a popular vote run election would inevitably gravitate their attention, and issues to the nations population centers... New York, California etc... This would leave all the small states without influence.

that's how it is right now, just in reverse. the politicians get to ignore urban areas, writing them off as lost causes (in most cases, urban = democrat). meanwhile, all their attention is focused on a handful of "swing states".

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So according to you people from smaller states votes should be worth more than those from larger states? Have you ever considered the reason that Gore won the Popular Vote was because Republicans in states like Mass, NY and CA didn't bother to vote because it was a forgone conclusion that Gore was going to win the Elelctoral Votes from those states? Seeing that Gore only had less than 500,000 more votes than the Dub it's pretty easy to understand why the Elelctoral College prevented the Dub from garnering those 500,000 votes. I bet he could have got a good portion of those in CA if there was no Electoral College.

No.... If we were saying that our votes should be worth more then we'd demand the same number of Electoral Votes as California. Example: California has 55 Votes and Oklahoma has 7. If Oklahoma's votes were to be worth more than CA's then OK would also have 55 votes.


Source

We aren't talking about "States Votes" we are talking about individuals votes. I'm saying that the Electoral College keeps people from voting in states where the outcome is a forgone conclusion and without it more people would vote because their vote would actually count.

That may be true but thats not the point... Presidential candidates in a popular vote run election would inevitably gravitate their attention, and issues to the nations population centers... New York, California etc... This would leave all the small states without influence.

-Max

So by giving the smaller states more influence you effectively negate the voters of the larger population centers who might be in the minority even if it is a large minority.

BTW, I'm not saying Bush didn't win the Election fair and square.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So according to you people from smaller states votes should be worth more than those from larger states? Have you ever considered the reason that Gore won the Popular Vote was because Republicans in states like Mass, NY and CA didn't bother to vote because it was a forgone conclusion that Gore was going to win the Elelctoral Votes from those states? Seeing that Gore only had less than 500,000 more votes than the Dub it's pretty easy to understand why the Elelctoral College prevented the Dub from garnering those 500,000 votes. I bet he could have got a good portion of those in CA if there was no Electoral College.

No.... If we were saying that our votes should be worth more then we'd demand the same number of Electoral Votes as California. Example: California has 55 Votes and Oklahoma has 7. If Oklahoma's votes were to be worth more than CA's then OK would also have 55 votes.


Source

We aren't talking about "States Votes" we are talking about individuals votes. I'm saying that the Electoral College keeps people from voting in states where the outcome is a forgone conclusion and without it more people would vote because their vote would actually count.

I don't know what WE you are talking about. The OP and myself are speaking of the Electoral Vote. You are the one that is talking about the individual votes.

Talking about YOUR individual vote topic... As MANY have stated before, if it was based solely on the individual vote then the candidates would never visit the other states in the US and California's needs are not the same as Kansas or Oklahoma's. 11 states would decide the presidency and all others would be overlooked, especially those with 5 or fewer (19 states).

270 to become president

California 55
Florida 27
Georgia 15
Illinois 21
Michigan 17
New Jersey 15
New Yourk 31
North Carolina 15
Ohio 20
Pennsylvania 21
Texas 34
======
271

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So according to you people from smaller states votes should be worth more than those from larger states? Have you ever considered the reason that Gore won the Popular Vote was because Republicans in states like Mass, NY and CA didn't bother to vote because it was a forgone conclusion that Gore was going to win the Elelctoral Votes from those states? Seeing that Gore only had less than 500,000 more votes than the Dub it's pretty easy to understand why the Elelctoral College prevented the Dub from garnering those 500,000 votes. I bet he could have got a good portion of those in CA if there was no Electoral College.

No.... If we were saying that our votes should be worth more then we'd demand the same number of Electoral Votes as California. Example: California has 55 Votes and Oklahoma has 7. If Oklahoma's votes were to be worth more than CA's then OK would also have 55 votes.


Source

We aren't talking about "States Votes" we are talking about individuals votes. I'm saying that the Electoral College keeps people from voting in states where the outcome is a forgone conclusion and without it more people would vote because their vote would actually count.

That may be true but thats not the point... Presidential candidates in a popular vote run election would inevitably gravitate their attention, and issues to the nations population centers... New York, California etc... This would leave all the small states without influence.

-Max

So by giving the smaller states more influence you effectively negate the voters of the larger population centers who might be in the minority even if it is a large minority.

That's simply not true... The nations population centers still have more voting power... Gore came one state away from winning the election in 2000, and he really only won the population centers. If he had appealed a little better to the interests of the rest of the country, he would have won the election. You really have to take nearly allll the rural states in order to win without the population centers, which is very very difficult. The balance is really very good.

For some stupid reason people think their votes don't count... look at the republican state of Virginia in 2000, where I LIVE. In this overwhelmingly republican state...

1,437,490 for Bush
1,217,290 for Gore

I gaurunfvckingtee you, there were 200+ thousand people who didnt vote, who would've voted for Gore. It is the give up attitude that is killing this countries democracy.

People who say they don't vote because they have no influence are simply stupid... period.

-Max

Edit: I need to relearn 2nd grade english again apparantly

 

[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.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Doboji
For some stupid reason people think their votes don't count... look at the republican state of Virginia in 2000, where I LIVE. In this overwhelmingly republican state...

1,437,490 for Bush
1,217,290 for Gore

I gaurunfvckingtee you, there were 200+ thousand people who didnt vote, who would've voted for Gore.

I doubt that!

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Doboji
For some stupid reason people think their votes don't count... look at the republican state of Virginia in 2000, where I LIVE. In this overwhelmingly republican state...

1,437,490 for Bush
1,217,290 for Gore

I gaurunfvckingtee you, there were 200+ thousand people who didnt vote, who would've voted for Gore.

I doubt that!

According to here...

Total Population of VA = 7,078,515
Latino/Black population accounts for 24.3% thats 1,720,079. As anyone knows these minorities vote overwhelmingly Democrat.... do I need to go further?

-Max

 

[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.

 

[Darkhawk28]

AL 4,500,752 9 500,083.56 27
AK 648,818 3 216,272.67 4
AZ 5,580,811 10 558,081.10 33
AR 2,725,714 6 454,285.67 16
CA 35,484,453 55 645,171.87 212
CO 4,550,688 9 505,632.00 27
CT 3,483,372 7 497,624.57 21
DE 817,491 3 272,497.00 5
DC 563,384 3 187,794.67 3
FL 17,019,068 27 630,335.85 102
GA 8,684,715 15 578,981.00 52
HI 1,257,608 4 314,402.00 8
ID 1,366,332 4 341,583.00 8
IL 12,653,544 21 602,549.71 76
IN 6,195,643 11 563,240.27 37
IA 2,944,062 7 420,580.29 18
KS 2,723,507 6 453,917.83 16
KY 4,117,827 8 514,728.38 25
LA 4,496,334 9 499,592.67 27
ME 1,305,728 4 326,432.00 8
MD 5,508,909 10 550,890.90 33
MA 6,433,422 12 536,118.50 39
MI 10,079,965 17 592,939.12 60
MN 5,059,375 10 505,937.50 30
MS 2,881,281 6 480,213.50 17
MO 5,704,484 11 518,589.45 34
MT 917,621 3 305,873.67 5
NE 1,739,291 5 347,858.20 10
NV 2,241,154 5 448,230.80 13
NH 1,287,687 4 321,921.75 8
NJ 8,638,396 15 575,893.07 52
NM 1,874,614 5 374,922.80 11
NY 19,190,115 31 619,035.97 115
NC 8,407,248 15 560,483.20 50
ND 633,837 3 211,279.00 4
OH 11,435,798 20 571,789.90 68
OK 3,511,532 7 501,647.43 21
OR 3,559,596 7 508,513.71 21
PA 12,365,455 21 588,831.19 74
RI 1,076,164 4 269,041.00 6
SC 4,147,152 8 518,394.00 25
SD 764,309 3 254,769.67 5
TN 5,841,748 11 531,068.00 35
TX 22,118,509 34 650,544.38 132
UT 2,351,467 5 470,293.40 14
VT 619,107 3 206,369.00 4
VA 7,386,330 13 568,179.23 44
WA 6,131,445 11 557,404.09 37
WV 1,810,354 5 362,070.80 11
WI 5,472,299 10 547,229.90 33
WY 501,242 3 167,080.67 3

Key:
State, Est. 2003 Pop., Electoral Votes, # People per Electoral Vote, Correct # of Electoral Votes

Why are people's votes in WY or ID more valuable than those in NY, CA, FL or TX?

EDIT: Btw, sorry about the formatting problems...

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Doboji
For some stupid reason people think their votes don't count... look at the republican state of Virginia in 2000, where I LIVE. In this overwhelmingly republican state...

1,437,490 for Bush
1,217,290 for Gore

I gaurunfvckingtee you, there were 200+ thousand people who didnt vote, who would've voted for Gore.

I doubt that!

According to here...

Total Population of VA = 7,078,515
Latino/Black population accounts for 24.3% thats 1,720,079. As anyone knows these minorities vote overwhelmingly Democrat.... do I need to go further?

-Max

Ok for the sake of not Nit Picking I will concede to you regarding that number. That said, your argument confirms my point that voting in a state where your choice is even a large minority is a waste of a vote due the unfairness of the Electoral College!