Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Hell yes.
"Which is worse? Screwing an intern or screwing the country?" that's how I look at it.
^^
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Hell yes.
"Which is worse? Screwing an intern or screwing the country?" that's how I look at it.
Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
clinton should have taken care of al queda when he had the chance
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
Actually I voted yes, especially if it means diplacing Bush for the rest of his illegitimate term.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa022000a.htm
Electoral College System
Every fourth November, after almost two years of campaign hype and money, over 90 million Americans for the presidential candidates. Then, in the middle of December, the president and vice president of the United States are really elected by the votes of only 538 citizens -- the "electors" of the Electoral College.
How the Electoral College Elects the President
When you vote for a presidential candidate you are really be voting to instruct the electors from your state to cast their votes for the same candidate. For example, if you vote for the Republican candidate, you are really voting for an elector who will be "pledged" to vote for the Republican candidate. The candidate who wins the popular vote in a state wins all the pledged votes of the state's electors.
The Electoral College system was established in Article II of the Constitution and amended by the 12th Amendment in 1804.
Each state gets a number of electors equal to its number of members in the U.S. House of Representatives plus one for each of its two U.S. Senators. The District of Columbia gets three electors. While state laws determine how electors are chosen, they are generally selected by the political party committees within the states.
Each elector gets one vote. Thus, a state with eight electors would cast eight votes. There are currently 538 electors and the votes of a majority of them -- 270 votes -- are required to be elected. Since Electoral College representation is based on congressional representation, states with larger populations get more Electoral College votes. [Electoral Votes From Each State]
Should none of the candidates win 270 electoral votes, the 12th Amendment kicks in and the election is decided by the House of Representatives. The combined representatives of each state get one vote and a simple majority of states is required to win. This has only happened twice. Presidents Thomas Jefferson in 1801 and John Quincy Adams in 1825 were elected by the House of Representatives.
While the state electors are "pledged" to vote for the candidate of the party that chose them, nothing in the Constitution requires them to do so. In rare instances, an elector will defect and not vote for his or her party's candidate. Such "faithless" votes rarely change the outcome of the election and laws of some states prohibit electors from casting them.
So we will all go vote on Tuesday, Nov. 7, and before the sun sets in California at least one of the TV networks will have declared a winner. By midnight, one of the candidates will have probably claimed victory and some will have conceded defeat. But not until the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (Dec. 18, 2000), when the electors of the Electoral College meet in their state capitals and cast their votes will we really have a new president and vice president elect.
Why the delay (42 days this year) between the general election and the Electoral College meetings? Back in the 1800s, it simply took that long to count the popular votes and for all the electors to travel to the state capitals. Today, the time is more likely to be used for settling any protests due to election code violations and for vote recounts.
Isn't There a Problem Here?
Critics of the Electoral College system, of which there are more than a few, point out that the system allows the possibility of a candidate actually losing the nationwide popular vote, but being elected president by the electoral vote. Can that happen? Yes, and it has.
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
Actually I voted yes, especially if it means diplacing Bush for the rest of his illegitimate term.
Illegitimate? Are you unfimilar with the presidential election process that we have in the U.S.? Here is a good explanation:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa022000a.htm
Electoral College System
Every fourth November, after almost two years of campaign hype and money, over 90 million Americans for the presidential candidates. Then, in the middle of December, the president and vice president of the United States are really elected by the votes of only 538 citizens -- the "electors" of the Electoral College.
How the Electoral College Elects the President
When you vote for a presidential candidate you are really be voting to instruct the electors from your state to cast their votes for the same candidate. For example, if you vote for the Republican candidate, you are really voting for an elector who will be "pledged" to vote for the Republican candidate. The candidate who wins the popular vote in a state wins all the pledged votes of the state's electors.
The Electoral College system was established in Article II of the Constitution and amended by the 12th Amendment in 1804.
Each state gets a number of electors equal to its number of members in the U.S. House of Representatives plus one for each of its two U.S. Senators. The District of Columbia gets three electors. While state laws determine how electors are chosen, they are generally selected by the political party committees within the states.
Each elector gets one vote. Thus, a state with eight electors would cast eight votes. There are currently 538 electors and the votes of a majority of them -- 270 votes -- are required to be elected. Since Electoral College representation is based on congressional representation, states with larger populations get more Electoral College votes. [Electoral Votes From Each State]
Should none of the candidates win 270 electoral votes, the 12th Amendment kicks in and the election is decided by the House of Representatives. The combined representatives of each state get one vote and a simple majority of states is required to win. This has only happened twice. Presidents Thomas Jefferson in 1801 and John Quincy Adams in 1825 were elected by the House of Representatives.
While the state electors are "pledged" to vote for the candidate of the party that chose them, nothing in the Constitution requires them to do so. In rare instances, an elector will defect and not vote for his or her party's candidate. Such "faithless" votes rarely change the outcome of the election and laws of some states prohibit electors from casting them.
So we will all go vote on Tuesday, Nov. 7, and before the sun sets in California at least one of the TV networks will have declared a winner. By midnight, one of the candidates will have probably claimed victory and some will have conceded defeat. But not until the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (Dec. 18, 2000), when the electors of the Electoral College meet in their state capitals and cast their votes will we really have a new president and vice president elect.
Why the delay (42 days this year) between the general election and the Electoral College meetings? Back in the 1800s, it simply took that long to count the popular votes and for all the electors to travel to the state capitals. Today, the time is more likely to be used for settling any protests due to election code violations and for vote recounts.
Isn't There a Problem Here?
Critics of the Electoral College system, of which there are more than a few, point out that the system allows the possibility of a candidate actually losing the nationwide popular vote, but being elected president by the electoral vote. Can that happen? Yes, and it has.
Bush was elected fair and square in accordance to our Constitution. The process may be flawed, but that does not change the legitimacy of Bush's presidency. I don't think the electoral college is necessary any more, but as of now, it exists and we must abide by it. Don't like the sound of that? Then change it! I'll support you.
Originally posted by: Ferocious
I didn't care for Clinton much.
But he wasn't quite as anti- middle class like Bush and co. are.
So yes I'd take him back in a heartbeat.
Originally posted by: Gaard
I can see Bush and Clinton at the local pub in a few years talking about the way they each pissed on the little people.
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: Gaard
I can see Bush and Clinton at the local pub in a few years talking about the way they each pissed on the little people.
That's one of the problems with this country. Everyone thinks the government OWES them something. This country does more to help it's citizens than most. Stop whining and do something about your pathetic excuse for a life if you aren't happy. Those who spend all their time being victims or feeling sorry for themselves will never be happy no matter how much money you throw at them.
Originally posted by: IJustAte
Nader's better than both of them.. and just about anyone else. I voted for him.
Originally posted by: batmang
If you had the power to make clinton president in place of bush jr., would you, or do you think bush jr. is doing a good job?