The reason we don't go by popular vote is because its not entirely perfect ... because of the balloting system there is a 3 to 4 % error rate as was discussed in another topic. If you figure in a extra 3% in all the counties that bush one for him, and an extra 3% for Gore in the counties he won ... I bet because of the ammount that Bush won he would have more than what Gore is showing.
The reason we don't go by popular vote is because its not entirely perfect ... because of the balloting system there is a 3 to 4 % error rate as was discussed in another topic. If you figure in a extra 3% in all the counties that bush one for him, and an extra 3% for Gore in the counties he won ... I bet because of the ammount that Bush won he would have more than what Gore is showing.
It could have gone to Gore as well. There is no way to tell. Margin of error is a fact of life when you are dealing with humans. The fact that it exists should not cause you to overcompensate in one direction or another. I happen to think 99.5% is a pretty good representation of the truth, at least as close as we are going to get to it at tihs stage of technology. Besides, the Electoral College votes are determined by the popular vote, so that the College is not adequate fix for the problem.
Anyone think we should try to standardize the voting process across State boundaries?
It could have gone to Gore as well. There is no way to tell. Margin of error is a fact of life when you are dealing with humans. The fact that it exists should not cause you to overcompensate in one direction or another. I happen to think 99.5% is a pretty good representation of the truth, at least as close as we are going to get to it at tihs stage of technology. Besides, the Electoral College votes are determined by the popular vote, so that the College is not adequate fix for the problem.
Anyone think we should try to standardize the voting process across State boundaries?
The electoral system does NOT give extra weight to the small states, despite what the mob-rule supporting liberals may claim. As the totals have shown, Bush has nailed down 50% more states but trails a bit in the electoral vote totals. Small states only contribute small quantities of electoral votes.
It's possible to sew up an electoral victory with only ELEVEN STATES! (CA, FL, IL, MI, NC, NJ, NY, OH, PA, TX, and either GA or VA) Some of those states can be won with heavy turnouts in urban areas, so a candidate could just campaign in Detroit, Atlanta, Chicago, LA and SF and a handful of other cities a sew it up. How "democratic" is that?
It's possible to sew up an electoral victory with only ELEVEN STATES! (CA, FL, IL, MI, NC, NJ, NY, OH, PA, TX, and either GA or VA) Some of those states can be won with heavy turnouts in urban areas, so a candidate could just campaign in Detroit, Atlanta, Chicago, LA and SF and a handful of other cities a sew it up. How "democratic" is that?
Something else that keeps getting over looked is the fact California has over 1,000,000 absentee votes left to count. Bush could take over the Pop vote with that, if history repeats it's self and Bush gets a majority of the absentee votes.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,563
- 9
- 81
Number of counties and square miles are worthless numbers. But what is interesting is the population count for each candidate. More people voted for Gore, but the population total is much higher for counties which Bush won.
Any speculation as to what this might be caused by?
Any speculation as to what this might be caused by?
This is one of my favorites. From Alexander Tyler. No, he wasn't writing about the United States. This quote is well over one hundred years old. Tyler was writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
Here is another quote that should stir up a hornets nest
"America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to "the common good," but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages adn cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance -- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way." (Ayn Rand)
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
Here is another quote that should stir up a hornets nest
"America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to "the common good," but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages adn cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance -- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way." (Ayn Rand)
Demon-Xanth
Lifer
- Feb 15, 2000
- 20,551
- 2
- 81
Red Dawn, Now let's review this and see if anything sticks into your narrow mind here. How many welfare $$$$ are spent on you freaks in California to lets say 5-10 midwestern states????? I'd say more is spent in A few square miles of California.
Now you claim your tax dollars are always paying to bail us Midwesterners out of floods and Farm Crisis situations.......How many tax dollars are used to "help" out the businesses in California?
Now if you don't want us money sucking farmers in the Midwest in you United States of California and New York, feel free to approve a sucession of the Midwest States from the United States of California and New York. We'd be happy to sell you grain and beef at outrageous prices.
Now you claim your tax dollars are always paying to bail us Midwesterners out of floods and Farm Crisis situations.......How many tax dollars are used to "help" out the businesses in California?
Now if you don't want us money sucking farmers in the Midwest in you United States of California and New York, feel free to approve a sucession of the Midwest States from the United States of California and New York. We'd be happy to sell you grain and beef at outrageous prices.
Excellent quotes, but you're asking to be called an extremist for posting them. "Fairness" is the watch word these days and the people are comfortable and apathetic about what nastiness hide behind pleasant words.
Democracy means majority rule (i.e. mob rule) and under that system, all that needs to be attained is sufficient numbers to trample on the minority. Think about how many bad things could happen if we had strict mob rule. Civil rights could be repealed, the wealth of the rich would be stripped away and given to the poor, and so on. Hell, under "democracy", if all the women voted in support of men being kept on leashes with nose rings, who are you to say that's wrong?
Democracy means majority rule (i.e. mob rule) and under that system, all that needs to be attained is sufficient numbers to trample on the minority. Think about how many bad things could happen if we had strict mob rule. Civil rights could be repealed, the wealth of the rich would be stripped away and given to the poor, and so on. Hell, under "democracy", if all the women voted in support of men being kept on leashes with nose rings, who are you to say that's wrong?
"Recently in California there was a vote to allow controlled hunting of mountain lions since there have been numerous attacks. The counties with the mountain lion problem odviously voted for it (high 90% vote) while the counties that thought they were cute and cuddy (like San Francisco w/ no mountain lions) voted against it. The bill lost."
Really Demon-Xanth, try using some logic.
If you chose to live in areas that encroaches on mountain lions you deserve to be at risk of being attacked by them. Just as when people go to the beach & enter the domain of the Great White Shark, they deserve to be at risk of being shark bait. I axcept that risk when I go to the beach. One axcepts the risk of living on a fault line or in a 'Tornado alley' - why should wildlife be consided any differently? Afterall, who was there first (even if wildlife encroaches on established residential areas its useally because of the habitat lose we are responsable for).
"...America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to "the common good," but by the productive genius of free men..."
No sh!t Ulfwald, you obviously have not spoken to experts on economic history. The simple reason why nations such as Australia, Canada, the US & New Zealand, have done well is because of virtually free land. If all the early settlers in those countries had to go in debt for the rest of their lives to pay 1st world prices for their lands, they would not have anything left over to invest in capital (& that's if they could purchase it, what if the original owners the natives refused to sell & only let the settlers in as tenants, just like in the first world where over 95% were/are tenants). That's the main reason for the success of places like Australia & the US, the govts got land for virtually nothing by dispossesing the natives & granted it out for buggerall.
Economic History is a recognised field of study, & just about all economic history lecturers will tell you that the one differing factor between the old world & the new world was the avaliability of cheap land. The rapid growth rates in the new world are a symtom of that cheap avaliability.
Really Demon-Xanth, try using some logic.
If you chose to live in areas that encroaches on mountain lions you deserve to be at risk of being attacked by them. Just as when people go to the beach & enter the domain of the Great White Shark, they deserve to be at risk of being shark bait. I axcept that risk when I go to the beach. One axcepts the risk of living on a fault line or in a 'Tornado alley' - why should wildlife be consided any differently? Afterall, who was there first (even if wildlife encroaches on established residential areas its useally because of the habitat lose we are responsable for).
"...America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to "the common good," but by the productive genius of free men..."
No sh!t Ulfwald, you obviously have not spoken to experts on economic history. The simple reason why nations such as Australia, Canada, the US & New Zealand, have done well is because of virtually free land. If all the early settlers in those countries had to go in debt for the rest of their lives to pay 1st world prices for their lands, they would not have anything left over to invest in capital (& that's if they could purchase it, what if the original owners the natives refused to sell & only let the settlers in as tenants, just like in the first world where over 95% were/are tenants). That's the main reason for the success of places like Australia & the US, the govts got land for virtually nothing by dispossesing the natives & granted it out for buggerall.
Economic History is a recognised field of study, & just about all economic history lecturers will tell you that the one differing factor between the old world & the new world was the avaliability of cheap land. The rapid growth rates in the new world are a symtom of that cheap avaliability.
BigSmooth
Lifer
- Aug 18, 2000
- 10,483
- 7
- 81
Red Dawn, I was referring to ulfwald's and DefRef's posts where they call democracy "mob rule". Democracy is not "mob rule" because although it is government by the people, they choose who governs them, as opposed to governing themselves (i.e. mobocracy).
BobberFet:
<< Number of counties and square miles are worthless numbers. But what is interesting is the population count for each candidate. More people voted for Gore, but the population total is much higher for counties which Bush won.
Any speculation as to what this might be caused by? >>
I believe, sir, that you are correct. That map is confusing folks here in this forum. All the map tells us is which counties voted mostly for Gore or Bush. Since the counties that voted for Bush have more folks in them, and Bush still lost the popular vote, then one would surmise that in the "Bush" counties, the race was close (overall) between Bush and Gore, while in the "Gore" counties the race was not as close (overall).
As for the question as to whether the US is a democracy... I believe that ulfwald is correct. I believe that the US would be properly classified as an oligarchy.
<< Number of counties and square miles are worthless numbers. But what is interesting is the population count for each candidate. More people voted for Gore, but the population total is much higher for counties which Bush won.
Any speculation as to what this might be caused by? >>
I believe, sir, that you are correct. That map is confusing folks here in this forum. All the map tells us is which counties voted mostly for Gore or Bush. Since the counties that voted for Bush have more folks in them, and Bush still lost the popular vote, then one would surmise that in the "Bush" counties, the race was close (overall) between Bush and Gore, while in the "Gore" counties the race was not as close (overall).
As for the question as to whether the US is a democracy... I believe that ulfwald is correct. I believe that the US would be properly classified as an oligarchy.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,563
- 9
- 81
Dabanshee
What a load of crap. So somebody who's at risk shouldn't be allowed to do something about it? Then everyone who lives in California at all should be sh!t out of luck every few years when their homes are destroyed by earthquakes. Oh wait, they sure want everyone elses pity and money then.
What a load of crap. So somebody who's at risk shouldn't be allowed to do something about it? Then everyone who lives in California at all should be sh!t out of luck every few years when their homes are destroyed by earthquakes. Oh wait, they sure want everyone elses pity and money then.
"The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood." (Adolph Hitler, quoted in Hitler, A Study in Tyranny, by Alan Bullock (Harper Collins, NY))
"It is thus necessary that the individual should come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole ... that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual. .... This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture .... we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man." (Adolph Hitler, 1933)
There is the great, silent, continuous struggle: the struggle between the State and the Individual; between the State which demands and the individual who attempts to evade such demands. Because the individual, left to himself, unless he be a saint or hero, always refuses to pay taxes, obey laws, or go to war. (Benito Mussolini)
Fascist ethics begin ... with the acknowledgment that it is not the individual who confers a meaning upon society, but it is, instead, the existence of a human society which determines the human character of the individual. According to Fascism, a true, a great spiritual life cannot take place unless the State has risen to a position of pre-eminence in the world of man. The curtailment of liberty thus becomes justified at once, and this need of rising the State to its rightful position. (Mario Palmieri, "The Philosophy of Fascism" 1936)
"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." (Nikita Khrushchev , February 25, 1956 20th Congress of the Communist Party)
"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all." (Vladimir Lenin, as quoted in "Not by Politics Alone.)
We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." (Hillary Clinton, 1993)
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..." (President Bill Clinton, USA Today, March 11, 1993, Page 2A)
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." (Ayn Rand)
When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? (Henry David Thoreau)
"It is thus necessary that the individual should come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole ... that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual. .... This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture .... we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man." (Adolph Hitler, 1933)
There is the great, silent, continuous struggle: the struggle between the State and the Individual; between the State which demands and the individual who attempts to evade such demands. Because the individual, left to himself, unless he be a saint or hero, always refuses to pay taxes, obey laws, or go to war. (Benito Mussolini)
Fascist ethics begin ... with the acknowledgment that it is not the individual who confers a meaning upon society, but it is, instead, the existence of a human society which determines the human character of the individual. According to Fascism, a true, a great spiritual life cannot take place unless the State has risen to a position of pre-eminence in the world of man. The curtailment of liberty thus becomes justified at once, and this need of rising the State to its rightful position. (Mario Palmieri, "The Philosophy of Fascism" 1936)
"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." (Nikita Khrushchev , February 25, 1956 20th Congress of the Communist Party)
"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all." (Vladimir Lenin, as quoted in "Not by Politics Alone.)
We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." (Hillary Clinton, 1993)
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..." (President Bill Clinton, USA Today, March 11, 1993, Page 2A)
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." (Ayn Rand)
When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? (Henry David Thoreau)
Red, I hope you are J/K about Athens GA, 
We all know that is a great hub of learning and ideals.
We all know that is a great hub of learning and ideals.
Living in Eastern Oregon, I like the map. Out here in the "sticks" doesn't matter how we vote, if the valley over to the west votes on something it's voted in. even if the east side of the state votes it down.
while back they voted that you couldn't hunt cougars or bear with dogs. making it near impossible. the west side of the state voted it in... east side did not. Now the east side wants to vote on it again, because they are realizing that cougars are coming in and eating there little kids. because they are expanding into the woods and without dogs it's near impossible to hunt them to control the population. and to asnwer a question I saw ealier....
I DONT: WANT 4 states out of the entire country determining who the next president is...
while back they voted that you couldn't hunt cougars or bear with dogs. making it near impossible. the west side of the state voted it in... east side did not. Now the east side wants to vote on it again, because they are realizing that cougars are coming in and eating there little kids. because they are expanding into the woods and without dogs it's near impossible to hunt them to control the population. and to asnwer a question I saw ealier....
I DONT: WANT 4 states out of the entire country determining who the next president is...
"What a load of crap. So somebody who's at risk shouldn't be allowed to do something about it? "
That's not what I said. Of course they can do something about it - if someone isnt willing to axcept the risks in their enviroment, they can move to an area where those risks don't exist (like an apartmwent in Queens). It's all a matter of weighing up the pros & cons - My sister got a great inner-city house in a fashionable area at a good price, but has to axcept living under a secondary flight path as a penalty.
People who move into a 'FLW' style split level wildeness home in some new commuter suburb built by the lake in the forest, then expect all the local mountain lions culled are no different to people who move into recently yuppyfied inner-city suburbs, then campaign to have the local pub/s closed down because they don't want drunks pissing on their front lawns at 3AM.
That's not what I said. Of course they can do something about it - if someone isnt willing to axcept the risks in their enviroment, they can move to an area where those risks don't exist (like an apartmwent in Queens). It's all a matter of weighing up the pros & cons - My sister got a great inner-city house in a fashionable area at a good price, but has to axcept living under a secondary flight path as a penalty.
People who move into a 'FLW' style split level wildeness home in some new commuter suburb built by the lake in the forest, then expect all the local mountain lions culled are no different to people who move into recently yuppyfied inner-city suburbs, then campaign to have the local pub/s closed down because they don't want drunks pissing on their front lawns at 3AM.
<< If any are at risk of being unfairly dominated due to inappropriate Voter to Electoral Ballet ratio's it is us who live in the more populated states like California, the North East and the Great Lakes Area. The smaller states with lighter populations are allotted 1 Electoral Ballot for every 225,000 voters where as the more densely populated states the ratio is 600,000 voters per Electoral Ballot. Now if you can show me how that is fair I would appreciate it. How is it fair that a state the size of a county in California with the same size population as the county would be given more of a say in who is our leader than those who happen to live in that county? There just isn?t any logical justification for it. >>
Because Red, we are the United States of America, not the United Individuals of America.
I can analyze the state I live in and the state that is my home of record/residency. In Minnesota, you will notice that Mpls/St Paul and the Iron Range voted Gore and Bush was popular in the rest of the state. Why? Because the Iron Range is filled with underpaid Union Workers and the Twin Cities is filled with diehard democrats that like the economy and don't have a grasp on the farmers' problems. South Dakota went for Bush in the majority of the state with the exception of my county with a lot of liberal college student votes, our state capitol's county and 3 counties that might have a total of 20,000 voters in them. So if we go with the Minnesota vote it's similar to comparing California to Wyoming. The people of the Twin Cities and the Iron Range actually selected the presidential candidate out of shear concentration of population without considering the majority in land mass of the state depends on the farmers.
So we should vote on a president because the population base is in about 5% of our country and haven't a clue of what's really good or even going on in the REST of the country. They care only about the few square miles in which a number of them have never travel/ventured outside of that area in their lifetime! UNITED STATES, Red. Not United INDIVIDUALS.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,563
- 9
- 81
Dab
The point is this: Why should people with no knowledge or understanding of others problems be allowed to choose the solution. Those living in the city should have no more say in how farming or hunting is handled than someone in a rural area should be dictating the zoning laws in the city. Without weighting of votes, that's exactly what would happen. People in dense areas who have their own problems can force others to deal with their problems in unrealistic ways, seen by the mountain lion example.
The point is this: Why should people with no knowledge or understanding of others problems be allowed to choose the solution. Those living in the city should have no more say in how farming or hunting is handled than someone in a rural area should be dictating the zoning laws in the city. Without weighting of votes, that's exactly what would happen. People in dense areas who have their own problems can force others to deal with their problems in unrealistic ways, seen by the mountain lion example.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter