|
Post by Static Burn on Mar 13, 2004 20:31:44 GMT -5
Open my eyes to what?
OK, there may have been one recount that said Gore won, but several, including the one that they actually used, favored Bush. It's pretty much impossible to get a recount that's exactly riht, but if 5 out of 6 recounts say Bush won, guess who's declared winner.
|
|
|
Post by DarkAngel on Mar 13, 2004 20:45:46 GMT -5
The guy that bought himself a havard law degree?
|
|
|
Post by Static Burn on Mar 13, 2004 23:08:14 GMT -5
You actually believe that?
|
|
|
Post by DarkAngel on Mar 14, 2004 11:57:42 GMT -5
Yes. So far i havent even seen Bush say something intelligent in my life, just stupid things, like during his campaign he told someone to kill his dog when it was barking. The guy is an idiot, no one can argue with that, he just used his money and influence to go through school
|
|
|
Post by Static Burn on Mar 14, 2004 12:15:14 GMT -5
The guy's IQ is 120 or 125 I believe. 100 is average, 130 is genius. There's no way Bush is a flat out idiot, my guess is that he just has trouble putting words together in the right way to get his point across.
So, Bush has money and influence, and he got through school. What lacks, however, is something to connect them, like, for example, a professor who says he was paid to give Bush a passing grade. So yes, I can argue it.
|
|
|
Post by DarkAngel on Mar 14, 2004 13:52:31 GMT -5
Static i just wanna get something straight, do you actually like Bush? Or do you just not like everyone bashing him?
|
|
|
Post by Static Burn on Mar 14, 2004 14:15:34 GMT -5
I respect Bush and agree with him on most issues. I also believe that most things people bash Bush for are either unsupported, or things that other politicians have done that have been passed off as unimportant. Like, for example, people who slammed Bush for joining the National Guard during the Vietnam War are the same people who said it was unimportant that Clinton left the country so he could be exempt from the draft.
|
|
|
Post by Alicia on Mar 14, 2004 19:46:26 GMT -5
I don't support Bush, but IMO Gore is a moron.He told people he invented the internet. I just think he's an idiot. The reason bush won was probably his unfair influence in Florida, but I think he won. That's a hard situation to call, there were holes that werent punched all the way, it just was screwed up. I do, however, believe there were, possibly still are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I believe the actions Bush took were needed., and while I don't support him at all, I don't see too many other choices he had.
|
|
|
Post by devo2 on Mar 14, 2004 20:18:11 GMT -5
Okay, here goes....
Gore had more popular votes than Bush. Period. End of story. Every time, every way. The recount wasn't to determine that. The recount was to determine who won the several counties in Florida that were in question. The results of these counties would decide whether Florida's electoral votes went to Bush or Gore. In every recount, Bush won the votes of those counties, and therefore he got Florida's electoral votes, which made him President. But AT NO POINT did Bush get more individual votes throughout America than Gore. Never. Not once. More people in America voted for Gore than Bush. But that means exactly squat when determining a Presidential election.
Look at it this way: There are 3 cities with 100 people each in it. That makes 300 votes. Now look at these results
Candidate A City 1-80 votes City 2-49 votes City 3-49 votes
Candidate B City 1-20 votes City 2-51 votes City 3-51 votes
Now, who is the winner? Candidate A got 178 votes to Candidate B's 122. That is the popular vote, so Candidate A should be President, right? Wrong. Candidate B won in 2 of 3 cities, so he's President. That is the Electoral College. That's how we determine a President. Only we don't do it by city, we do it by counties. Whoever wins more counties in a given state gets that state's Electoral votes. That's why Florida was so huge. Florida was a close race between Bush and Gore. Whoever won those several counties that had to be recounted in Florida would get Florida's Electoral votes, making them the President.
Bush is the President because he got more electioral votes. It was totally legal. That's how it's done in the United States. Always has been. It's in the Constitution.
But more people voted for Gore overall than Bush.
[/end civics lesson]
|
|
JacenSolo
Artificer
Aim: JacenSolo55
Posts: 1,048
|
Post by JacenSolo on Mar 14, 2004 20:43:36 GMT -5
In my opinion the whole idea of an electoral collage is outdated and moronic. He who wins the popular vote should win the election plain and simple.
|
|
|
Post by DarkAngel on Mar 14, 2004 20:45:09 GMT -5
Agreed. And for today's DA fact, no president has ever been re-elected after losing the popular vote;D So hopefully thats a good sign (for me anyways)
|
|
|
Post by devo2 on Mar 14, 2004 20:57:17 GMT -5
meh. There's the goods and the bads. For example, if a candidate is from Los Angeles area they'll probably clean up the popular vote there. Even if they lose Montana, North Dakota, and Soutn Dakota in a landlside they'll still have more votes... I don't think that's fair either. Small communities/cities/states should have their say too. Otherwise I'd run for President and win by going to New York State, Texas, and California and telling them that everyone there doesn't have to pay taxes if I get elected. Then I'd jack up the taxes in the states of Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Alaska by like 800% to compensate. I'd also strip mine their entire states and give the revenue to Ahnuld, Little George, and Pataki, change labor laws to allow for the 12 hour work day with no minimum wage while I'd limit it in Ca, Ny, and Tx to like 5 hours and like $10/hr minimum. I'd make plastic surgery government-funded, but toss out farm subsidies.
You get the idea.
|
|
JacenSolo
Artificer
Aim: JacenSolo55
Posts: 1,048
|
Post by JacenSolo on Mar 14, 2004 21:05:48 GMT -5
Hrm... you have a good point. But small states have less electoral votes anyway. If a candidate wins New York, California and Texas they have a huge advantage in electoral votes.
|
|
|
Post by devo2 on Mar 14, 2004 21:45:56 GMT -5
True, Jacen, true. But the differences in electoral votes aren't as drastic as the differences in population. here's the last election results. California has 54 votes. Utah has 5. that's an 11 to 1 ratio. But the population of California is 40 million to Utah's 2 million. That's a ratio of 20 to one. San Francisco and San Jose alone can out-vote an entire state. So if us freaks in the greater Bay Area decide to go all freakish on who and what we vote for, then we'd out-vote Utah, regardless of what the rest of California feels. And the're not the 2 largest cities in the state either. Under Electoral College, we'd not get very far because the rest of the state would override our freakishness, the Electoral votes would all go in the direction of non-freak, we'd get nothing, and therefore the state of Utah gets more power than us hippies. Note that Gore took California, New York, and Massachusetts. Bush won far more states overall though. Is it fair to give the election to the guy that only makes 17 of the 50 states happy? That's 33 of the 50 Governors being told that their state means nothing. I'd secede. But there are several things at work here. Let's say you and I are candidates, and we're working under the popular vote system. We split the vote in California 50.1% to 49.9%, with me getting a slight edge. This means that California didn't make one bit of difference in the election in reality. Now let's say that you whipped my butt in Arizona 70%-30%. Now, as it turns out, Arizona just became more important than California. But California is the most populous state in the union. Shouldn't they have some sort of say in who wins the election? With the Electoral College, somebody gets California, and all 54 of her electoral votes, which means a big deal.
|
|
JacenSolo
Artificer
Aim: JacenSolo55
Posts: 1,048
|
Post by JacenSolo on Mar 14, 2004 21:59:10 GMT -5
If a state is split evenly why should it mater in the election? Why should one person get credit for the entire state if only half the state wanted him to win?
There is another problem with the electoral collage. In order to win the election a person needs a majority of the electoral votes. I forgot the exact number but it is 1 more than half the total. What would happen if a third party candidate won Florida in 2000? Noone would have a majority there would be no President.
|
|
|
Post by devo2 on Mar 14, 2004 22:13:14 GMT -5
If a state is split evenly why should it mater in the election? Why should one person get credit for the entire state if only half the state wanted him to win? . Why should one person get credit for the whole country if only half the country wanted him to win? There can be only one winner. This goes for electoral votes too. You need 270 electoral votes to win. That's 50%+1 vote of the total. there is never "no president". And if someone else (say, Ralph Nader) took Florida in the election, several things could happen. The most likely is that the vote gets thrown into Congress for them to vote between Bush and Gore. That's what has happened in the past.
|
|
JacenSolo
Artificer
Aim: JacenSolo55
Posts: 1,048
|
Post by JacenSolo on Mar 14, 2004 22:18:06 GMT -5
Why should it go to Congress? All you have to do is look at who has the party majority and you have the president. They would vote for the candidate in their party without concern for who would be the best choice for president.
|
|
|
Post by devo2 on Mar 14, 2004 22:29:34 GMT -5
well if noone gets a majority then there already is no best choice. Besides, if both the candidates are weak enough that they can't get a majority of electoral votes Congress will walk all over them anyway. If a weak candidate that doesn't have the backing of Congress should win then nothing gets done for four years, so Congress picks the one it can work with better.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Mar 14, 2004 22:42:27 GMT -5
*points to Canadian political system*
I think it wuold be wise to incoporate pieces of the Canadian system into the American system. The idea of a separate exectutive is good, but if you are going to have one, it should be based solely upon popular vote. Dividing the country for the purposes of regional interests is important, but that is already accomplished within the legislative branch. Yes, Bush won legally, but with all due respect to your constitution, in this case the system sucks, and I would say this even if it had been the other way around too. A voter in Utah should not wield more power than a voter in California, yet they do because of this system. I can understand how it would have been tough in the past to get exact figures for the popular vote, but we have the technology to do that kind of stuff today, so why aren't we?
|
|
|
Post by Static Burn on Mar 15, 2004 17:28:25 GMT -5
There have been other Presidents that have won the elction without winning the popular vote, it's happened about 4 or 5 times I think. The electoral college is the current method of election, and some people fail to realize that.
Changing it so that it is based on popular vote may or may not be a good idea, but one thing that as been mentioned is, imagine the chaos of the Florida recount repeated on a national level. That would be quite possible under a strict popular vote election.
We've gotten off topic. Anyone have anything to say on gay marriages?
|
|