|
Post by devo2 on Jun 29, 2004 21:49:27 GMT -5
well besides being confusing as hell, it was a completely asinine situation, and I'd recommend to anyone NOT to think about it too much, else blood will start shooting out of your nose and ears...
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Jun 29, 2004 22:08:40 GMT -5
I thought four abstained...
|
|
|
Post by stalin on Jun 30, 2004 0:21:56 GMT -5
You've seen this happen devo? Well, I guess you must have seen a lot if your a teacher... or if youve ever watched kill bill.
|
|
|
Post by devo2 on Jun 30, 2004 1:47:43 GMT -5
I thought four abstained... nope. Supreme court justices can't abstain. It wouldn't ensure a majority decision (i.e. 4-4-1) It looks like the decision in Gore v Bush was actually 7-2 citing my source
|
|
|
Post by Static Burn on Jun 30, 2004 6:04:54 GMT -5
You know, it's kind of funny, because President John Q. Adams didn't win the popular vote, and he wouldn't have won the electoral college had he not bribed some of the members.
I still have to laugh whenever I see one of those NOFX shirts that says "Not My President" and has the picture of Bush. I've always thought that wearing that was just a way of telling people you know nothing about American politics.
|
|
|
Post by stalin on Jun 30, 2004 10:40:32 GMT -5
I think its more that they dont support the electroal college system. I actually do not support it at all. We have the means of making voting much more secure and fool proof but we arent doing it. If we did then the electoral college should be dumped. It was actually originally made because it would be to hard to get an accurate count on votes back in the day. With that problem in our power to get rid of, the electoral college should go because otherwise we are not a true democracy.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Jun 30, 2004 11:15:16 GMT -5
@devo: Thanks. I didn't know that. Static and Stalin: To be honest, the Electoral College is a load of junk. I totally agree with what Stalin said, and I would agree with him even if the college had worked in Gore's favour and Bush had won the popular vote. Besides, to kids wearing those shirts, he's not their president. He's not yours either. After all, you're not even allowed to vote. There's just nothing you can do about it. Next time, instead of assuming they're idiots, ask if they're protesting Bush or the college. That way, when they have no clue what the college is you can make fun of them even more.
|
|
|
Post by stalin on Jun 30, 2004 11:50:41 GMT -5
I'm not? Really? Well thats news to me cause as far as I know I am in the next election.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Jun 30, 2004 13:16:09 GMT -5
Really? Cool. But still, I don't think you were able to vote in 2000.
|
|
|
Post by DarkAngel on Jun 30, 2004 13:18:58 GMT -5
I still don't understand why they just don't base the decision on the popular vote itself...That way every person in America's vote actually counts. If 500 people vote Gore in one state, and 450 vote Bush, those 450 basically get ignored. If it were based on the popular vote, their vote would still mean something..
I have a feeling my idea is gonna get shot down mighty fast...
*eagles*
|
|
|
Post by Static Burn on Jun 30, 2004 15:49:47 GMT -5
Well, every time I've seen someone like that they blasted Bush, not the electoral college.
Electoral college is very similar to the current legislation system. If 400 people vote for a Democratic senator and 500 vote for a Republican senator, then he has to vote on a bill, the 400 people who voted for the Democrat just got ignored.
If we had a more efficient system for counting votes, going by the popular vote would be possible. But right now, there are a lot of issues. A computerized one could be hacked into. Many places can't afford new voting machines. Town where I live, I'd say it's a fairly wealthy town, but our voting machines were manufactured in the 1890's, and they stopped selling parts for them in the 1930's.
As for the Bush not being my President thing, he's the President of the country I claim residence in. Therefore he is my President. Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan were my Presidents. Whether I have an opportunity to vote for him or not, whether I do vote for him or not, whether I support him or not, he's still my President. There's nothing I can do about it. In fact, while I was still in JROTC, he was at the top of my chain of command, so technically if he wanted something done, there was a chance that I would have to be the one to do it. Small chance, but still a chance.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Jun 30, 2004 15:55:08 GMT -5
Actually, they're going to use electronic voting boothes in Florida, even though the scietific community has warned on numerous occaisions that they could be hacked quite easily. It's really stupid, in my opinion. Of course, then there was the issue with the last election, where there was an actual dispute over whether a vote counted if the piece of paper that had been punched was still hanging on by a thread.
Static: While I realize it's the same as senators in a way, votes for Congresspeople are counted like that because each Congressperson needs to represent a specific region. However, when somebody is representing a whole country, why should votes be counted based on region? They can calculate percentage of the popular vote to a one hundredth of a percent, so don't tell me that it's not practical. We wouldn't change the curretn president or anything, because that would be unfair, but would you at least admit that a system based on popular vote rather than how each state votes would be a more accurate representation of how the country feels? After all, the US is a single country, not a loose confederacy of states, if you know what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by stalin on Jul 1, 2004 10:30:54 GMT -5
About the money issue, I believe that the government should regulate voting. Its to spread out and different as it is. Since the voting is for a United States governement issue, the US gov should provide the money.
Oh, and electronic voting couldnt be hack nearly as easily if they had no external access to them and they are put under lock and key (and guard) when they arent being used.
And now I will shoot down your idea like you told us to. Its not practical to do so right now because the system we have is so damn inacurate. I mean, look at florida! If it were as popular vote with the system we have now then the whole NATION would have to have been recounted for the last election. Do you have any idea how long that would have taken? Now if we update the system, as we should, then the electoral college should be dumped.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Jul 1, 2004 16:21:37 GMT -5
I just realized that your population is far greater than Canada's. We've got what? 35 million? It's less than California, I know that much.
|
|
|
Post by stalin on Jul 1, 2004 23:16:07 GMT -5
US is somewhere between 250 and 260 million (I think)
|
|
|
Post by DarkAngel on Jul 2, 2004 9:13:43 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure it's well over 300 million, and Canada has no more than 33 million... And Harper wanted to increase our military spending: ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Jul 4, 2004 1:46:47 GMT -5
There's another reason that straight voting doesn't work.
Devo said something like this and if he would do it again I'd be much obliged, but I'm gonna get the basics out as best I can, so bear with me.
There are over 7 million people in NYC. 7 million. There are WAY less than that in most of South Jersey. If someone REALLY wanted to get elected, he could say that he'd over-tax south Jersey and undertax NYC. He'd get the 7 million NYC votes for cutting taxes there, and his opponent would get far less from South Jersey. That's why electoral college works SLIGHTLY better. Devo made a reference about California, basically saying that even if his area goes nutty, the rest of the state balances it out. Yeah. That. HELP DEVO!!!
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Jul 4, 2004 10:29:13 GMT -5
That's how Canadian Politics work. The places with the most people (and thus the most seats), get the most stuff. The result is that the majority of the people get the most benefits.
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Jul 5, 2004 22:19:22 GMT -5
Yeah, but the point I'm trying to make is that someone could basically steal from the lesser areas and give to the larger areas if he wanted to get elected. Or something like that. Devo made the original statement and I'm pretty sure I've forked it all up, so yeah. I'ma shut up now.
|
|
|
Post by devo2 on Jul 5, 2004 22:31:54 GMT -5
here, I found my old post.
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.
|
|