Emulating Napoleon, George W. Bush Arrogantly Crowns Himself Emperor

[Danilo]

http://www.swanksoft.com/bushisgay.jpg

Junior Declares that He's the Official Emperor, Daddy Told Him So
In a mega-lame performance that almost evoked sympathy for the frat boy out of his league, Dubya declared he was the new emperor. He declared that he was going to get the keys to the Presidential transition office in D.C. and start moving in. His handlers didn't allow him to answer questions, fearing another prime-time "Bushism." After all, in the last news conference Dubya lied to the country when he declared that Dick Cheney didn't have a heart attack, and then wrote the Judicial branch right out of the Constitution. By the way, George W. asked Gore to stop his legal challenges, but never mentioned the Bush team's Supreme Court appearance on Friday. Just a minor oversight we presume, or another attempt at deceiving the American public. You can never tell with this guy. He's equally capable of both.

---
Katherine Harris for US ambassador to IRAQ

[4chuckie]

Almost as funny as Al Gore not knowing when to quit. I find it funny that during the debates he always had to have the last word and now he will not give up until the bitter end. Can I repsond to that? No Al pack your backs move in with Willy and live off Hillary for awhile.
My point is simple let Gore slip away quietly and if his lawyers work a miracle that is fine, but there is no use of him staying in the national light crying foul.
Gore lost his own home state, how can he ever want to run our country?

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by 4chuckie:

Gore lost his own home state, how can he ever want to run our country?

4chuckie, Mr. Bush lost the popular vote of the entire country. Your argument is completely and utterly moot.

I find the Republican arrogance in this election absolutely hilarious.

Bush Jr. has surrounded himself with his Daddy's clown posse, the same jokers we voted out in 1992.

Why did we vote them out?

Because they felt that fighting a war for the oil companies and shoving morality down the collective throat of the country was more important than creating jobs, paying down the deficit and growing the economy!

If Junior ever becomes President (and ultimately I believe he will), his "holier than thou" behavior since election day and his inevitable ineptitude at getting anything done in Washington will more than guarantee a Democratic landslide in 2004.

I feel sorry for the stumblebum. I really do!

------------------
I am the bastard son of LHutz.

Huh?

Right!

[Ty_Webb]

How is the guys point "completely and utterly moot." Just because Algore won the Big City vote?

Do you not find it somewhat strange that a native son of Tennessee can't even garner his own states vote? Kind of tells you what the people whom know him the best think of him.

And save the popular vote crap, when in the history of our country did the popular vote elect the president? Talk about a point that is REALLY “completely and utterly moot,” your moronic “popular vote” takes the cake.

Read the constitution you might learn something. The popular vote doesn’t matter, if the election was solely based on total number of votes (which is a horrible idea) don’t you think both candidates would have campaigned a little different? The overall popular vote means nothing.

If Algore and you really want someone to blame for LOSING, look no further than your beloved Billy Boy. Economy is great, no national crises, no foreign conflicts, and the Incumbent loses. That is all but unheard of. ROTFLMAO!


------------------

[Surfguy]

I think we need another civil war. This party line nonsense has got to go. I GUARANTEE you that if Gore would have won and Bush would have been the one down by 500+ popular votes in Florida, that it would be the exact same thing we see going on now....but the sides reversed. It just goes to show what Democrats and Republicans agree on...practically nothing. I think the longer this drags out, the more likely it is for Gore to ruin his reputation and his name. If he plans on re-running in 2004, this could spell disaster for him. I could see this thing dragging on forever given the pace of the courts. It might be a good time for the rest of the world to launch an attack at the US...about January. Maybe Saddam can finish his a-bomb and ram it into the statue of liberty in a mooring boat. LOL

Surf

------------------

[RocketMan Tex]

Ty...time for your 50,000 mile checkup. Your brainpan is dripping again!

Do you think your beloved Dubya would be contesting the election if he were 500 votes behind in Florida instead of Gore?

You bet he would be!

If you think Bush would concede and walk away if he were in Gore's shoes, then I have swampland in Arizona to sell you!

You're right, the popular vote does not elect the President. Never has. It just shows where the people of the United States stand in an election. And, after all, the opinion of the people of the United States means absolutely nothing, right? No biggie, eh?

I do believe Bush will become our next President. And I feel sorry for the schmuck. His glorious Presidency will be tainted, and he will be gone in four years.

PS: Don't blame me...I didn't vote for either of these losers!!! http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
I am the bastard son of LHutz.

Huh?

Right!

[Pole]

Not that I really give a rat's ass, but...

to hell with the constitution. Yes, it's a wonderful document and it's meaning and purpose is almost...but not quite...timeless.

But it's not always right, and it's not always relevant.

The electoral college is moronic, and if we live in a democracy, the popular vote is what should count.

Nevertheless, for one to say that they find the "Republican arrogance in this election absolutely hilarious" is equally absurd.

One need look no further than this BBS to know that both sides are acting equally pompous and arrogant.

Don't you people realize that this is nothing but a big game? You might as well be arguing about who will win the next WWF tournament.

------------------
stop posting my damn signature

[fadeaway]

Originally posted by Ty_Webb:
How is the guys point "completely and utterly moot." Just because Algore won the Big City vote?

Do you not find it somewhat strange that a native son of Tennessee can't even garner his own states vote? Kind of tells you what the people whom know him the best think of him.

And save the popular vote crap, when in the history of our country did the popular vote elect the president? Talk about a point that is REALLY “completely and utterly moot,” your moronic “popular vote” takes the cake.

Read the constitution you might learn something. The popular vote doesn’t matter, if the election was solely based on total number of votes (which is a horrible idea) don’t you think both candidates would have campaigned a little different? The overall popular vote means nothing.

If Algore and you really want someone to blame for LOSING, look no further than your beloved Billy Boy. Economy is great, no national crises, no foreign conflicts, and the Incumbent loses. That is all but unheard of. ROTFLMAO!





Aren't you the "maybe maybe no" guy?



------------------
My dream job is to be a Houston Rockets towel boy.

[Ty_Webb]

RM,

Please point out where I complained about Gore contesting the election?

*chirp*chirp*chirp*chirp*

Well, find it yet, I am still waiting?

Actually I have never had a problem with him wanting a recount, I was all for it. I think the way the recount was done was a little unfair, but it is over and Al lost.....again. And Yes if Bush was in the same situation, I would hope he wouldn’t quit either. I do think Al is going overboard, now though.

"It just shows where the people of the United States stand in an election."

It shows where the people who VOTED stand.

Going to the "popular vote" is like saying well the Knicks REALLY beat the Rockets in game 7 since they had a higher field goal percentage. Too bad Field Goal% (or in the case of a United States presidential election, the popular vote) is not what is used to decide the winner. Is that really hard to comprehend?

“And, after all, the opinion of the people of the United States means absolutely nothing, right? No biggie, eh?”

And that is the Republicans fault? ROTFLMAO, go b!tch at the Constitution and quit taking your hate out on the Republicans.

POLE:

You can NOT decide a National election on popular votes only, for the same reasons that we have a SENATE as well as a House of Representatives. You go straight to the national vote and you completely strip any influence that every state in the Nation has outside of Texas, Florida, California, New York and a couple of the other more populated states.

Candidates wouldn’t have to worry about rural America and the places of less dense population and instead would solely concentrate on getting the votes of the BIG cities.

Maybe the EC is antiquated but it is still 100 times better than a straight popular vote.


------------------


[This message has been edited by Ty_Webb (edited November 28, 2000).]

[Nomar]

Yes, RMT, the Iraqi war was fought for the oil companies. Because hey, they ordinary common man can afford 3.50 dollar a gallon for gas. ANd because hey, if we get into any war w/ anyone, we could just dip into our emergency reserve oil and then the common man could pay 8.50 dollars a gallon.

THE IRAQI WAR WAS FOUGHT SO THAT AMERICA WOULD HAVE OUR OIL!!!!


Al Gore is so freakin retarted.

And yes, your right. We should have another Civil War. IM sick and tired of seing the entire country RED, and then the North East corner of the electoral Map BLUE. In terms of area, BUsh won the nation. Gore won New England.

------------------
The next time I have meat and mashed potatoes, I think I'll put a very large blob of potatoes on my plate with just a little piece of meat. And if someone asks me why i didn't get more meat, ill just say, "Oh, you mean this?" and pull out a big piece of meat from inside the blob of potatoes, where ive hidden it. Good magic trick, huh?

[Launch Pad]

Originally posted by Ty_Webb:

Going to the "popular vote" is like saying well the Knicks REALLY beat the Rockets in game 7 since they had a higher field goal percentage. Too bad Field Goal% (or in the case of a United States presidential election, the popular vote) is not what is used to decide the winner. Is that really hard to comprehend?
Interesting analogy, but not really accurate (or a-cur-ut if you want to sound like Dubya http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/tongue.gif).

Total number of points wins the game, just like total number of votes should win the election. A better analogy for the electoral college would be if each quarter was given to the team that got the most points in that quarter. The team with the largest number of quarters win.

For example, in a close game, Team A outscores team B, by 1 point in each of the first 3 quarters. Team B rallies in the 4th and routs team A by a total of twenty points for the game. Nevertheless, Team A wins, because they got credit for winning 3 of the 4 quarters.

You can NOT decide a National election on popular votes only, for the same reasons that we have a SENATE as well as a House of Representatives. You go straight to the national vote and you completely strip any influence that every state in the Nation has outside of Texas, Florida, California, New York and a couple of the other more populated states.

Candidates wouldn’t have to worry about rural America and the places of less dense population and instead would solely concentrate on getting the votes of the BIG cities.

You do realize exactly how weak this argument is, right?

First, candidates don't spend a lot of time or money campaigning in small states ("Alaska, I need your vote.").

Second, why should states with a clear, but not huge majority of voters for one candidate be ignored by the other, because they don't have a chance of winning it ("Gee, Mr. Gore, you only have 35% of the vote in Texas, so don't waste your time and money there."

Third, the Senate more than makes up the balance of power for small states ("You mean my state of 500,000 people gets the same 2 votes that a state of 6 million gets?").

Fourth, states are not entities that have rights. People are. So why should the state have more power than the people in it ("51% of the population believes that bacon grease should be mandatory in all recipes, so that must mean that's what the entire state should believe.")?

Finally, how many political rallies does the average person attend? How many did you go to? Have you heard of television? The newspaper? The internet? It doesn't matter if the candidates visit every state, as long as every person in the country has the opportunity to know where they stand ("Ah didn' watch tha dee-bates or read the newspaper, buht, ah'm shore dat George Dubya will come tuh muh door any day now tuh tell me how tuh vote.").
Maybe the EC is antiquated but it is still 100 times better than a straight popular vote.

A bold statement made without a strong argument to back it. The electoral college was created, because the founding fathers wanted the country run by the elite. An oligarchy. It made sense then, because farmers and rural people didn't have access to the knowledge necessary to effectively choose their candidate.

We do now. We are at least "100 times" more capable of making an educated decision than they were back then.

------------------


[This message has been edited by Launch Pad (edited November 28, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Launch Pad (edited November 28, 2000).]

[4chuckie]

Launch pad it's not the total number of votes it's the total number of electoral votes.
You knew the rules of the election before it began, just like the democrats knew Broward County threw out alot of ballots in the '96 election for the same reason tehy were thrown out now.
Cry all you want but George won with the system we have now.
If you want change be proactive, don't cry over spilled milk!

------------------

[bobrek]

Just think, if there were no electoral college AND the popular vote was as close as it is (< 300,000 out of ~100,000,000), then we would be seeing recounts in most every county of every state.

------------------

[Ty_Webb]

Interesting stuff LP.

first on the analogy...

You got the gist of it but not the point I was trying to make.

The point is that EVERYONE knew the rules going into the election, just like EVERYONE knows the rules of a basketball game. In the election the electoral VOTES are what matters nothing else in Basketball it is the amount of points you score.

Bitching about winning the popular vote NOW, is equivalent to a basketball team bitching about being ROBBED of a game because they shot a much higher field goal percentage than their opponent.

Also in regards to the “popular vote” would you not concede that IF the election was based on the popular vote, than the campaign strategies would have been somewhat different. People in states whom thought there votes didn’t matter would have turned out…..like voters in texas sitting at home because they knew Texas would be carried by Bush same goes in California and NY.

If there was a straight popular vote NO WAY is it any sort of given that Gore wins.

As for the switching from the current process for electing president….

I am not against change by any means, if someone has a better way of doing it I am all for it. I do not believe that the popular vote is the way though. It guarantees that the only areas that will be paid attention to will be the big cities.

While they candidates under the current rules spend more times in the “battleground” states, they still have to come up with a platform that will work for ALL of America not just the people who live in the population centers.

Look at the county by county map in this years election. The entire thing is RED with Bush carried counties, except for the North East and Western California and because those TWO places are so highly populated they could have won the election and dictated policy to the rest of the nation. The current system gives weight to the larger states without completely ignoring the smaller areas and middle America, a straight Popular Vote would not do that.


------------------

[DREAMer]

Pole,

"The electoral college is moronic, and if we live in a democracy, the popular vote is what should count."

We do not "live in a democracy". We live in a Republic. A country governed by a document, The Constitution.

So, even by your standards, then, the popular vote is not what should count.



------------------
"I have a DREAM.........his name's Hakeem."
DREAMer's Rocket Page (http://members.nbci.com/DREAMer88/Rockets/DREAMersPage.html)

[Pole]

</style>
</head>

<body lang=EN-US link=red vlink=purple style='tab-interval:.5in'>

<div class=Section1>

<p class=MsoNormal>DREAMer, you are NOT a human being, you ARE a Homo Sapien…or
is it the other way around?</p>

<p class=MsoNormal>…or are they the same damn thing?</p>

<p class=MsoNormal>Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy

Pronunciation: <tt><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>di-'mä-kr&-sE</span></tt>

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural -cies

Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from
Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy

Date: 1576

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule
of the majority b : <span style='color:red'>a government in which
the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or
indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically
held free elections

</span>2 : a political unit that has a democratic government

3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the
Democratic party in the U.S.

4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of
political authority

5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or
privileges</p>


<p class=MsoNormal>Main Entry: re·pub·lic

Pronunciation: <tt><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>ri-'p&-blik</span></tt>

Function: noun

Etymology: French république, from Middle French republique, from
Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine
of publicus public -- more at <a
href="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=real"><span
style='mso-fareast-font-family:"Courier New"'>REAL</span></a>, <a
href="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=public"><span
style='mso-fareast-font-family:"Courier New"'>PUBLIC</span></a>

Date: 1604

1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a
monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political
unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : <span style='color:red'>a government in which supreme power resides in a body of
citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and
representatives responsible to them and governing according to law</span> (2) :
a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c :
a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French
Fourth Republic>

2 : a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity
<the republic of letters>

3 : a constituent political and territorial unit of the former
nations of Czechoslovakia, the U.S.S.R., or Yugoslavia</p>

</div>

</body>

</html>


------------------
stop posting my damn signature

[This message has been edited by Pole (edited November 28, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Pole (edited November 28, 2000).]

[Launch Pad]

Originally posted by 4chuckie:
Launch pad it's not the total number of votes it's the total number of electoral votes.
You knew the rules of the election before it began, just like the democrats knew Broward County threw out alot of ballots in the '96 election for the same reason tehy were thrown out now.
Cry all you want but George won with the system we have now.
If you want change be proactive, don't cry over spilled milk!

4chuckie,

Re-read my post. I was not making a pro-Gore argument "cry[ing] over spilled milk".

I was only addressing why the Electoral College is no longer necessary. So your rant is somewhat meaningless in reference to my original post.

Ty_Webb,

I now understand the changing the rules argument that you're making. And it is a valid point.

In fact, at this point I think Gore should concede regardless of whether or not the count was fair.

His efforts so far has already cast doubt about whether Bush's Presidency is legitimate, and pretty much ensures that the Democrats will take the White House 4 years from now. Either candidate is going to enter office with a really crappy approval rating and the opposition party aligned against them now.

With that said, the entire point of my last post was to refute your statement that:

"Maybe the EC is antiquated but it is still 100 times better than a straight popular vote."

I presented you with many reasons that it wasn't. Since your last reply merely reitterated the same defenses of the Electoral College, I'll just refer you to my previous post.

I will add one thing though. There was a time when African Americans (the men anyway) were give the right to vote, but they're vote only counted a fraction as much as a white man's (I think it was 1/3).

Can you justify this arbitrary difference in the weight of each vote?

If you can't (I hope you can't anyway), then how can you justify an equally arbitrary weighting of votes based on something as asinine as geography?

Pole,

The difference between a democracy and a republic is that in a democracy, the people make every law by popular vote. In a republic, the people elect leaders to make laws for them. Look closely at the definitions that you posted; the distinction is there. DREAMer's right (and I don't say that often http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/tongue.gif). We live in a republic.

------------------

[Ty_Webb]

The election is broken up into 50 SPEREATE elections, so EVERY single persons vote counts just as much as everyone else’s in their state. Larger States get more Electoral votes so their population is weighed into the decision.

All a candidate would have to do is carry Western California and the North East, and they would win the popular vote. Do you think that since they are more densely populated that they deserve the right to decide and shape the policy for the ENTIRE country? A candidate could design a platform around pampering those TWO areas, 1/10 of the US and they could run the country.

Take away Algores 1.2 million votes in California and the other 49 states elected in Bush by over a million votes. Bush carried 85% of the land mass in the country, based on county by County elections. Bush carried a many more States

If you go to popular vote should a candidate still be allowed without a majority vote?


------------------

[Pole]

No Launch Pad; perhaps you should read the definitions again. They describe the same thing.

Not that merriam-webster knows anything.

Would it make you feel better if I qualified democracy by calling it a "Representative Democracy."

somebody_who_knows_a_lot_more_about_democracy_than_we_do.com (http://www.reapinc.org/Defdem.html)



------------------
stop posting my damn signature

[Launch Pad]

Originally posted by Ty_Webb:

The election is broken up into 50 SPEREATE elections, so EVERY single persons vote counts just as much as everyone else’s in their state. Larger States get more Electoral votes so their population is weighed into the decision.

All a candidate would have to do is carry Western California and the North East, and they would win the popular vote. Do you think that since they are more densely populated that they deserve the right to decide and shape the policy for the ENTIRE country? A candidate could design a platform around pampering those TWO areas, 1/10 of the US and they could run the country.

Take away Algores 1.2 million votes in California and the other 49 states elected in Bush by over a million votes. Bush carried 85% of the land mass in the country, based on county by County elections. Bush carried a many more States

If you go to popular vote should a candidate still be allowed without a majority vote?

Again, Ty_Webb, you're just repeating the same argument that you've already presented twice.

I have already given you six counter-points in my last 2 posts and you haven't directly addressed even one of them.

I'll will add a 7th courtesy of another thread by Danilo (http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/Forum7/HTML/002218.html).

He basically calculated the weight of one electoral vote in Alaska vs. one electoral vote in Florida.

He came up with:

1 Alaskan electoral vote=206,500.
1 Floridian electoral vote=604,449.

Ergo, 1 Alaskan electoral vote=3 Floridian electoral votes. Sound fair? Not really when you consider that one Senate vote for Alaska counts for 302,224 people to 1 Senate vote in Florida representing 7,555,622 people. That means that Alaska's Senate vote is 25 times more powerful than Florida's per capita.

Pole,

Summing up a system of government in one sentence is tough and hence, the dictionary definition doesn't fully explain each form of government. Merriam-Webster may "know" more words than I do, but I'd wager that they no less about government than all the PhDs in history and Political Science who have taught me that the US is a republic.

Here's another link to "somebody [else] who knows a lot more about democracy [and republics] than we do.com" (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a36cb36384d02.htm)

"Representative democracy" still isn't completely accurate, but I'd settle for "democratic republic" http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/tongue.gif

------------------


[This message has been edited by Launch Pad (edited November 29, 2000).]

[Dreamshake]

Yes I believe that if a person carries the Northeast and the west coast as long as he has "the most votes" should win.

So in essence your saying that peoples vote in Idaho should count slightly more than those in California being that Cali is much more densly populated. Because in essence that is the way the Electoral College works.

Who cares where you live, your vote should count just as much as anybody elses vote. If California had 99 percent of the US population and Gore won all 99 percent then he should win the presidency. Its as simple as that. You could also make a point that those Same "Heavily populated" areas, which are treated with slightly lesser importance, (vote for vote)is making minorities votes count as... a minority vote. Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics populate those more dense areas than they do Utah. So factually their vote as a whole counts less then those in the Midwest (which no one is going to argue is almost exclusively white)

You want to talk "knowing the rules" before they got into it. Bush knew that recounts were part of the process. He SIGNED it into law in his own state. Why then did he fight so hard to disallow it in Florida which has provisions to manually recount them. Bush knows he can have 20,000 double votes thrown out. We all know that for the most part those people were trying to vote for Gore, but were confused by the ballot. Then why is he screaming bloody murder when 1,400 military votes were thrown out for similar rule violations??? Not being signed, not post marked by the proper date, and double votes.

Who cares if Al Gore lost his own state. Better that Al Gore to lose his own state than for a state so populated with people to vote for their Governor who had such a horrible record in his own state. Hey, but once he rids the US of its first budget surplus in 50 years, economy falls back down, employment goes back up, and he decides to cut out the CHIP program for Kids, you can claim how great it is to have your social security now instead of later.
For someone whos running on the honesty, integrity, and trust the people ticket, hes failing miserably before he's even stepped a foot into his own state.

------------------
"I have amazing, powers of observation"...Pink

[This message has been edited by Dreamshake (edited November 29, 2000).]

[DREAMer]

Launch Pad,

"DREAMer's right (and I don't say that often ). We live in a republic."

I actually did laugh out loud on that one. Because, it's true, especially lately.

-------------------------------
Pole,

The Electoral College process is keeping in line with our whole "federal" and "state" levels of government. The states that make up our "democratic republic" are in essence coming toegether and (similar to how it works in Congress) they are voting for their constituents.

It is better than a straight popular vote.
It is better than a one-state one-vote, process.
It brings the two together.


------------------
"I have a DREAM.........his name's Hakeem."
DREAMer's Rocket Page (http://members.nbci.com/DREAMer88/Rockets/DREAMersPage.html)

[outlaw]

Originally posted by Ty_Webb:

Bush carried 85% of the land mass in the country, based on county by County elections. Bush carried a many more States


who cares about land mass?
Canada has more land mass than the US does that make them better or more important?

Harris County has 3,126,966 people but is smaller in land mass to Brewster County (in West Texas) which only has 9,221 people.

[Ty_Webb]

I have answered all this twice now, I didn’t realize that the only way it was considered “addressing” something was to use little quotes and ubb code, but here you go……

“First, candidates don't spend a lot of time or money campaigning in small states ("Alaska, I need your vote.").”

Who cares about “time spent campaigning” I never said anything about that, when I said that they could/would ignore these states I was speaking in regards to the platform the design and the policy they would be trying to push through. You could come up with a platform directly aimed to advance big cities and COMPLETELY neglect middle America.

Is that fair? Is it healthy for the country? No and No.

“Second, why should states with a clear, but not huge majority of voters for one candidate be ignored by the other, because they don't have a chance of winning it ("Gee, Mr. Gore, you only have 35% of the vote in Texas, so don't waste your time and money there."

That is called getting bang for your buck. In a Senate, Governor’s or any other election based on popular vote, I imagine they don’t spend time in counties they know they aren’t going to garner many supporters. Like the presidential candidate there is only so much time in the day to campaign.

“Third, the Senate more than makes up the balance of power for small states ("You mean my state of 500,000 people gets the same 2 votes that a state of 6 million gets?").”

EXACTLY! The senate is in place to keep the more populous states in check and not let the other states go under represented. What a horrible idea!. You could go in and apply your “6” points to an argument against the US having two houses of legislature. Guess you are in favor of getting rid of the Senate too? I mean it isn’t FAIR that Alaska's Senate vote is 25 times more powerful than Florida's per capita

“Fourth, states are not entities that have rights. People are. So why should the state have more power than the people in it ("51% of the population believes that bacon grease should be mandatory in all recipes, so that must mean that's what the entire state should believe.")?”

Uh, we are the United STATES, so YES state do have rights.

Each State DOESN’T have more power than the people in it. If 51% of their population votes one way, the win the election in their state.

If with your 51% analogy you are referring to all of a states electoral votes going to a candidate even though they only got 51% of the vote in the state, then there you may have a point. Off hand I would not completely dismiss a better way of awarding electoral votes.

“Finally, how many political rallies does the average person attend? How many did you go to? Have you heard of television? The newspaper? The internet? It doesn't matter if the candidates visit every state, as long as every person in the country has the opportunity to know where they stand”

I guess this stands for another one of your “points” even though it is nothing more than an extension of your first point. What the heck do the attendance at pep rallies have to do with anything? Just refer to my reply to #1 for this duplication.

We are the United STATES we are not just America. Like you stated earlier we are not a true democracy.

The electoral college just like the Legislature has built in measurements to keep the masses from over running the minority. It is designed to give each state FAIR representation. Each persons vote in the US has as much weight as their neighbors when it comes to deciding who wins the popular election in their state.


------------------

[Ty_Webb]

Dreamshake

“Who cares where you live, your vote should count just as much as anybody elses vote. If California had 99 percent of the US population and Gore won all 99 percent then he should win the presidency. Its as simple as that.”

No it is NOT as simple is that. Feel free to read the Constitution.

We are not a true democracy, for this very reason, you can not have a couple groups dictating law to the rest of the nation. If so, your 99% of the population in California might come true.

“Why then did he fight so hard to disallow it in Florida which has provisions to manually recount them.”

Because the only counties that were being hand counted were democratic counties.

“We all know that for the most part those people were trying to vote for Gore, but were confused by the ballot.”

You do not KNOW that for a FACT and it is a bold face lie to say you do. Is there a good chance, or is it very likely, ABSOLUTELY, but is it known 100% that those people meant to vote one way or another. The answer is NO, that is why you throw the ballot out, it is done universally. That takes the human emotion factor out of it. If not you get what we have going on now, a bunch of Lawyers (on BOTH sides) arguing over the alleged “intentions” of a voter. F-ing ludicrous.

If there is a HOLE in the ballot accept it, if not throw it OUT. Count the votes and be done with this damn thing.

How can that not be fair? Unless Democratic voters are inherently more inept or stupid than republican voters, both sides in a sample size as large as Florida (or the entire country) should have an equal amount Dqed.

“Then why is he screaming bloody murder when 1,400 military votes were thrown out for similar rule violations??? Not being signed, not post marked by the proper date, and double votes.”

Not being postmarked is different from “guessing” as to whom a person voted for. At least the Overseas ballots are clearly MARKED. But if the rules are to throw them out, so be it, throw them out.


------------------

[Launch Pad]

Ty_Webb,

I'm still waiting on your justification on the points that at one time the votes of African Americans was only worth a fraction as much as as a white man's vote, and whether you feel this is fair. You can even combine it with the last point that Alaska's electoral vote is worth 3 times as much as Florida's, since that's a similar ratio of how the white:black vote used to be weighted.

Now, on yo your counterarguments:

"Who cares about 'time spent campaigning' I never said anything about that, when I said that they could/would ignore these states I was speaking in regards to the platform the design and the policy they would be trying to
push through. You could come up with a platform directly aimed to advance big cities and COMPLETELY neglect middle America."

What federal policies exactly do you feel that middle America would be excluded on? Abortion? Taxation? Social Programs? Where would the "platform design" differ so significantly?

Think of your two candidates and their promises.

Bush: Big @$$ tax cut. Vouchers for education. Less peace-time military action. Restructure Social Security. Pro-life.

Gore: Small tax cut for middle and lower class. More spending on education. More spending on military. Preserve Social Security. Pro-Choice.

None of these platforms are incredibly specific, so where are the small states being targeted here, that they wouldn't be otherwise?

"That is called getting bang for your buck. In a Senate, Governor’s or any other election based on popular vote, I imagine they don’t spend time in counties they know they aren’t going to garner many supporters. Like the presidential candidate there is only so much time in the day to campaign. "

Bang for your buck? You argue that we need the EC so that every state is considered in Presidential campaigning, but you still justify candidates blowing off states that they can't win, because of the EC. Do you see the hypocrisy in this?

EXACTLY! The senate is in place to keep the more populous states in check and not let the other states go under represented. What a horrible idea!. You could go in and apply your '6' points to an argument against the US
having two houses of legislature. Guess you are in favor of getting rid of the Senate too? I mean it isn’t FAIR that Alaska's Senate vote is 25 times more powerful than Florida's per capita

How the heck did you get that I want to get rid of the Senate? Did you not read my post or are you just using the Dubya-esque technique of avoiding the question. My point was that the checks and balances and balance of power for small states already exist in spades in the Senate. Why do we still need the EC?

"Uh, we are the United STATES, so YES state do have rights. Each State DOESN’T have more power than the people in it. If 51% of their population votes one way, the win the election in their state. "

When you hear the term "state's rights", it is referring to the population of that state, not the land mass itself. And yes, the land mass does have more power than the people in it under the EC system. Using the 51% example, the opposing 49% of the people lose their vote, as all of the electoral votes go to the candidate with the very simple majority (even if it's only a few hundred votes in a state that tallied 6 million votes (read Florida)).

"We are the United STATES we are not just America. Like you stated earlier we are not a true democracy."

We are the "United STATES". That's why we have state governments and a seperation of legislative power between the state and federal governments. We are also not a true democracy, but we are a republic that elects its leaders in a democratic process. Why are you opposed to making it a fair democratic process where all votes are weighed equally?

"The electoral college just like the legislature has built in measurements to keep the masses from over running the minority. It is designed to give each state FAIR representation. Each persons vote in the US has as much weight as their neighbors when it comes to deciding who wins the popular election in their state."

Each person's vote counts as much as their neighbors unless, that person lives in Texas and their neighbor lives just on the other side of the border in Arkansas. In that case, the Arkansonian's votes counts twice as much as the Texan's.

The electoral college was built to keep the masses in check, but it wasn't because the founding fathers were worried about small states. It was because the founding fathers were educated elitist that didn't trust the common man to be informed or knowledgeble enough to make his own decisions. You're a Bush supporter. You should "trust people" too.

------------------


[This message has been edited by Launch Pad (edited November 29, 2000).]

[Danilo]

Originally posted by Ty_Webb:
The electoral college just like the Legislature has built in measurements to keep the masses from over running the minority.

Yet, the Electoral College doesn't have built-in measurements to keep the minority from over running the relative majority.

Originally posted by Ty_Webb:
It is designed to give each state FAIR representation. Each persons vote in the US has as much weight as their neighbors when it comes to deciding who wins the popular election in their state.


The fundamental problems with the Electoral College lies upon the relative power of each states Electoral Votes and how they represent the people compared to other states.

Under the assumption that all states used the general ticket system, all electors were faithful, there are only two candidates, and if a candidate lost a state the candidate received no votes, then a president could be elected with only 22% of the national popular vote. If there were three candidates, it would require only a 15% popular vote. This is because the thirty-nine smaller states in the US have a much proportionally larger vote than the larger states.

California + New York + Texas + Florida
Pop: 33,145,121 + 18,196,601 + 20,044,141 + 15,111,244 = 86,497,107
EV : 54 + 33 + 32 + 25 = 144

Representation: 600,674 people per Electoral Vote

Alaska + North Dakota + South Dakota + Montana
Pop: 619,500 + 633,666 + 733,133 + 882,779 = 2,869,078
EV: 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 12

Representation: 239,090 people per Electoral Vote


I think it is quite obvious to conclude the Electoral College over-represents rural areas.

---
Elian Gonzolas for Florida Secretary of State

[This message has been edited by Danilo (edited November 29, 2000).]

[TheFreak]

What's funny is nobody here would be arguing against the EC had the popular vote been a tie and Gore barely received more electoral votes.

------------------
"It's a great idea. A girl's name for a guy and lots of theatrics. I wish I'd thought of that."
--Alice Cooper discussing Marilyn Manson

[4chuckie]

Am I mistaken or isn't the number of electorial votes/state dtermined by the number of represenatives each state has in the house (or is it the house plus the two senators). Any ways the electorial college numbers are determined by how the house of reps is determined as well.

[Ty_Webb]

"I'm still waiting on your justification on the points that at one time the votes of African Americans was only worth a fraction as much as as a white man's vote, and whether you feel this is fair."

Yeah I think blacks and mexicans and any non-white should only count as 1/8th of what the whitemans vote does, heck they shouldn't be allowed to vote at all! What an absolutely moronic question. Trying to color me or play me as a racist…typical.

If you vote in California your vote is worth the EXACT same amount as EVERY OTHER CALIFORNIAN. The presidential election is broken into FIFTY individual elections. Nobodies vote counts any less than another. If you live in a state that votes TOO republican for your liking, get out and drum up support for the Democratic party, or MOVE.

“What federal policies exactly do you feel that middle America would be excluded on? Abortion? Taxation? Social Programs? Where would the "platform design" differ so significantly? “

These points are about as elementary as it gets ….

How about jacking up various urban programs that have no benefit to rural areas and CUTTING programs that assist rural residents????? How about promising pork to the 10 cities that get them elected (road improvements, government contracts, etc…) I’m SURE you are intelligent enough to figure out a few more.

“Bang for your buck? You argue that we need the EC so that every state is considered in Presidential campaigning, but you still justify candidates blowing off states that they can't win, because of the EC. Do you see the hypocrisy in this? “

AGAIN, who cares where they actually show up to, the point (again), is that candidates could pander to Western California and the Northeast exclusively. It is not realistic to think a candidate is going to campaign in an area he KNOWS he is going to lose. Under the current system you can’t just win a couple states carry the popular vote and take over the country (although we dangerously close to that this time) You have to be a candidate that is appealing to people of ALL walks of life.

“My point was that the checks and balances and balance of power for small states already exist in spades in the Senate. Why do we still need the EC?”

Good use of labeling again with the Dubya stuff….. Anywho, my point is (still) that the House and the Senate do a fantastic job of giving the Popular vote their voice while not completely running over the smaller guy. Why is it SO terrible to emulate that in the presidential election?

You can’t have it both ways, either you think the Legislature set up is fair and just system or you don’t. If you do, it seems odd that you would not be in favor of SOME sort of EC vote that emulates it.

We can go round and round on all the points above, feel free to answer them, but I pretty much already can figure out your reply. The only thing I am truly interested in your reply to is the following:

Look at both sides of the argument.

Popular Election, completely eliminates the voice of smaller states and all rural areas, they would have absolutely ZERO IMPACT on the election or at best a VERY minimal. Would you not agree with that?

Now EC vote….. Do the big states and population centers play a major role….YES. Do the smaller states at least get SOME input YES. Would you not agree with that?


------------------

[Danilo]

Oops, double post.

[This message has been edited by Danilo (edited November 29, 2000).]

[Danilo]

Originally posted by TheFreak:
What's funny is nobody here would be arguing against the EC had the popular vote been a tie and Gore barely received more electoral votes.


Please tell me you aren't hypothetically suggesting a tie in national popular vote out of the 102 million votes casted. Even though this is more likely to happen than Bush getting >800 on the SAT, I find it very unlikely.

Lets face it, whether Bush wins by EC and loses by popular, or Gore wins by EC and loses by popular, this aged Electoral System was due for an overhaul.

---
Elian Gonzolas for Florida Secretary of State

[This message has been edited by Danilo (edited November 29, 2000).]

[Danilo]

Originally posted by Ty_Webb:
Now EC vote….. Do the big states and population centers play a major role….YES. Do the smaller states at least get SOME input YES. Would you not agree with that?


Obviously the smaller states get MORE input than the larger states. The reward for the small states came in the form of an odd system for allocating electoral votes: Each state gets a "Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." Since every state, no matter how tiny, has two senators, the formula was skewed in favor of the least populous states. In effect, they got a two-vote, electoral "bonus." If the modern, egalitarian rule of "one person, one vote" were our guide, Wyoming would not have three electoral votes; it would have only one.

If electoral votes were distributed to states according to their population, Gore would have won the 2000 election handily, even without Florida. This is easy to demonstrate, in rough fashion--just subtract the two "bonus" votes from each state's total and add up the columns. Bush, if you give him Florida, will have won 30 states with a total of 211 electoral votes. Gore will have 21 states with a total of 225 electoral votes. It's not even very close!

---
Elian Gonzolas for Florida Secretary of State

[Ty_Webb]

"Obviously the smaller states get MORE input than the larger states. "

Huh What? How many electoral votes does California get? How about New York? compare them to New Mexico, Nebraksa, Oklahoma, Alabama.

Now how exactly do small states get more "input." Save your percentage stuff, this election is NOT about the National popular vote COMBINED it is about the 50 states individually as states electing a president.

now go back and answer the question I posed.

Which has a more negative effect on the two parties in question (urban vs rural America)

A Popular vote - which strips the smaller states and rural areas of their power and puts the election in the hands of the solely of the HUGE cities.

Or a EC vote, which limits, the impact on the urban areas (although they are CLEARLY still the most important areas in the election due to the amount of EC votes they have) while still allowing rural America to have a hand in the decision.



------------------

[RocketMan Tex]

http://cache.corbis.com/Agent/11/33/30/11333051.jpg

Now, with that editorial comment out of the way, I do believe that everyone who has posted on this thread needs to lighten up and watch The Spin Room at 10 PM on CNN. They have a "Liberal" host (Bill Press) and a "Conservative" host (Tucker Carlson) and they trash EVERYONE. These guys make fun of EVERYTHING having to do with our current political morass. Last night it was extra funny. They had Jesse Jackson on as a guest, and they basically did everything but call him a clown to his face. This political TV show really makes you laugh, rather than making you so angry that your head explodes (as some of these threads seem to do as well). I highly recommend it!
------------------
I am the bastard son of LHutz.

Huh?

Right!

[This message has been edited by RocketMan Tex (edited November 29, 2000).]

[Ty_Webb]

http://www.geocities.com/hillzx585/Images/dems.gif

------------------

[Launch Pad]

Originally posted by Ty_Webb:
Yeah I think blacks and mexicans and any non-white should only count as 1/8th of what the whitemans vote does, heck they shouldn't be allowed to vote at all! What an absolutely moronic question. Trying to color me or play me as a racist…typical."
Getting kind of defensive there, aren't you. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/rolleyes.gif I didn't call you a racist, so don't use that weak defense. I asked you to justify why votes can't be weighted differently based on race, but can be weighted differently on something just as arbitrary like geography.

It is a valid point, and it does deserve an answer, not some whiny tirade.
If you vote in California your vote is worth the EXACT same amount as EVERY OTHER CALIFORNIAN. The presidential election is broken into FIFTY individual elections. Nobodies vote counts any less than another. If you live in a state that votes TOO republican for your liking, get out and drum up support for the Democratic party, or MOVE.
If you don't like your state's politics, then move?! http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/confused.gif Thanks for lending more credence to my argument that the land mass has more rights than the people in it. And what sense does it make to have 50 seperate elections for one candidate, when you could just have one. And yes, people's votes in large states do count less than the votes of people in less populated states, or even in large states that typically lean towards the opposing party.
How about jacking up various urban programs that have no benefit to rural areas and CUTTING programs that assist rural residents????? How about promising pork to the 10 cities that get them elected (road improvements, government contracts, etc…) I’m SURE you are intelligent enough to figure out a few more.
Thanks for giving me a listing of state government affairs, but I thought we were talking about the federal government here.
AGAIN, who cares where they actually show up to, the point (again), is that candidates could pander to Western California and the Northeast exclusively. It is not realistic to think a candidate is going to campaign in an area he KNOWS he is going to lose. Under the current system you can’t just win a couple states carry the popular vote and take over the country (although we dangerously close to that this time) You have to be a candidate that is appealing to people of ALL walks of life.
If a candidate doesn't even bother to show up to a state, what makes you think that the candidate will "design his platforms" to appeal to that state? It does matter that a candidate should take interest in states that he can't possibly win under the EC system.

And what makes you think that a candidate can win in either system (popular vote or EC) without trying to appeal to "people of ALL walks of life". Do you think that people in metropolitin areas all share the same political views?
Good use of labeling again with the Dubya stuff….. Anywho, my point is (still) that the House and the Senate do a fantastic job of giving the Popular vote their voice while not completely running over the smaller guy. Why is it SO terrible to emulate that in the presidential election?
First off, the House and Senate has never done a "fantastic" job of anything http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/tongue.gif The EC is "so terrible", because for the House and Senate, people elect legilators for their state. When electing a President, they are selecting a leader for their country. Everybody should have equal power in choosing their leader.
You can’t have it both ways, either you think the Legislature set up is fair and just system or you don’t. If you do, it seems odd that you would not be in favor of SOME sort of EC vote that emulates it.
Oh, obviously, you are soooooooo right here. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/rolleyes.gif We can't change our government. There's simply no precedent for amending the Constitution. That's never happened before.

Anyway, your argument is silly. There is a concept called change. You create a system that balances the power to small states. Things change. These cool things called the television and the internet are formed. People become more informed. Toilets are actually inside of houses now. Lots of changes have occured that our elitist white male founding fathers couldn't have predicted. Hence, we amend the Constitution accordingly to account for those changes.

Look at both sides of the argument.

Popular Election, completely eliminates the voice of smaller states and all rural areas, they would have absolutely ZERO IMPACT on the election or at best a VERY minimal. Would you not agree with that?
No. I would not agree with that. There are two legislative branches where the small states are overrepresented. Bills have to make it through these legislative branches to even make it to the executive branch.

Also, the fundamental platforms that candidates run on concern federal, not state law. The people of smaller states will have similar beliefs on many issues as people in larger states. Also, all votes from people in large states will not be the same (as it effectively is under the EC), so a candidate will have to campaign in small states too rather than just taking NY, California, Texas, Florida, and a couple of other states like they can now.
Now EC vote….. Do the big states and population centers play a major role….YES. Do the smaller states at least get SOME input YES. Would you not agree with that?
I'd agree with that, but would call it an oversimplification. The small states would still get "SOME input" under a popular vote, but so would the 35-40% of Gore voters in Texas, or the 40% of Bush supporters in California. In fact, how about all of the Nader, Browne, and Buchanan voters that didn't vote for their candidate, because it would have been a wasted vote under the EC system.

------------------

[Ty_Webb]

Never said I was opposed to change, as a matter of fact the 1st post I made I admitted that the EC was antiquated but it was better than the popular vote....granted i mixed in some hyperbole for effect http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

If you or someone else has a better system, lets hear it, but it is not a straight popular vote, because it strips what little power and influence the smaller states have, completely away.

I am not for California and the Northeast determining the president for the foreseeable future. Maybe a system where 100% of a counties electoral votes don't go to the winner of the state election. Maybe the winner gets 65% of the EV's and the other 35% are broken up based on the the split in the popular vote in the state.

Either way it is an interesting subject and I got some quality reading from your posts and the link you provided to the new republic...


------------------

[Hydra]

How about having the House of Reps elect the president. Then every district would have equal power. Under this system, different parts of the state can elect whoever they choose. It would also lead to some outside party candidates receiving some votes.

------------------
Don't come in Bullard's house!

[Launch Pad]

Originally posted by Ty_Webb:
Never said I was opposed to change, as a matter of fact the 1st post I made I admitted that the EC was antiquated but it was better than the popular vote....granted i mixed in some hyperbole for effect http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

If you or someone else has a better system, lets hear it, but it is not a straight popular vote, because it strips what little power and influence the smaller states have, completely away.

I am not for California and the Northeast determining the president for the foreseeable future. Maybe a system where 100% of a counties electoral votes don't go to the winner of the state election. Maybe the winner gets 65% of the EV's and the other 35% are broken up based on the the split in the popular vote in the state.

Either way it is an interesting subject and I got some quality reading from your posts and the link you provided to the new republic...

Yeah, we better to agree to disagree on this issue.

As for alterate systems, I would support a compromise that awards a proportional breakdown of electoral votes based on the percentage breakdown of the popular vote.

For example, if candidate A gets 35% of the popular vote for a state, then he should get 35% of the electoral vote. In Florida for example, each candidate would get 12.5 electoral votes. Nobody said that we have to use whole numbers; that's what calculators are for http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/tongue.gif

This should satisfy the people that believe in balance of power for small states and people that hate the all or nothing simple majority award of electoral votes under the present system. There would still be possible scenarios, where a candidate could take the electoral, but not popular vote under this system, but they would be far more rare.

Hydra presents another possibility that might be good if modified a little. Give an electoral vote to each Congressional district and hold an election there. If a candidate wins that district, he gets that electoral vote. The person with the most votes wins.

One drawback of this would be that, small states only have 1 Congressional district, so this may not satisfy the balance of power advocates.

------------------