Emulating Napoleon, George W. Bush Arrogantly Crowns Himself Emperor

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).]

 

Launch Pad,

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

 

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.

 

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.


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

 

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.


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

 

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).]

 

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

 

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.

 

"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?


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

 

"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.



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

 

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 b*stard son of LHutz.

Huh?

Right!

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

 

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

 

Getting kind of defensive there, aren't you. 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 don't like your state's politics, then move?! 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.

Thanks for giving me a listing of state government affairs, but I thought we were talking about the federal government here.

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?

First off, the House and Senate has never done a "fantastic" job of anything 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.

Oh, obviously, you are soooooooo right here. 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.

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.

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.

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

 

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

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...


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

 

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!

 

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

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.

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