Gore vs Bush, electoral College, and all that Jazz

Luke · 09-06-2003, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slap_j

Maybe "re-elect Gore".

Don't we have to elect him the first time for him to be re-elected?
Oh, wait, I forgot, Gore actually won Florida, even though he didn't win Florida in any recount even by the most liberal counting standards.

Grace & Peace
Luke

charlie · 09-06-2003, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke

Don't we have to elect him the first time for him to be re-elected?

Final 2000 election results:

Gore: 50,992,335

Bush: 50,455,156

and yes he did win Florida....do a search for the BBC documentary on it, how Jeb and co. stole the election for the rep. party .

brown07 · 09-06-2003, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlie

Final 2000 election results:

Gore: 50,992,335

Bush: 50,455,156

and yes he did win Florida....do a search for the BBC documentary on it, how Jeb and co. stole the election for the rep. party .

Since you're in Israel, perhaps I should take a moment to inform you of the way things work in the US.

We are a country ruled by these things called "Laws." These "Laws" are based upon a little something that we call "The Constitution." The Constitution establishes that our Presidents are elected by the electoral college, not the popular vote. So, I don't care if Gore won 60% of the popular vote, he did not win the election, because Bush won the majority of the electoral votes.

Gore lost. Move on.

And, just curious - are you Jewish?

charlie · 09-06-2003, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brown07

Since you're in Israel, perhaps I should take a moment to inform you of the way things work in the US.

I studied 2 years of American Gov't in HS. I know that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brown07

We are a country ruled by these things called "Laws." These "Laws" are based upon a little something that we call "The Constitution." The Constitution establishes that our Presidents are elected by the electoral college, not the popular vote. So, I don't care if Gore won 60% of the popular vote, he did not win the election, because Bush won the majority of the electoral votes.

Gore lost. Move on.

I know of no other "democracy" in the world where the system is so screwed like the USA. If you live in Montana a vote counts for 1.1 votes while in NY it counts for 1.0 votes, maybe in S Dakota it goes for 1.2 votes?

I know that it is the current law. The issue whether Bush won with the current system is debatable. But the law needs to be changed.

In a federal election, one vote should mean one vote. Period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brown07

And, just curious - are you Jewish?

relevance??? But yes. On my father's side.

Luke · 09-06-2003, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlie

The issue whether Bush won with the current system is debatable.

He did. Period. Even by the most liberal counting standards, Bush took Florida.

Furthermore, we don't know for sure that Gore won the popular vote. You do realize that they didn't count absentee ballots (which lean Republican due to military votes) in a lot of states (because the total number of absentee ballots was < the margin of the victor), right?

Quote:

But the law needs to be changed.

Why? We've been happy with it for 225 years. Our laws call for the president to be elected by the states, not by the people. We are fine with that here. Why should you tell us how our country should work?

Grace & Peace
Luke

brown07 · 09-06-2003, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlie

I know of no other "democracy" in the world where the system is so screwed like the USA. If you live in Montana a vote counts for 1.1 votes while in NY it counts for 1.0 votes, maybe in S Dakota it goes for 1.2 votes?

I know that it is the current law. The issue whether Bush won with the current system is debatable. But the law needs to be changed.

The electoral college has worked fabulously for 200 years. It is designed to protect the country against mob-mentality votes and to assure that states' rights are not trampled (which liberals LOVE to do). This nation is founded upon states' rights and the electoral college is designed to protect those rights. Other countries use simply a popular vote because their system is not intended to protect the rights of individual states/provinces.

Further, it is absolutely NOT debatable that GWB won the electoral vote. As Luke pointed out, ALL the recounts of Florida's election, conducted by Liberal media outlets (i.e. New York Times), using the most liberal possible counting standards (forget about what standards the LAW set), determined the GWB won the popular vote in Florida and, with it, ALL of Florida's electoral votes.

Get over it. Gore lost. Bush won. When Bush trounces Dean, maybe you'll all shut up. Or maybe then you'll just start crying openly about how democracy is fundamentally unfair to liberal ideology.

Lightknight · 09-06-2003, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke

He did. Period. Even by the most liberal counting standards, Bush took Florida.Furthermore, we don't know for sure that Gore won the popular vote. You do realize that they didn't count absentee ballots (which lean Republican due to military votes) in a lot of states (because the total number of absentee ballots was < the margin of the victor), right?Why? We've been happy with it for 225 years. Our laws call for the president to be elected by the states, not by the people. We are fine with that here. Why should you tell us how our country should work?Grace & PeaceLuke

Luke is right. If it aint broke...

**Chrysostom** · 09-06-2003, 05:50 PM

(charlie) I studied 2 years of American Gov't in HS. I know that.

(Me) In 2000, the electoral college voted Bush into office. He won in terms of electoral votes. Whether or not you feel that the electoral college voted "correctly" is irrelevant, because those voting in it are allowed to vote however they desire, even if that contradicts the majority of the state. It has already been officially ruled that the members of the electoral college up with which we ended were to stand.

(charlie) I know of no other "democracy" in the world where the system is so screwed like the USA. If you live in Montana a vote counts for 1.1 votes while in NY it counts for 1.0 votes, maybe in S Dakota it goes for 1.2 votes?

(Me) Ah, well. If the greatest democracy in history has made it OK so far with this system, perhaps it could stand to do so a little longer.

(charlie) But the law needs to be changed.

(Me) One important reason that America has been great is emphasis on the enlightened statesman. We in America have a hierarchy, and (supposedly) elect the people we think would do the best job in various governing positions we have laid out. So, I don't have to personally decide whether or not every bill should go through; I let the executive branch deal with that. I let the judicial branch determine the bill's constitutionality. I let the legislators write the bills. Similarly, I let the electoral college vote for the President. This is why the mob can't decide to kill all people with brown hair by a majority vote -- the enlightened statesman will (hopefully) prevent them from doing so by filtering out such asinine ideas.

(charlie) In a federal election, one vote should mean one vote. Period.

(Me) It does. However, you're voting for the members of the electoral college.

I also find it terribly contradictory that you simultaneously support Israel and the Democrats. Especially thanks to reactionary dispensationalists, Republicans are Israel's best friend.

SccHarpGirl · 09-06-2003, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlie

I studied 2 years of American Gov't in HS. I know that.

I know of no other "democracy" in the world where the system is so screwed like the USA. If you live in Montana a vote counts for 1.1 votes while in NY it counts for 1.0 votes, maybe in S Dakota it goes for 1.2 votes?

I know that it is the current law. The issue whether Bush won with the current system is debatable. But the law needs to be changed.

In a federal election, one vote should mean one vote. Period.
.

Wow, man, you must have failed those two years miserably.

Firstly, electoral college numbers are based on population numbers. Their purpose is to make sure that the more sparsely populated "bread belt" of the nation (the midwest and such, where there are many farms) is represented fairly in the election. While there are not as many people in states such as Kansas, the Dakotas, and such, yet as a nation made up of independent states, it's important that each region has a voice, even if it's not as thickly populated as the coastal areas. That's the reason for the electoral college.

Since it's calculated based on population, though, The Dakotas and Montana would never have a higher electoral vote than New York.

I think our current system works great, personally.

Lightknight · 09-06-2003, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCCHarpGirl

Wow, man, you must have failed those two years miserably. Firstly, electoral college numbers are based on population numbers. Their purpose is to make sure that the more sparsely populated "bread belt" of the nation (the midwest and such, where there are many farms) is represented fairly in the election. While there are not as many people in states such as Kansas, the Dakotas, and such, yet as a nation made up of independent states, it's important that each region has a voice, even if it's not as thickly populated as the coastal areas. That's the reason for the electoral college. Since it's calculated based on population, though, The Dakotas and Montana would never have a higher electoral vote than New York. I think our current system works great, personally.

actually, the electoral college system is where after a party wins an election in a state they get to pick a certain number of people to vote in the electoral college. (usually an elite group of that party). This idea keeps a tyrant from taking control in a system if we all became idiots. (remember, when the system was made we had a lot of ignorant people in our country). But this system still works fine.

ICTHUS · 09-06-2003, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mustbenothing

(Me) Ah, well. If the greatest democracy in history has made it OK so far with this system, perhaps it could stand to do so a little longer.

Assuming you're referring to the United States of America...that's debatable that its the "greatest democracy in history".

Your patriotism is commendable, however.

*it should be noted that although I am Canadian by birth, I live in the United States of Australia (well, okay...it's a Commonwealth...I'm being festitious). I am hence, not an American.

maadio · 09-06-2003, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlie

Final 2000 election results:

Gore: 50,992,335

Bush: 50,455,156

and yes he did win Florida....do a search for the BBC documentary on it, how Jeb and co. stole the election for the rep. party .

You're off topic. If you want to start a new thread, please do, and I'll point out the problem with wanting to recount the ballots from the most liberal counties in Florida (A great way to rig an election in itself, if you ask me...) and neglecting the rest while spouting some propagandist crap about "making sure everyone's vote counts." And all this stuff about how there was a conspiracy to rig the election is the most preposterous idea ever. Until you can actually support the notion that the governor of a state would have the capacity to rig an election that way (Which he can't, just to save you the time looking) please don't talk trash that you can't back up.... and stop watching so much CNN. Calling CNN balanced is like calling Karl Marx a good businessman.

If you'd like to drop the issue, please do. If you don't want to, then ask that my post, Luke's posts, your posts, and all the other posts get moved to a new thread, where we can settle this like gentlemen.

-Andy

OliveShoot90 · 09-07-2003, 04:06 PM

I will throw Charlie a bone here and agree that an electoral college, while necessary and useful in the past, is not necessarily useful or productive in America 2003. People have the opportunity to be informed enough, traveled enough, and connected enough to make their own votes count on a 1:1 basis

maadio · 09-07-2003, 07:34 PM

Hmm... you do realize that the president still represents the states as well as the people, right??

Mike Graham · 09-07-2003, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OliveShoot90

I will throw Charlie a bone here and agree that an electoral college, while necessary and useful in the past, is not necessarily useful or productive in America 2003. People have the opportunity to be informed enough, traveled enough, and connected enough to make their own votes count on a 1:1 basis

Well, despite your dislike of federalism, that does not change the fact that this system was IN PLACE in 2000, which is what really matters for the question at hand.

Also, I don't see what exactly you mean. People always voted, why does it matter that they are now supposedly more informed, traveled, and connected? Why does that mean that the people's ratios should somehow change. This was always done fror fedewralistic reasons, never to combat people being unknowledgable, as this would not be the way to combat that, if it were the case.