• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

G W Bush re-elected:(((Election Law must be changed! SEE HOW...

curious_

New member
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You'd here: "it's a shame that one marginal state should decide the fate of US Presidency and to an extent of the world at large"; implying that the election law must be changed. Indeed, it came as a shock to me when G W Bush was re-elected which made me lose trust in the system. When G W was first elected, I thought ok... its ok, you had the Clinton scandal and his fellow man Al Gore naturally would not fare well...but when GW was re-elected...uuuuuuhh...he lied to so many ppl...this mentally deficient person started the war in order to boost his chances of re-election and he succeeded, yet you had Fahrenheit 9/11 and all but didn't help...

US rural population, religious conservatives, social conservatives, conservative farmers and other segments, other less educated agriculture ppl in middle states like Wyoming voting in large numbers because of larger cummulative populations in the middle of the US lands (as opposed to secular, educated coastline states like NY etc--states both in the east and the west) prompted G W to get re-elected. And the thing is people in NY or Maryland or California would always be better informed, better educated and more open-minded and politically aware, even their Taxi drivers in NYC would always be better than a senior accountant or an agricultural manager in Wyoming or Idaho... That's how democrats have argued that they will have to work harder to win a larger number of those middle, peasant states voters. I think that's theoretically possible but thats a long-shot.

A better approach would be to assign numerical values to voters from any given state. For example, each vote cast by a voter from NY state would carry a weigh of 1.2; whereas, Wyoming voters would get a weight of say 0.8. The outcome would be that you value NY voters opinions more than those in say Alabama but that's the only way I see to help eradicat the deficiencies of the current system that let shameful G W get re-elected. I still remember Bill Clintons word: "the current president[G W], his vice president and myself could have gone to war in Vietnam but didn't; when it came to John Kerry, he said: send mee!" and yet, many of the voters (obviously Wyoming and Alabama voters, not NY or DC voters) thought that G W would be a better commander-in-chief than John Kerry. The choice seemed so obvious this last time but the US (and you can properly generalize) failed when making this choice. Wyoming and TX voters among other star states chose a former alcoholic and drug addict and obviously a melancholic and self-loving president with deficient mental credentials over a better looking, far more intellectual person with a real-war time experience and poignancy.

So shameful! I can see how DC population feels, 90 percent of all votes went to Kerry and yet GW sleeps in the White House and he appointed Pentagon's Woulfenson, another deficient person, to the top job at the World Bank. Think further comments are unnecessary. How do you like such a system?
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,229
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Jeesh... get over it already and look towards 2008.



 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,892
Reaction score
6,947
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Yeah, just imagine - Clinton was not elected by more than 50% of the eloctorate for the first time in US history in the year 1996. :roll:

His presidency must be invalidated. :mrgreen:
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
vauge said:
Yeah, just imagine - Clinton was not elected by more than 50% of the eloctorate for the first time in US history in the year 1996. :roll:

His presidency must be invalidated. :mrgreen:
That's the only reason people are trying to invent time machines...

We could change the way Clinton conducted business and GWB wouldn't be in the situation he's got America in now...
 

curious_

New member
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It has to do with culture and economics. In the urban areas, you have a high concentration of working-class individuals of all colors of the rainbow, who tend to like things like nicer labor laws and such. At the opposite end, you have rural farmers looking for "conservative" economics like farm subsidies and more profit per acre

Partly, so.


Quote:
It is all economics in practice. But you can't give a New Yorker 1.2 and a Iwoa...nian... whatever, 0.8, because that just plain rips any representation away from Iowa and makes it a rule of the masses.

As said before, I realized I sounded radical and provocative but this is what you do if you see a major, systemic failure and wish to get things out in some dramatic ways. But like you said,
Quote:
you have rural farmers looking for "conservative" economics like farm subsidies and more profit per acre
so design a system that gives them and others like them a greater say and leverage in their local politics, separate them from global political matters where they have little direct stakes and interest and understanding. Many of those simple didn't realize that Bush started a war for a number of reasons supported by his (aids) ideas, the principal one being self-serving--to get re-elected.


Quote:
What needs to be done, in my drastic terms, is a Continental Congress to draw up a new Constitution more suited to modern times. I don't profess to know what the election structure should look like...
Neither do I. And that would be a good start...Yes.......//That's good, that qualifies...man, you just inherited the bible(Demosthenes will get this, haha)


Quote:
Back to the OP, Bush won the first election because both sides were incompetent, no one cared, and *MAYBE* there was a scandal or two behind the scenes.
Yes.


Quote:
He won the second election because the Democrats are incompetent morons, and the Bush campaign pushed hot button issues Kerry couldn't argue against without losing most of his supporters (gay rights, Freedom, Stay the Course, etc). **POINTLESS PROFANITY REMOVED PER TERMS OF USE - POSTING PROFANITY MAY GET YOU BANNED** Rove.
No. Remeber what was the principal reason for Bush's collecting the votes? Defense, his foreign policy. It is true that Rove and Evangelical radical right wingers and other individual groups did help him to garner crucial extra votes, but then again even if you asked a Nebraskan farmer why he voted for Bush, he'd say he supported his foreign policy. Yes! because no matter how a moron and a failure a commander-in-chief is voters are not to let him down if he is in the process of waging war with, whether a despot or a dictator or an angel, doesnt matter ...GWB was an incumbent president and a war time president. These two are almost always, without exception, sufficient to get re-elected especially if you can veil your poorly planned policies well enough and have planted no ethical/moral seeds having dissenting implications for a large number of voters (Clinton)...War is an excellent diversion!


Quote:
Personally I don't think any part of the country is any smarter than another part. If anything it depends on income

Depends on the issues; how much interest and stakes you have and, yes, you can have a very rich farmer and a poor think tank leader, so no. When it comes to secular delicacies of making global international politics, sustained interest and exposure means a lot. If you get a bad exposure, you will likely be less smart in the assessment of that particular issue, not universally dumb. Make no mistake here. A big difference.

Quote:
We are interested in causes. Understanding the cause of any situation or social entity is most obviously the way to find intelligent, sensical solutions to any social constuct.
I understand this. These are important but these are very theoretical and hence outside the scope of the current discussions; it would have diluted the scope of this particular topic if we had gotten into this, and we would end up discussing everything and hence nothing, or nothing ultimately productive.


Quote:
Further, you seem to have the impression that people here live in a complete box- this is untrue. What would you think if I told you that one of good friends is Nigerian, that I buy my morning coffee from a Jordianian man with whom I am also great friends with? How about if I offer that I am also great friends with a chinese family? and all this from a small town in the midwest of about 40,000 people?
That my be you, and you'd still get a bad exposure stemming from how political tastes are shaped across the board. And no, I am not claiming that you live there in a box; it's not even that I am claiming that many of those 40,000 people are dumb or dumber than a NYer; not at all, they can be superbly smart but in their own ways. They simply don't think all that often about global politics, Bush's international stance and frankly, they don't care all that much if Bush is a moron, stupid and undisciplined as far as global politics is concerned. What they care most is their own local affairs--that is objectively shaped because of their very own exposure and interests and so.. ..so even if they (say they) voted for Bush's "foreign policy" they were in fact thinking (voting) for Bush's strictly local polices, subsidies..most likely.


Quote:
says were all just a bunch of dumb hicks. It's a false sterotype and that is what bothers me

Again, I never said that and hopefully my points just above are proof to that.


Quote:
That our unfortunatley rather public disagreements only make us stronger and that radical changing of fundamanetal voting law is simply an over reaction. Make no mistake, when Hillary wins in 08' many Republicans will likly be talking the way you are now about her, but I will not join them.

Ok. I see and realize that. To me, ends are very important, especially how to say, lasting ends. To me, GWBush being elected TWICE was a major failure of the system. And sometimes you just have to shake things up (even if you over-react at times) just to try and stay ahead of the curvy for the betterment of our lives. I know I sound high-spirited perhaps.


Quote:
I'm talking about how a true leader, which honestly there are none on either side, will use this to rule. The leader with common sense will deal with foreign leaders based on his experiences and will lead the nation from a position built on a solid foundation. A simply "smart" leader may or may not have this savy which to me is a more important trait by far. Otherwise people like Einstein would always be our leaders, and though he was a great revolutionary in his field he was not qualified to lead the country.

Sure, sure. I don't like hearing statements like "honestly there are none on either side" because I believe most mercantile actors win while such statements are being spread. And it often cultivates and perpetuates a syndrome of powerlessness. Smart means strong, solid, secular, cultured, civilized, flexible in many/most respects. Einstein was a physicist, not a politician. But he could have been better than Bush even as a politican.


Quote:
Your either still missing it, or I haven't really been able to communicate exactly what I mean effectively. Anyone who has become wise to the world or more importantly how people work understands, whether intelligent or not, how to make effective decisions. Simple as that.
Yes, yes I know. And I think Bush has none of those qualities, and I don't perceive lying to people as a measure toward understanding how people think and work.


Quote:
I will go out on a limb here and use the main character from the movie "Forrest Gump" as an example. Now at face value most people who watched that movie saw him as just a lucky, cuckolded idiot. However upon deeper inspection of the character you find a certain kind of innocent genius that you could never quantify as intelligent, yet was still genius. The fact that he was unable to do simple math, for instance, never once affected his ability to judge wrong from right, or indeed his innate understanding of what is true.
Intelligence...and culture and secular charisma and....plethora of things...to me anyone who says Bush is charismatic is being blinded by his "gregarious" nature. Well, a cowboy can be gregarious in riding a hoarse and not only, but in Bushs case that's not relevant to global politics. And Bush is exception to even that rule that applies to your example. He's neither secular and intelligent in this mode of understanding nor an ingenious cowboy in his own ways, based on his extensive knowledge of knowing how the average Joe thinks and works in real life. Bush is a systemic failure of the system.


Quote:
I was simply illistrating that intelligence alone isn't nearly enough.
Please don't oversimplify. Intelligence alone is simplistic to count.
con't...
 

curious_

New member
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Quote:
Resorting to partisan cheap shots does not get you anywhere. Refute with fact not name calling. I'm not interested in playground bullying. When I say charisma, I mean charisma. Like it or not, agree with it or not, Bush has charisma. So did Clinton and I could easily take my own cheap shots at a former car salesman...
Sometimes name calling is a shortcut to leading to facts. At least Clinton earned his life in hard ways so I think it is nothing to take cheap shots at unlike a former drug dealer and a failed oil "manager". Ok, I know why you like Bush so much and will tell you at the end of this post.


Quote:
Then you need to look deeper than just this presidency. To me loyalty is paramount in everything you do. Even if your friends and allies are wrong, you stand with them. If you feel they are so wrong that you cannot go along with them you approach them privately and handle the matter. If you still cannot reconcile your differences you move on quietly you do not become a shrill voice of dissention that threatens to become something worse and more ominous simply for the underlying purpose of being re-elected.
What kind of loyalty is paramount, any?; blind, bright, secular, cowboy, ANY? And who decides that they are "wrong" or even "so wrong"? People in the authority? Bush and Cheney? They are the ultimate judges? So you either reconcile or else stay quiet and complacent? Was it not nice to have a Secretary of State of color through your re-election and then through with him? Is it not in good taste? Or is it loyalty understood as it should be?


Quote:
Fact is they all have buddies who all make money when there guy wins. Now you may claim this is different in this case because of the war; but I would contend, without conceding the point that we shouldn't be there, that Haliburton would have been awarded the lion's share of Iraqi contracts no matter who was in office. It's what they do.

No, this is not fact. This often happens and people are often oblivious to such "facts" and that's why such occurrences translate into facts in people's minds. Haliburton might well have been awarded still the contracts, BUT a tender would have been conducted differently, payment schemes would have been different, responsibilitie and liabilities involved would have been assessed at a rather different level and judged differently and it would have been all bi-partisan not partisan.

Quote:
You've said this repeatedly without a comment from anyone else. Fact is we did this a long time ago, we are happy with the outcome. Fact is we did this 92' and 96' also and although we weren't happy with the outcome we lived with the process. Fact is, again, your unhappiness with the outcome is based on purely partisan stances.

Because many simply I guess don't have enough energies for doing this or find it a waste of their time. Obviosly, this is not the best time and the atmosphere would be far more congenial when a democrats coalition will be in power.
Again, this outcome was a re-occurring systemic failure and sometimes you have to take a look at sth designed centuries ago with a prospect of having it remodeled on the edges at least not stay complacent all the time.

Quote:
Completely anecdotal and still a use of playground name calling in the process. For a positon as complex as the one you've adopted you've yet to offer any reasonable formal case agains the system more sophisticated than "Bush is a monkey". While this may garner laughs from those who agree with you it only alienates those you need to win to your cause because frankly, even though who agree with the propoatison that "Bush is a monkey" aren't going to sign on to your other radical proposals simply on this extremely weak principle.

Forget name calling...are you offering me to put forward a formal proposal on the details of the kind of a system I'd be in favor of and in the process get lost in the details? neeeeeeeeeeeehh, I am not stupid enough to do that. I'd better first garner some consensus, not necessarily, some convergence on the big picture we are discussing...some convergence among dissenting opinions on the principles that a systemic change is deemed necessary and then I can put forward details...I am not that lazy to do that. Haven't you just said that such a convergence stands a chance of simple originating from common sense abiding people that are no geniuses but good judges of human character ("Forrest Gump" example). So it's still doable now and a blue print will follow. Just design the initiatives appropriately. And this will not just "garner laughs" you'll see. And "Bush is a monkey" is not a proposition, it's a fact.

Quote:
I have yet to hear a proposal that truly deals with the fundamental human problems that exist universally in any culture or country so that using a partial fix...

I am sure you never will...we live under scarce material resources and our understanding of the reality is inherently imperfect. It will always be...But this doesn't remove the need for looking for even partial fixes.


Quote:
First of all, you are keen enough to realize that some of the things I've said are not party line. You'll never hear true ideologues talking the way I'm talking. While it's true I do generally vote Republican, it is not an automatic vote, despite my proclamations of loyalty above I always reserve the right to vote my conscience.

Further, I used to vote for the Democrats, in fact I voted for them throughout my early 20s for many of the same reasons you are now "hating Bush". I just began to realize over time, by keeping an open mind, that many of the alleged "truths" I had been conditioned to accept were hardly that. Of course that is only my anecdotal experience and means little other simply refuting your claim that I am somehow close close minded.

I realize that. Unless you are an "internet commissar" put here by the GOP you wouldn't do that. Your other statement, I understand that too and I am not making any far-fetched assumptions about anyone on this forum but you sound like you've been dissapointed and now you've found it, if not a sacred cocoon then a much better(believable?) truth in Bush's hands.


Quote:
Clinton, as adept a car salesman as he was, correctly read that international will in the matter was lacking and choose to string along the half measures throughout his presidency, leaving the dirty work to someone else. Bush, in a way was a breath of fresh air in that regard- he read the international will just as well as did Clinton, but he was unafraid to go against it and take a more permanent soultion.

To me this is tantamount to saying that Clinton, ulike Bush, had plenty other assets so he didn't need to go as far and dramatic as starting a war to do well...Bush, on the other hand, being inadept had to resort to some "permanent soluton" to do at least as well. This means it pays to choose a lacking person as president because he'll be acting like your backyards garbage man...removing threats...cleaning up your mess. Hmmm


Quote:
You can't. Simple as that. The only way is to listen to blatantly biased programming from the other side and figure that the few things both sides report are going to be true 50% of the time, and will have the need to be taken with a grain of salt the other 50%.

Yes, but that still doesn't give you any right to get disenfranchised. You can protest against censorship...against biased news reporting....you exert pressure on media. Or else, you say, neeeh, they are all biased, I'll be voting based on my consciousness; that's fine, but you still need more information form a wide range of sources, even if you believe you've had enough...because if ongoing actions are not highlighted in detail, most mercantile actors will profit, they won't be exposed in the eyes of the public to face punishment.


Quote:
Fact is, at this point supporting the war means nothing to Bush. He's done regardless.
NOW, yes. But can you abandon your foster child because you just learned your wife got pregnant..


Quote:
As to coorporate bias, I can agree to a point that becasue a news organization is run by corporation that it will be biased for itself, and so might tend to ignore non-corporate viewpoints, but really that too is unavoidable in the "global village" we're supposed to be living in.

But that happens because media companies are often viewed as being *owned* by media magnates...you'd often hear Ted Turner owned CNN. Put your average Joy in one shareholder's position among many, let those all powerful companies be *owned* by the citizens, sell the shares to them. But GOP wouldn't allow that...They want strong business representatives, you know even when CNN is considered democratic.


Quote:
Holy **POINTLESS PROFANITY REMOVED PER TERMS OF USE - POSTING PROFANITY MAY GET YOU BANNED**! Are you asking my what my sign is? I can honestly say that I now know what women go through...
uhh...are you a guy? If so you just creeped me out. If not...uh...I don't really pay much attention to that kind of thing, but I am a Pisces. But please I'm not interested in discussing Astrology in this thread.
Now I know why you like sentimental and melancholic Georgie Boy so much, you are both water signs, unlike fiery Clinton, Gore and Kerry--you wouldn't possible like them at a personal level, forget politics, and yes, I am a guy and I married a girl only after I had made sure that we are largely compatible based on our natal charts and I am so happy I did that. I would have never married GWB had he been my age and female, or any other water sign, lol.
 

galenrox

ROCK AND ROLL MASTER
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
1,571
Reaction score
38
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
dude, I also get the feeling that the election was probably rigged somehow, but I'm also assuming that both sides were trying, just Bush was more successful.
Anywho, do you really think that Faranheit 9/11 effected anyone who didn't already despise Bush? It was a frickin propaganda film, and expecting anything out of propaganda other than making the side it presents more self righteous you're underestimating the American people.
But yeah, what are you gonna do. Legitamately or not, Bush won. Whining about it won't change anything, all you can do is look towards 2006 and watch this NSA thing blow up in his face.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
cnredd said:
That's the only reason people are trying to invent time machines...

We could change the way Clinton conducted business and GWB wouldn't be in the situation he's got America in now...

LOL.... Are you blaming Clinton again..

Thats the most pathetic excuse for a failed President, why do people still use it?
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Wait a minute.... was there a post deleted? Or is this Curious guy debating himself?????
 

curious_

New member
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Wait a minute.... was there a post deleted? Or is this Curious guy debating himself?????
yeah, I am slightly pshycotic, like to debate with myself.... I am John Nash, loooooooooooooool. Actually, that was a repost from another forum where I had this looong debate with another guy and he quit upon reading the above post and no one else replied (actully the two of us were debating mostly....lol)
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
What is ironic is if it was not for Ross Perot we would have never heard of Clinton and Bush 1 would have served 2 terms........
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Navy Pride said:
What is ironic is if it was not for Ross Perot we would have never heard of Clinton and Bush 1 would have served 2 terms........

Thats an opinion.
The same baseless opinion could be made about Nader running, etc, etc, etc,.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Caine said:
Thats an opinion.
The same baseless opinion could be made about Nader running, etc, etc, etc,.

Its not and opinion, its a fact.......Perot got 19,000,000 votes most of which would have went to Bush 1......

And as far as Nader foes your right.....Bush probably would not have gotten elected in 2000............So what is your point?:confused:
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Navy Pride said:
Its not and opinion, its a fact.......Perot got 19,000,000 votes most of which would have went to Bush 1......

And as far as Nader foes your right.....Bush probably would not have gotten elected in 2000............So what is your point?:confused:

A. Its not a fact that all 19 million votes would have went to Bush. Did you poll all 19 million people to determine who they would have voted for? Its pure speculation. And that doesn't make it fact.

B. My "point" is that your comment didn't contribute anything to the debate, it was just throwing baseless opinion out.

C. What was YOUR point of mentioning the Clinton/Perot/Bush election "possibility"???
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Caine said:
A. Its not a fact that all 19 million votes would have went to Bush. Did you poll all 19 million people to determine who they would have voted for? Its pure speculation. And that doesn't make it fact.

B. My "point" is that your comment didn't contribute anything to the debate, it was just throwing baseless opinion out.

C. What was YOUR point of mentioning the Clinton/Perot/Bush election "possibility"???

No one is saying that all 19,000,000 would have voted for Bush 1 but historians have said the vast majority would have just as the Majority of voters who voted for Nader in 2000 would have voted for Gore ...

Those are the facts whether you want to accept them or not.......Why is that so hard for you to accept?
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Navy Pride said:
No one is saying that all 19,000,000 would have voted for Bush 1 but historians have said the vast majority would have just as the Majority of voters who voted for Nader in 2000 would have voted for Gore ...

Those are the facts whether you want to accept them or not.......Why is that so hard for you to accept?

So, because a historian speculates than it makes it fact?

Nope. In neither situation.
Its not a fact that without Perot Bush would have won in the early 90s.
Neither is it a fact that without Nader Gore would have won in 2000.

Just because its a scholarly opinion, still doesn't make it a fact.
 

mike49

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
94
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Curious,

How would having NY voters counted as 1.2, and Wyoming 0.8, change the outcome of the last election?

You could give NY voters 1000 to 1 and it would not have changed anything. All it would accomplish is to boost overall numbers. Overall numbers nationwide changes nothing. You either win the state and the electoral votes, or not. Everyone in the State of NY could have voted for Kerry and each given a million votes and Kerry still loses the general election.

So, I'm kind of "curious" as to your solution.
 

Axismaster

Active member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
296
Reaction score
1
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, I'm kind of sick of the blame of Clinton myself. Bush is a lot worse, it is a bloody fact.
 

curious_

New member
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Curious,

How would having NY voters counted as 1.2, and Wyoming 0.8, change the outcome of the last election?

You could give NY voters 1000 to 1 and it would not have changed anything. All it would accomplish is to boost overall numbers. Overall numbers nationwide changes nothing. You either win the state and the electoral votes, or not. Everyone in the State of NY could have voted for Kerry and each given a million votes and Kerry still loses the general election.

So, I'm kind of "curious" as to your solution.
Ok. consider a hypothetical situation in which there are only 2 states: NY and TX. Assume, more ppl live in TX than in NY. Assume, more than 1/2 of TX voters vote repuablican and more than half of NY voters vote democratic plus assume that everyone eligible to vote does so. As a result you'll get that unless an average voter drastically changes their preference for some reason accross the state lines a republican candidate always wins because TX gives more electoral votes than NY (that also assumed--because TX is more populous than NY as per our assumption) so that if you win TX by just 1 vote but no one casts his vote in your support in NY you still get elected (you dont have popular vote--the winner takes all--instead). Now assume, there is a third state, say Idaho, which is least populous of the three but you need to win ID as well if you are a *republican* candidate providing you have already won TX at the same time, because the number of electoral votes gained in TX is not enough alone to overpower NY unless you get some extra electoral votes from ID. Now, if you are a *democratic* candidate, it's not necessary to win ID at the same time. It is sufficient to just win NY because you still get enough electoral votes as opposed to a republican candidate needing TX and ID electoral votes combined in order to win. And this happens because, each TX vote counts 0.8 (ID is also less than 1) whereas NY vote is equal to 1.2. By extension, you have more states....(The idea is that the middle of the US lands is vast and they always vote republican...) Is it clear now?
 

mike49

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
94
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
curious_ said:
Ok. consider a hypothetical situation in which there are only 2 states: NY and TX. Assume, more ppl live in TX than in NY. Assume, more than 1/2 of TX voters vote repuablican and more than half of NY voters vote democratic plus assume that everyone eligible to vote does so. As a result you'll get that unless an average voter drastically changes their preference for some reason accross the state lines a republican candidate always wins because TX gives more electoral votes than NY (that also assumed--because TX is more populous than NY as per our assumption) so that if you win TX by just 1 vote but no one casts his vote in your support in NY you still get elected (you dont have popular vote--the winner takes all--instead). Now assume, there is a third state, say Idaho, which is least populous of the three but you need to win ID as well if you are a *republican* candidate providing you have already won TX at the same time, because the number of electoral votes gained in TX is not enough alone to overpower NY unless you get some extra electoral votes from ID. Now, if you are a *democratic* candidate, it's not necessary to win ID at the same time. It is sufficient to just win NY because you still get enough electoral votes as opposed to a republican candidate needing TX and ID electoral votes combined in order to win. And this happens because, each TX vote counts 0.8 (ID is also less than 1) whereas NY vote is equal to 1.2. By extension, you have more states....(The idea is that the middle of the US lands is vast and they always vote republican...) Is it clear now?


Clear? It was clear the first time.

Your idea that certain voters should recieve a lesser standing and other voters a super-vote, could be worth discussing.

You believe that education should decide these things?

A certain level of education would make sense to a certain degree. You have to figure also that being highly educated does not have to relate to politics. Someone could be highly educated but uninterested in political questions. A brain surgeon may have no time to involve himself with these things. Whereas someone who may work at a garbage dump may be fully aware of all the issues of the day.

A test perhaps at the voting booth? It would take a constitutional amendment for that, but for sake of arguement lets assume a test would be valid today. What would your test look like or what type of education would qualify?
 

curious_

New member
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ok. This is more complex than that. Go to page 1 in this topic if you'd like to find out more you'll see longer topics on this--a repost from another forum on which I am posting; Here is another repost:

And why did it boost his chances? perhaps because the majority of Americans agreed with him that a war was necessary?
Realizing how inadequate he was, he was told by Karl Rove and his other "star" aids (I am sure he wouldn't even get it by himself) that he needed something big, dramatic, if he was to win. And starting a war was big enough with the assumption that many voters would traditionally exhibit a high propensity to not let down a "war-time president" whether he is a hero or a criminal. In other words, his dirty circle (identified as collective Bush), given the circumstance, made the American people "agree" with him; Bush got what he craved for by appealing to and exploiting the better angels of an average landlocked US citizen who had very little political experience and acumen.

So much for Democracy eh?
You should assess the system on the basis of how reasonable results it produces. The outcome, the product of the system is of major importance! The system per se, or the respect for the system per se is inferior to the principal outcome for which the system has been designed. What many of them saw was a completely wrong outcome--that was easy to discern; the rest, the large part of it who thought otherwise, simply didn't care or remained very detached.

Being a war hero does not necessarily mean you would make a good commander in chief. If Kerry did not represent the will of the people, he would not make a good command in chief.
Yes, not necessarily. The question is, is it more likely? Do we need a new start? Are we complancent with what we already have? If Kerry did not...then he would not...That's true.

Yeah, because the right choice was to agree with you. right?
No, because political participation and voting have increasing become real-time occupancies that require some requisite skills drawn from one's sustained political engagement, political awareness, broad vision and the capability to isolate important, lasting issues from euphemism and political role playing. Since many view political participation as a transient yet full-time occupancy requiring relevant background and vision on voters' part, it is only in this sense that I insist that people with detached professions such as farmers in the south and elsewhere will be far more susceptible to political manipulation with the result of them either not caring enough or becoming complacent with any electoral outcome.

You have to realize that political tastes are principally created and perpetuated by the secular, but qualified minority rather than by a simple plurality and this has nothing to do with being undemocratic. The rest, they have a limited political experience or at best they don't care enough to streamline their political system, to push for a radical change and they end up with having something second tier and to be honest they are complacent with whatever they have. They won this time but they were not conscious winners.

Are you complacent?

It seems to be working fine so far. No complaints here.
Obviously, it's not. No complaints or no complacence?:)

Get rid of the winner-take-all state electoral college
Absolutely! the winner take all system is highly inadequate and as GW Bushes election rounds showed it provides substantial room for disguised, I would say, illicit, manipulation.

Places like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles would get all the advantages incumbents could shower on them, because that's where the largest concentrations of votes are. This would be at the expense of people living in Augusta, Maine, for example, who would be ignored completely.
No, they would not be ignored. They would become more effecitve participants, when their voice becomes part of the larger pool where thir voice would count; otherwise, left in isolation, they are susceptible--inadvertantly or deliberately--to political manipulation and they end up with their votes being ultimately lost.

The thing is the current system prompts the voters to vote in such and such a way and allows a more deceitful candidate to literally steal the elections if he successfully focuses on some treacherous tactics instead of focusing on potentially overwhelming issues that are important to the informed American people and the world. Bush profited from the inexperience and understandable narrow-mindedness of the so called Evangelical radical right wingers and other individual groups that tipped the balance in his favor; because Bush knew that he was not and would not possible be able to sell his tricks to better informed citizens of his nation...so he neglected them and focused on those who either didn't understand or didn't care...in other words, he chose quantity over quality and even that at a very narrow margin and both times and this is where the system failed.

the electoral college should equally split their vote, representing a similar ratio as the popular vote. If 75% vote one way and only 25% the other, the electoral college should do the same. This seems much more accurate than the current system.
YES!

Make sure to watch all the video BTW
I will. Thanks!

Your post is myopic, which is typical of liberals these days.
Yeah, I wake up every other day thinking what kind of an example this is, I personally do feel insulted in the eyes of the rest of the people both inside of the country and outside. This system needs to be changed because it is biased! Intelligent people all over the US must unite to push for this much needed change!
:D :D[/quote]
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
curious_ said:
You'd here: "it's a shame that one marginal state should decide the fate of US Presidency and to an extent of the world at large"; implying that the election law must be changed.

This is typical of the loony left.
"We lost, so there must be something wrong with the system -- so we must change the system!!"
 

mike49

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
94
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Curious,

Splitting of the Electoral Vote would have very little effect, overall.

Even though you re-posted, I can't see how what you have offered would change the system. Or make any difference.

You seem to start with a premise that all Democrats voted for Kerry because they are smart, and all Republicans who voted for Bush were not intelligent.

Your solutions will not cure that even if you are right that Democrats are much smarter.

It would seem a cure for that would be a test of some sort.

How about this: Pass the test and your vote is worth one vote, fail and it is half a vote. That would solve the problem as you see it being a lack of intelligence. Unless your test would include political matters which an uneducated person may know and a highly educated one would not have the time to know or the interest required.

Or another way would be for you to bring in a certificate of education. Proof of education. But that could be made up somehow and so may not be a valid solution.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
M14 Shooter said:
This is typical of the loony left.
"We lost, so there must be something wrong with the system -- so we must change the system!!"

I agree with M14... for once.... well, twice (we agreed on "armor for troops")

Anyways, the election system is fine, Bush ran a good campaign, even thought I don't like the bastard, he has some skilled staff members when it comes to confusing the people. Not to mention using the scare tactics (Cheney threatening the people with another terrorist attack if Kerry were to be elected).

Anyways, the election system is fine the way it is.
There should be NO system of determinging the value of someone's vote on thier education level, that is the most retarded thing I have ever heard of. That would be like handing the government over to the elite and leaving the poor man who dropped out of high school behind. This country isn't just for the people with a college education.
Your basically telling all the grunts out there that fight for thier country, that because they only have a HS diploma and aren't smart when it comes to certain things that they aren't as valueable to the government than the civilian with a Bachelor's degree working a construction job and smoking pot all day (these people exist, I know one, he got out of the military as an E-5 with a degree and now works construction and smokes pot all day). Neither the smart construction pot smoker, nor the less intelligent Army or Marine grunt should have thier vote counted more important than someone elses's.

Thats just stupid.
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
mike49 said:
How about this: Pass the test and your vote is worth one vote, fail and it is half a vote. That would solve the problem as you see it being a lack of intelligence. Unless your test would include political matters which an uneducated person may know and a highly educated one would not have the time to know or the interest required.

Or another way would be for you to bring in a certificate of education. Proof of education. But that could be made up somehow and so may not be a valid solution.

This sort of thing was outlawed in the 1800s.

Its no surprise that elitist liberals would want to bring it back -- after all, they're FAR more intelligent than everyone else, and since its their manifest destiny to run the country, the rules should be changed to ensure their election.

And they wonder why the people in flyover country dont vote for them...
 
Top Bottom