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

[The Real McCoy]

What do you mean 'guys like John Kerry'? Not enough purple hearts...?

"Guys like John Kerry" as in leftist liberals.

And his purple hearts only stirred up controversy when his swift boat crew told their story.

 

[mike49]

Curious,

I enjoyed your comments in regard to my question to you.

Now that we have had fun, can we get to answering the question?

What did you mean by "man-made rules"?

 

[Caine]

What did you mean by "man-made rules"?

What did you mean by Islamic?

Why are you avoiding the question?

 

[mike49]

What did you mean by Islamic?

Why are you avoiding the question?

I'm not avoiding anything.

What I meant by Islamic is this: When talking to muslims I find they use the term man-made rules and laws. They complain of man made laws, in favor of Sharia. The use it of it in the context of election law, the term "man-made" by Curious, struck me as odd. Easily cleared up by a response from Curious.

You jumped on my use of "Islamic" for reasons unknown.

 

[Caine]

I'm not avoiding anything.

What I meant by Islamic is this: When talking to muslims I find they use the term man-made rules and laws. They complain of man made laws, in favor of Sharia. The use it of it in the context of election law, the term "man-made" by Curious, struck me as odd. Easily cleared up by a response from Curious.

You jumped on my use of "Islamic" for reasons unknown.

Because its typical of the "trolls" on this forum to use Islam as a negative word, always, as if anyone who follows that religion is somehow, and someway indefinately evil and wicked.

Since you still seem new to me, I was trying to determine if you were a troll.

 

[mike49]

Because its typical of the "trolls" on this forum to use Islam as a negative word, always, as if anyone who follows that religion is somehow, and someway indefinately evil and wicked.

Since you still seem new to me, I was trying to determine if you were a troll.

I don't believe that everyone who follows that religion is evil and wicked.

I'm not an apologist for the religion either. I've studied the religion, have conversed with muslims, read the Koran. I would not say anything about the religion without having firm ground to stand on.

 

[Caine]

I don't believe that everyone who follows that religion is evil and wicked.

I'm not an apologist for the religion either. I've studied the religion, have conversed with muslims, read the Koran. I would not say anything about the religion without having firm ground to stand on.

Like I said, there are Trolls out there that like to blame all of OUR society's problems on Islam.

Freakin' Ridiculous.

 

[curious_]

Curious,

I enjoyed your comments in regard to my question to you.

Now that we have had fun, can we get to answering the question?

What did you mean by "man-made rules"?

Since you are so adamant, let me set the context firts. (Re-)Read plz the following first:

Another poster's Q: How about instead of trying to change the system, the democrats try to figure out what they're doing wrong and re-think their strategies?

Another poster's Q on another forum: Rural votes in states with large cities dont count, but the reverse is not true. Therefore city people have the edge.

Liberal arrogance blinds you to this fact, because you cant imagine that people would not embrace your point of view unless they were somehow tricked or the system was manipulated. In your mind, apparnetly, it is impossible that they simply dont agree with you.

The dividing line btw cities and their suburbs and more remote occupied lands is no longer as pronounced as you would like to it to make. You have not only intra-state migration/commuting but also ppl moving across (adjacent) state boundaries so that you cannot really say that Cleveland, or Columbus or Cincinnati vote very differently from their respective suburbs. There are only a few really mixed states, called swing states, the rest, even if less populous taken all together-quite sizeable. The system is designed in such a way as to benefit the Grand OLD Party to the maximum extent possible. So, it is not simply the rurals vs. the city ppl!<==This means that the whole trick of the system is that they aren't that many but they are enough to benefit the GOleP...you say 'thats one' (about OH) but there surely are a few more. And it's enough. It's covert, it's not obvious, its essense is diluted that's why it's no easy catch. If it was very obvious, ppl would agitate against it, massivley, it wouldn't work. GoleP ppl know how to trick ppl w/o making it too obvious.

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.

Now my answer to these Qs (including your Q):

In this context, what I mean by "man-made rules" is, although many of these rules have been proposed by our founding fathers, this happened a long time ago; Now we need to move forward and be free to propose new rules that would better equip us with necessary tools to deal with the current/emerging challenges. In other words, these rules aren't a 'dogma', these aren't God-created rules, they can be and must be modified from time to time to create a fairer and more transparent system for creating a level field in politics and for the betterment of our lives. But we should be careful about introducing new rules not to destabilize the current political system.

Mike, what year are you at you college?

 

[mike49]

Curious,

Your man-made laws comment is now understood.

To be honest with you, the reason for changing election law is based on a particular result you wish to achieve. The failure is not the system but the voter, they do not vote as you wish them to. That cannot be cured. Had your side won you would have no problem with the system. Enough would have agreed with you where your problem would not have arisen.

What would be the difference if your side had won and a Bush supporter would have posted as you have? Would you agree with them?

Although I could be in college, my "college years" are long passed.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Take Hillary Clinton.She's shaping up to be the DNC nominee in '08. Classic lefty liberal but she's taking a pro-war stance on Iraq and a pro-life stance on abortion. Genius. She's also teamed up with Newt Gingrich oin Health Care reform. Never liked her but I gotta hand it to her, that's smart politics.

 

[mike49]

Take Hillary Clinton.She's shaping up to be the DNC nominee in '08. Classic lefty liberal but she's taking a pro-war stance on Iraq and a pro-life stance on abortion. Genius. She's also teamed up with Newt Gingrich oin Health Care reform. Never liked her but I gotta hand it to her, that's smart politics.

It's Clinton politics. It would be "Genius" if she didn't have a history of this "Genius". Everyone sees right through it, and it does not take a "Genius" to do it. Thats her problem.

 

[The Real McCoy]

It's Clinton politics. It would be "Genius" if she didn't have a history of this "Genius". Everyone sees right through it, and it does not take a "Genius" to do it. Thats her problem.

I wouldn't say "everyone sees right through it." Not everyone in this country pays much attention to politics. In fact, most people pay very little.

 

[curious_]

To be honest with you, the reason for changing election law is based on a particular result you wish to achieve. The failure is not the system but the voter, they do not vote as you wish them to. That cannot be cured.

ME on another forum: the allocation of electoral votes across states are such (the digits are assigned) are such that Good Ole Party gets an edge--but it's not obvious and can be conveniently circumvented by abstract lines of thought.

Had your side won you would have no problem with the system. Enough would have agreed with you where your problem would not have arisen.

Yes, because

Bush's re-election was a systemic failure of the system.

<--a short version of an answer.

What would be the difference if your side had won and a Bush supporter would have posted as you have? Would you agree with them?

No, because under the current design of the system that couldn't possibly happen.
...

It is funny how everyone says the similar/same things to me in reply on different forums and no one really goes far enough to address the core of the issues.

Although I could be in college, my "college years" are long passed.

I see. No, I asked this because when you said this (below) it was quite reminiscent of college type work, heh.

You could ask the voter questions on Abortion, France, Dictatorship, Welfare, Gun Rights, all sorts of issues of the day and then apply a value on the answers based on some formula. They would then move to the next step of getting a ballot, you could have a color coded ballot, Red, green, purple, yellow, etc. All the same ballots just different color. They vote and put their ballot in the right color box. At the end of the day all counted with the various ballots given a scale of worth. Green would be thrown out completely, yellow would deserve one quarter vote, etc..

 

[mike49]

Curious,

My post on the color coded ballots was very good I think. Considering you have shown no workable plan. I thought it was fine example of thinking outside the box, and it was on the fly. It would solve the problem you seem to think exists. You have shown no plan. Your plan, what there is of it, I can't even recall. Something about certain states getting extra value. Completely unworkable and would not solve the problem you seem to think exists. What if NY dosen't like your pick?

Anyone getting to a serious topic, when you create an election system it has to be long lasting. You seem to think that the GOP has an advantage. Thats not the case, sometime in the future the Dems will control just like Republicans are today. Did not Jimmy Carter control both houses? I don't know for sure. There have been other times in History where they thought the Republican Party was dead. RIP. Now look at it. Thats the way it is. Live with it, lick your wounds and know that it will not always be this way. "Glory is fleeting".

 

[curious_]

My post on the color coded ballots was very good I think. Considering you have shown no workable plan. I thought it was fine example of thinking outside the box, and it was on the fly.

No, I think you had sth to propose, even though I don't think some test will work, yet I do think you gotta come up with a workable plan. But lets first garner some convergence that a change is deemed necessary get it ripe and then let's go, get lost in the details to come up with a draft.
(Hey, btw why do you have 'Student' under your user name if your not a student?--or is it sth that the system automatically assigns based on seniority of posting?)

You seem to think that the GOP has an advantage. Thats not the case, sometime in the future the Dems will control just like Republicans are today. Did not Jimmy Carter control both houses? I don't know for sure. There have been other times in History where they thought the Republican Party was dead. RIP. Now look at it. Thats the way it is. Live with it, lick your wounds and know that it will not always be this way. "Glory is fleeting".

Yes :nod: "Glory is fleeting" but also "in the long run we are all dead" and "death is the biggest equalizer." 4 years considering the Clinton scandal, I could live with that; but its re-occurrence--too much. See what I posted on another forum--as to the reps having an edge:

another poster: The bulk of electoral votes comes from areas like that[NY, CA, TX]. So we cant just ignore them.

Me: I know where the bulk comes from and whether we should ignore them or not. The *bulk* also comes from WY+ID+MT+KS+AL+...the whole succession of states (irrelevant whether their ppl live in city-towns or on farms) they vote as a single block---their electoral votes are counted to favor the GoleP--that's how the system is desinged. It is designed in such a way to let deviously circumvented arguments be developed while at the same time seem projecting an image of a fair system. This is the big picture issue, you either look at it or you ignore it, the rest are all *irrelevant* details--whether they live in cities or not--whether they vote differently from farmers or not---IRRELEVANT-----until and unless you first rectify the big scale issue. What you are suggesting is for me to try and discuss endlessly some--at this stage---irelevant details and get lost in the process and miss the big picture at all. I am not gonna succumb to that kind of an ideology. I understand the problem very well and know where the essense of that problem lies..... the number of electoral votes such states give to their respective sure winners is a wash; then WY+ID+MT+KS+AL+...comes into play, and it TURNS OUT that *somehow* the GoleP wins and what's more, *fairly so*. You know what, then you and ppl like you would come forward and say: hey, no laws have been violated, Bush won fair and square; it's all legal! it's all legal! Legal?! No bias of the system, no no no. Of course not, it's ALL fair. The majority of Americans *voted* for Bush because the majority *agreeeeed* with him. It's all legal, it's all legal...... When I said that this is very subtle, it's not obvious, how it favors the GoleP and can be circumvented by various 'intrinsic' and intransigent arguments, I meant exactly this--that such exceptions exist, B-B-BUT at the end of the day they mean nothing, na-thin' because you have winnter-take-all, the GoleP is the winner, end of the story.

Makes sense?

 

[mike49]

I have no idea what "student" means as a designation by the forum.

You think that Clinton and Bush were back to back problems? The cure for that is not to change the election system. The cure for that is to change the quality of candidate.

I reject that the GOP has an advantage that is built into the system.

The problem was Kerry in 2004. Had the Dems put a better candidate forward they would have won. He ran a horrible campaign. Thats the bottom line.

If I was a democrat I would worry more about upcoming events than useless excuses for the past. That is the only way to achieve victory. You learn from the past and try not to make the same mistake.

If the situation were reversed you would be telling me the same thing. Because that would be the truth of the matter. Trust me, I was one miserable camper when Clinton won in 1992. It was sickening to me.

I feel your pain...

 

[curious_]

The cure for that is to change the quality of candidate... Had the Dems put a better candidate forward they would have won.

Kerry was a very reasonable candidate, I think--he was picked out of a whole bunch of candidates; he was strong, solid, secular, insightful, charismatic, flexible, with broad-based international awareness and war time abroad military experience and credentials. I believe even a lesser candidate could have won against Bush had Bush not been an incumbent and a war-time c-i-c. I couldn't have thought of a weaker presidential runner on the republican side in 2004. The fact that even he won indicates (even as the fate of the elections was decided in one state) how little you really need to win when you are waging war with a foreigner and that coupled with the right assurance of enough electoral votes accruing from your sure rural states across the country.

He ran a horrible campaign.

Quickly, what specifically have you not liked about Kerry's campaign?

If I was a democrat I would worry more about upcoming events than useless excuses for the past.

In one word, Yes. However, the system needs to be ironed out on the edges if we strive to have a fair system that provides a level field both to democrats and to republicans; this is a very old system and the country, its demography evolved quite a bit since then.

Trust me, I was one miserable camper when Clinton won in 1992. It was sickening to me.

Wow, you were actively involved in politics back then...Why was it sickening to you when Clinton won? At least he was a bright, secular man who earned his life in hard ways and had a good team. I mean I am not alarmed just because the republicans won; that would be fine; I think it is quite healthy when the parties alternate in power. But I am very concerned that specifically GWBush-type a person won. I am thinking what kind of message it conveys to us...I was young when his father won and so wasn't very involved in politics but even from today's perspective I wouldn't feel remotely as bad when his father won had it happened today. So I am not primarily motivated by partisan politics when it comes to this last election outcome. It's more than ideology, it's an issue of the morality, honor and dignity, it's an issue of the kind of role models our generation faces to have.

I feel your pain...

Well, if it was just my pain I could live with that, honestly...But I feel like it is the pain of the entire nation regardless of party affiliation (except for those who have direct stakes), shame felt by all who understand, have any international exposure, have to deal with the world and are not limited to managing their local routine business. It's an issue of legacy that's why it is so painful, and it will be felt by my generation even when GW Bush is gone.

 

[mike49]

Kerry was reasonable to you. He was not reasonable to many others. I found him wishey-washey. I would never have voted for him anyway. I have never voted for a Democrat in my entire life. Not one time. For any office. I either do not vote, or vote republican, or vote some other party.

You may find that unreasonable, a closed mind. So be it. I'm one of those 30% or so of the population that is highly partisan. There are the same type on the other side. So, that makes the center very much the battle in elections. Of actual voters on election day you may have 10% that both sides need to persuade. And they pick the President. Out of 100% of qualified voters, only roughly half of them vote. Out of that half 90% or more are highly Partisan. It could be as low as 5% of the total electorate that decide the issue.

The key to the contest is to dampen the other sides votes. Bring about a low turn-out for them or a higher turn-out for your side. A lower turn-out can be brought about by demoralization. Make one side not wish to vote at all. They will not vote for you, but will not add to the other side. Damage the candidate on the other side by taking advantage of mistakes. This is why you have attack ads. Make them not want to vote for this other person. That is the reason for attack ads, to dampen spirit and make points with the middle. Make mistakes known to those 5-10% who actually make the President.

Kerry was unable to get over his mistakes and Bush was able to bring turn-out. Thats why your side lost. Not the system.

 

[curious_]

You seem to have a veteran camper's background. But you make this whole election process look like a lottery, a random process of how a president gets elected--some 5% undecided voters 'decide' and even that based on attack adds and dampening voters. Now that's really troubling to me. That says to me there is something inherently unstable in this system, if you can manipulate the electoral outcome to such a large extent, completely reshaping it. As you sound, it seems like the last election outcome (and the one in 2000) was a coin toss--it could have been either Kerry or Bush with plenty subjective in the decision. That's not good.

I think the system, the way it is currently designed, also has to do with an ideology behind it. It creates a backlash among both the democrats and the republicans because it helps many, many wrongfully dampened or wrongfully cast votes get in the way because the electoral votes are so deviously allocated. I once said that when it comes to electing President, the foremost face of America around the globe, the decision should in some sense be reflective of the secular nature of the US, and be made by the secular and qualified minority rather than a simple plurality, but, at the same time, give the rural voters a greater leverage in managing their local affairs where they have most direct stakes and overwhelming interests and end this confusion over the US president. Leave the decisions on US global leadership up to those who are most directly involved in this, have most direct stakes and are much better qualified. It was NYC and Washington DC that were directly affected by terrorist attacks because of a security lapse in the administration, not Wyoming or Alabama.

Why do you think NYC always votes democratic and Wyoming, always republican? Like I said it's not that Wyomingians have some innate aversion to a more rigorous, intellectual candidate like Kerry and are prone to more closely identify themselves with a Bush-type individual; but somehow it apparently seems to them that it pays to elect a more lacking person because he'd be better capable of acting like their garbage man, cleaning up after them because they don't get the delicacies of global politics and tend to view American president as primarily their backyard keeper, which is certanily far from the reality.

You said you found Kerry wishey-washey, I of course didn't think like that given the other choice that was there, but do you think Bush looked decisive? Like one poster said on this forum, he was "like boys who cry wolf". I mean even looking at him during the debate sessions and even before, I had a feeling that he thought he wouldn't be re-elected more than he'd be re-elected. He lost the debates, the country was in mess, the young were all out voting in large numbers, and then a person like Karl Rove came out and whispered to Bush, hey buddy, you are a war time commander-in-chief, you have a huge advantage plus I am now gonna get all those Evangelical radical right-wingers out for you so that you have an extra cushion, forget the center for now--and it worked to Bush's favor like Rove said. This is what is called manipulation, this is what is called a lottery, I don't know what it'll take to change this system, with its skewed allocation of electoral votes, a referendum, a constitutional amendement, a civil war, that I don't know. But this outdated system needs to be changed, that I am sure.

 

[mike49]

Curious,

Why those 5-10% vote the way they do, I don't know. Attack ads are used to influence them.

You have to understand that the people most interested in politics, the most partisan, have been fighting this battle forever. On every level, on every issue. You bring up what concerns you, the qualities of a candidate, the role in the world etc., I can respect that but it's only part of the issue. When a President is elected over 1000 people in Washington lose their job. Over 1000 new people come in. It changes the face of the Executive Branch. Policies on hundreds of issues change. Issues that are the heart of the overall ideological battle in this country. This is why I could never vote for a Demo President. Because of those thousands that he brings. It's not just John Kerry that John Kerry brings.

That ideological battle is not going to change no matter what you do to the system. The end result will not change.

 

[curious_]

wow, interesting perspective. It sounds like some battle for survival--some sort of Darwinian selection. Ppl seem to have a great deal of personal stakes involved and are ready to use most means to accomplish their own ends and package that as effective policies. But the bulk of those 1000 jobs are probably low-pay bureaucracy jobs, but still...So its far more than theories that political science books describe. I see.

 

[mike49]

wow, interesting perspective. It sounds like some battle for survival--some sort of Darwinian selection. Ppl seem to have a great deal of personal stakes involved and are ready to use most means to accomplish their own ends and package that as effective policies. But the bulk of those 1000 jobs are probably low-pay bureaucracy jobs, but still...So its far more than theories that political science books describe. I see.

The bulk of those jobs are not low level. The bulk of those jobs are high-level. In all some 6000 jobs must be filled, if you include the low-level.

We are talking about the heads of Executive Departments, their staff...their staff. This is where policy is made and sent upstairs for signature.

In these departments is where the power truely is. In this sense, this every day grind of government, the President is a mere figurehead.

Foreign policy is different of course.

 

[XShipRider]

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.

Spoken like a true elitist. Let the LA and NYC elite have more voting power
than those uneducated hicks (a frank interpretation of your description)
from the heartland.

Precisely why we have the electoral system we have, to keep mob rule
out of the voting process.

The founders of the nation and the writers of the Constitution knew full
well one-man, one vote would not work over widespread areas. The
system you see and loathe is one of intent. Thus we have the
representative republic of today.

Your generalization of rural voters as uneducated or under-educated is
condescending to say the least. It never ceases to amaze me how
people place a college education over life learning.

Please don't read this as me saying our current system is perfect.