God Bless NADER

G

George Hill

Staff Alumnus
I wish Nader did better.
He won the election for us!
Nader, the little cuban boy... I hope you guys have a very merry christmas! We owe you one!

The recount isnt in - but neither are all the absentee ballots... but it looks like Bush will prevail as most those ballots will be for Bush. I hope.

I have NEVER seen an election like this one.
This was a nail biter all the way. Still is.
Florida turned - turned again - and has yet to come in.

The Electorial College system needs to go.
Dispite the close race - I'ld rather it have been straight democracy regardless of the outcome.

Again, thanks Ralph, thanks Ellian...
 
I gotta take issue with getting rid of the electoral college. Do you really have that much faith in the majority opinion? I sure as heck don't.

I think a better idea might be to get rid of this dumb proportional representation idea and give each state one electorial vote, winner takes it. That would prevent the large cities from being able to run all over the rest of the country.

Pure democracy is a bad idea. Under a pure democracy, the canidate who promises the most goodies will always win.

My thoughts only.

Later,
Chris

------------------
"TV what do I see, tell me who to believe, what's the use of autonomy when a button does it all??" - Incubus, Idiot Box
 
Amen. I voted for Harry Browne, since my state was solidly Bush (60% - OK). I noticed Bush got something like 72% in ID!! Great job up there. Listen, I am completely dissatisified now with the electoral college, because I had ZERO incentive yesterday to drag others to the polls because my state was pre-decided. But if I knew that for every Bush vote I gathered would offset some yoyo in New York or Mass,(because of a straight popular vote), that would rouse my competitive spirit, and I would be a maniac recruting and proselyting son of a gun! I want the popular vote. I'm just hoping now that the Dems aren't hard at work in the urban Florida counties stuffing the ballot boxes again before the re-count. I've heard some Dems tell some talking heads that they think Broward county will be much more Gore than previously indicated - now how is that possible, without fraud. And since I'm on this stream of consciousness rant, speaking of fraud, can you believe those corrupt buttwipe Democraps in St. Louis, getting a judge to keep the polls open, so they can round up some more homeless and load up the buses from the ghettos to the polls?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Christopher II:
I gotta take issue with getting rid of the electoral college. Do you really have that much faith in the majority opinion? I sure as heck don't.
[/quote]


Chistopher, that makes no sense, IMO. Not having faith in the majority, and therefore tempering it with elected reps only makes sense if the reps are able to exercise independent discretion. Electors are not. They simply vote straightline without thinking, and it favors Democrats, because they get 54 votes from CA, when the margin is narrow there, due to their liberal cesspool cities, yet Bush gets no credit over and above the # of electors in states like ID, where he won 72% of the popular. Also, for the reason mentioned above by me - it skews the popular vote, because many many people like me have no incentive to help campaign when all of my state's votes are already going for Bush no matter how much or how little campaigning I do. No telling what the popular vote here would have been if our votes would have counted. I'll betcha us gun owners would have been on an organized rampage, and gotten 80% of the popular for Bush. I know I would have taken off work. Look, for those of you who live in places like Mass and Calif, you are frustrated because everyone there is so anti-gun, right? Well, you have no idea how frustrating it is here, when you're chomping at the bit for a political fight, yet you can never get one, because all of our politicians from here, whether Dem or Repub, are pro-gun. If SS is the third rail of politics nationally, then gun control is the third rail in OK. So we sit here like a ready military without a battle - it's very frustrating, but things would be very different if the president race was decided by straight popular!
 
Since Bush lost the popular vote, you should be glad of the electorial colledge. Without the 25 electiorial votes of Fla ,Bush looses.

The California democrats and the Clinton administration are giving voter registration cards to legal aliens residing in the USA in
an effort to cheat on the presidential election.

Excuse me , but I though that you had to be a US citizen first ; before being allowed to vote.
 
Evidently not.
DemoRats get to Lie and Cheat and Steal...
Republicans get to suck it up and take it on the chin.

We know who has honor.
We know who the better man is.

About the EC and Popular vote... If it was going to be a Popular Vote election - the campaigning would have been different. Both candidates played for the EC Votes.
Things would have been vastly different...
And if Gore won on those terms - Fine.
54 votes for Kali
25 votes for Florida
5 for Utah
5 for New Mexico
That skews the country.
Florida is worth more than Utah? Screw that.
Every vote should count - every vote... Not just in Florida.
 
How about 1 vote per state?
Gore has 20 states...
Bush has 29 states.
But evidently Bush's states aren't as special as Gore's states.

Screw the EC system. Its insulting.
 
Consider that in a popular vote, NY, CA and TX have enough voters to swing any election.(just an example) They do NOT demographically or geographically typify the nation.

Popular vote would simply hand every election to the demoncraps.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by madmike:
Consider that in a popular vote, NY, CA and TX have enough voters to swing any election.(just an example) They do NOT demographically or geographically typify the nation.[/quote]

They would only be enough to carry the country if _everyone_ from them voted for one candidate. With the electoral college, a slim majority in 7 big states could win the election while the candidate got only 26% of the popular vote. (Or even less if there's third party candidates involved and states can still be won by pluralities.) A candidate could win the vast majority of the national votes and still lose the election. With a popular vote, a majority (or plurality, depending on how the amendment was shaped) of the population would have to vote for the candidate.
 
Changing (or eliminating) the Electoral College requires a 2/3 congressional approval; AND a 3/4 states approval; its a Constitutional Amendment.
Afterwards, the only campaigning will be done in Ca., N.Y., Mass., Fla., Pa., etc.-urban centers. NO Nev., Az., Id., Mo., etc.
Is that what you want? Think about it. Do you REALLY believe 3/4 of the states will approve this?

------------------
NRA LIFE MEMBER
ILLEGITIMI NON CARBORUNDUM ESSE
 
folkbabe, a Democratic President has won the Presidency on Electoral College votes while losing the popular vote. He served his full term in office and the Democratic Party did not complain about the unfairness of it all.

Likewise, in my home state of Georgia, the Democratic legislature passed a law requiring a run-off election between the top two finishers if no candidate got 50% of the votes cast in a three way race. Twice this law cost the Republican Party the governorship of Georgia. But, you know, what goes around comes around, and Senator Wyche Fowler (D) was defeated in the run-off after getting the most votes in the general election. You could hear the Democrats howl for miles. Somewhat peculiar that they couldn't see how unjust and unfair it was when a) they wrote the bill and voted it into law, b) a Democratic governor signed it into law and c) they basked in its results through gaining two Democratic governorships. This hypocrisy is repeated time and time again throughout the Democratic hierarchy. If you really want to look into a cesspit, examinine the history of the Democratic machine in New York.

Don't mistake me as a two party partisan, though. I'm a lifelong member of the Libertarian Party. I don't like the policies of the Republicans or the Democrats. But if you look into the day to day workings and history of the Democratic Party you'll lose your lunch if you are a sensitive person. Yes, I disagree with Republicans but the Democrats make me want to puke.

------------------
Byron Quick
 
Citizen, I don't think it _will_ be changed, I just think maybe it _should_ be. I agree that you won't get 3/4 of the states to agree to any major changes to the process. As for smaller states, each person's vote would be worth just as much as a vote in NYC or anywhere else. If the politicians choose to campaign only in big metro areas than they'd be throwing away a lot of votes. By contrast, under the electoral college politicians never visit a significant number of states because they're never in contestion. Gush and Bore don't bother to spend time in states they know they'll carry by large margins since the _size_ of the margin and turnout doesn't matter.

Spartacus, there's an idea being thrown around in some states to institute instant runoff voting. Each person would mark a first and second choice for the office. If no one got a majority the first time, the votes from all but the top two candidates would be automatically reassigned to the second choices. I think that's something that's interesting to look at.


Unfortunately, switching to a popular vote will, at least without haveing instant runoff voting, hurt third party candidates. As it is now, one can vote for a third party without fear you will be affecting the outcome if you live in a non-swing state. In Texas or New York, voters are able to "vote their conscience" without fear of affecting the overall race.

By the way, I've been saying since a lot before this elecction that I'm not happy with the electoral college, winner-take-all process. And I don't support Gore, if that's what you think. :)
 
I like the idea of voting for "none of the above" and if the "none of the above" choice gets the most votes then a new election must be held in which the candidates who were all rejected by the electorate are ineligible to run. It might just galvanize the vast numbers of eligible voters who sit out every election to get off their duffs. There would be some added costs involved but at least we could send some of these bozos foisted upon us by the Republicans and Democrats back to the bench.

------------------
Byron Quick
 
Read The Federalist Papers... sound and convincing logic behind the Electoral system. Government is a limited machine for dispensing Justice... anything beyond that is Unconstitutional (damn that Elastic Clause!). If we had a small federal government with flexible and responsible state governments, then I wouldn't care if the results were Popular or Electoral... we'd be protected, either way. However, with the monsterous size of government today, I thank the Fore Fathers for their foresight and protecting us with the Electoral College.
 
PaladinX13 is right. Our founding fathers had great wisdom to protect or balance the rural areas from the teeming masses in metro areas.

------------------
"In my opinion, anyone pushing through anti-gun legislation is a bloody traitor and should be sent up for treason" N.H. Stuart
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top