Elect Gore in '04?

“Hmmmmm, I feel my bowels rumbling...guess I better go take a 'Gore'...back shortly.”

“Still pissed about losing the popular vote...

tsk tsk.”

“Not at all...doesn't bother me a bit...after all, MY candidate resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave!”

“I wasn't replying to you at all.”

“So solly...”

“Popular vote is irrelevant in the Presidential election. Never has mattered. The President is elected by the electoral college, not pure national numbers. That's the way it was designed in the Constitution and the way it has always worked.

Smaller low population states have disproportionate weight in selecting the President. The system was intentionally designed that way to minimize domination of national politics by a handful of large cities.”

“Yep. Still pissed.”

“And Gordon chimes in with an opus from the Symphony of The Blindingly Obvious!

ROCK ON GORDO!”

“Gee, thanks for the history lesson, gordon. How could we exist without ya?”

“Still pissed about losing the popular vote...

Nah, just amused by the article and wondering where all the pro-Gore folks went to.

And the popular vote is irrelevant until or unless the Constitution is changed.

Anyone wanna run a pool on which of the nine Democratic candidates is going to make the bid for the White House? A little name recognition might help too... :)

Eein

Nine Democrats with a long way to go”

“ah, yes... World Net Daily, LOL

Check the rest of those headlines. I suppose they say they're 'fair and balanced,' as well.


Bush might have some serious problems if the WMD remain AWOL... no matter who the Democrats wind up with.

Time will tell.”

“tilt, you're gonna throw a knuckle outta joint crossin yer fimmers so hard...........”

“If the WMD's are AWOL, they have something in common with GW.
Please, Al, do NOT run for president again.”

“I think it's obvious who has their panties in a wad over the election... they havn't stopped #&%!$ing since... you boys need to bite a kotex to stop the bleeding...Tilt, Dun, GET OVER IT!!!”

“oh... There's Plenty to discuss without mentioning the past election.


For example:

Did Laura bake something into those cookies that caused George to hallucinate NBC weapons behind every boulder in Iraq? I sure hope not. Maybe he got a-hold of a bad pretzel.

How about trying to resolve this BEFORE he attacks another country under a possibly false pretense? I remember what you boys were saying all through February and March about the alleged evidence and the concerns for governing post-war Iraq. "We can trust him! He's the President! Give him the benefit of the doubt!"

And here we are.



The hearings before the British Foreign Relations Committee this week have been quite interesting. Their so-called intelligence had gaps one could drive a semi through. If the WMD don't appear, Blair is TOAST. The British will not "be there for us" next time, and you really can't call one country a 'coalition' of anything.

I wonder what the U.S. hearings will be like? I think the Republicans are trying to speed them along to hopefully have them out of the way and establish a large enough buffer in time before the elections. I think they may need a strike against Iran as a diversion, LOL! Sound familiar? (it reminds me of Grenada...)

Heck, what happened to the supposed investigation into 9-11? It's been nearly been two years. I suppose we can expect to see that AFTER the election. Perhaps by the time it actually gets rolling George Tennent will have died of old age and we can have a repeat of the Iran-Contra defense, LOL


"panties"... ha ha... You really need some new material. It was funny back in the 70s, but time marches on, ya know?

The 'kotex' remark demonstrated lots of class.”

“popular vote may not be so important nation wide but it is very important within each state because it controls the decision of the states electoral college.

example:Florida. if popular vote isn't so damn important than what was all that fighting about??

Florida's multiple recounts was a great example of every vote counting.”

“BTW Gore sucks and he'll never make it to the oval office now....not after how he carried on.”

“Yup, Tilt's still pissed...dry yer eyes, dearie...”

“...and ya might wanta change yer panties while yer at it...”

“Nice response, FG. Full of substance and so similar to Bacpac.”

“OO! Burn!”

“Don't you mean RE-elect Gore on '04?”

“Ya know, you whiney-@assed pansies really need to get over it. Now run along and have a nice glass of warm milk and read your latest copy of Pravda. There'll be some other socialist prick to run the country before long and you ladies can have your way...for a while.”

“I'm looking towards '08. I want to see a race between Hiliary and Condaleeza. :D”

“I'm looking forward to 2050. I will be dead and won't care! :-)”

“Bawhahahahahaw!

The libs got nothin'! Carey? Bawhahahahaw! Gephardt? Double Bahahahahahaw!”

“Artie Delmar for President!”

“What a joke.

We don't need ethics or the rule of law or logic; we've got testosterone!! I know... thinking is for sissies, right? LOL! It's not your fault, though. You've been watching too much WRASSLIN' and your higher cognitive functions have atrophied.

So, who will be the next star of the Republican party? Hulk Hogan??? Too bad Schwarzenegger is foreign born, eh?”

“I wonder sometimes about the folks who spend so much time on anti-republican and anti-bush stuff.

Mostly I wonder what great things they could actually accomplish if they spent HALF that effort on something constructive instead of the current and usual modus operandi.”

“popular vote may not be so important nation wide but it is very important within each state because it controls the decision of the states electoral college.

sirpeteofmillwork

As I understand it (and it may be a state thang) the electorates can and have overidden the local voters and may cast their votes any way they choose.”

“Well Golly, deedawg. I wonder who instigated this colossal time-waster?”

“Dirtyoldman you are right. The electorates for a state can vote outside the decision made by the popular vote.

They can, but it is highly unlikely that it would occur. I would have to say that if they did it would open a whole new can of worms, especially in this day and age. I think then the American public would truely question the validity of the electoral college system.

As it is....and I can't remember at the moment who it was....one of our presidents in the past did win the popular vote but lost the election because he didn't get a winning number of electoral votes. But it was because of the number of the electorates in each state vs the number of people voting was unequally balanced, not that the electorates voted contrary to the popular vote.”

“The Electoral College had a purpose as I see it, to protect a voice of the less populated states and put some of the electoral power back to the state. Otherwise, you probably have 20% of the states having 80% of the popular vote.”

“oh yeah now I remember:

How can Gore win the popular and lose the electoral vote?

It's not the economy, sonny, it's the states.

A state's electors is equal to the total number of Senators and Representatives. So each state has 2 more votes than its proportionate population. When the popular vote is so close, the number of STATES won becomes decisive. If early returns are confirmed on recount, Gov. Bush wins 31 states (61%), Vice-President Gore wins 19 and DC. Those 11 extra states in the Bush column convert to 22 additional electoral votes, which will be the winning margin for Gov. Bush. Is it fair? No less fair than the U.S. Senate, which gives every state 2 Senators regardless of its population.

In the 2000 election, the popular vote goes one way, but the state vote goes the other way, in landslide proportions! And it is only due to the state landslide that Gov. Bush has a chance. If Vice-President Gore squeezes out a win in Florida, he will win the Presidency having carried the lowest percentage of states (41%) of any President. Kennedy carried 46% of the states in 1960 and Carter carried 47% in 1976.

As is always the case, the Electoral College punishes the candidate that appeals to a limited region of the country. If you look at the electoral map, you can see that Bush succeeded in winning states in every region (with the help of Mr. Nader). Without Florida, Gore has no states in the South or the Mountain West. Again--no accident. The Electoral College is doing just what it is designed to do.”

“MORE GORE in OUGHT 4 ! ! ! !



bet osama and saddam are pulling for him......heh heh”

“"wonder sometimes about the folks who spend so much time on anti-republican and anti-bush stuff.

Mostly I wonder what great things they could actually accomplish if they spent HALF that effort on something constructive instead of the current and usual modus operandi."

both sides spend equal time bashing each other and you know it. dont even try to pretend its otherwise.

doesnt the president have to win by a majority? thats why we HAVE to have the electoral college and thats why the big 2 will do everything in their power to keep out third parties. a plurality (is that the right word) isnt enough. there have been quite a few elections where no candidate got the majority of the popular due to third parties who were strong enough to win a significant portion of the votes as a whole, but werent strong enough to carry even one state. in the case of no candidate winning the majority of the electoral, do we re-vote, or flip a coin, or have them rassle it out on pay-per-view?”

“All the permutations and scenarios of "what if's" were considered long ago by the framers of the Constitution.

Didn't y'all cover this stuff in American Government class?

Taken from Ben's Guide for grades 9-12.
Should no presidential candidate receive an absolute majority, the House of Representatives determines who the next president will be. Each state may cast one vote and an absolute majority is needed to win. Similarly, the Senate decides who the next Vice President will be if there is no absolute majority after the Electoral College vote. Elections have been decided by Congress in the past. The House of Representatives elected Thomas Jefferson president in the election of 1800 when the Electoral College vote resulted in a tie. When the Electoral College vote was so split that none of the candidates received an absolute majority in the election of 1824 the House elected John Quincy Adams President. Richard Johnson was elected Vice President by the Senate when he failed to receive an absolute majority of electoral votes in the election of 1836.”

“Although a chain link cage tag team wrassin match might be cool, I don't think the nation is quite ready to see sweaty presidental candidates in glittery spandex tights.

~~shudder~~
I need a shower.”

“its been fifteen years since high school. ive forgotten a few things.”

“Well, Tiltie-poo, if you equate whining, snivelling and incessant b!tching with cognitive function then my hat's off to ya. You are indeed one of the great thinkers of the century.








We are not worthy...”

“Why do you keep posting to it if it's a "time waster"? Your reply suggests you didn't read my post very carefully.”

“both sides spend equal time bashing each other and you know it. dont even try to pretend its otherwise.

You reading my posts or someone else's and quoting mine? I don't see where I said anything contrary to your statement above.

doesnt the president have to win by a majority?

Nope, although it is what usually happens. The president wins by winning a majority of votes in the Electoral College. Popular majority is NOT required. I'm too lazy to re-lookup the link I had a while back which listed the other elections in the past where the President won the Electoral College but had not won the popular vote.

See HPM's link to Ben's Guide above if you're not familiar with how the election system works in the U.S. It is NOT a pure Democracy despite what many have been led to believe.”

“"The president wins by winning a majority of votes in the Electoral College. Popular majority is NOT required."
yes i KNOW. im not that dumb. i was more or less just thinking out loud.

"I don't see where I said anything contrary to your statement above."

no, but one could easily infer from that statement that you think the left is guilty of it much more than the right. its a weasel statment, because your rebuttal may also be true, but so could my assumption. insinuate one thing, but when called on it, back off to the middle ground and point out you never really said what we both know what you meant. its a win-win situation. weasel.”

“I don't know who p*ssed in your Cheerios this morning, but I take offense at being directly insulted.

I would have liked to have thought that folks here were a bit above that level of debate and could form reasonable positions without having to call someone else a weasel.

Please apologize.”

“i think 2poops' already confirmed your point by his reaction, deedawg”

“you yourself may not be a weasel, but you did make a weasel statement.

calling you a weasel was just silly, but that was just a throw-away line just to get your goat. i made lots of other serious points, you did not even address those, or arent you capable, dawgweasel?
come on, defend yourself. prove to me youre not a weasel, take a stand. you hate the left, you think theyre a bunch of snivelling whiners.

seriously, im not on the left or the right side. i voted libertarian in the last election. my opinion is that it doesnt matter who is in charge, youre in charge of your own life. so you wont see me with a pro-left or right agenda. what i do is attack the fallacies in ppls arguments and expose their biases. i happen to think that the left argues better than the right, but that doesnt always make them right. now im sorry if your feelings are hurt, i forgot you were a newbie. most of us have learned to roll with the punches around here. you have to with guys like bacpac and tilt around.”

“weaseling is just one of my pet peeves, and i think the reason for that is, by its definition, it can never be proven that someone is weaseling.

back to the subject, someone once made a point that the elder bush had much more support for the first gulf war, both domestically and internationally, and he still didnt win the next election. as a matter of fact, if im not mistaken, no prez that has gone to war has ever gone on to be re-elected (anybody know for sure?) we know who the left and the right are going to vote for, but bush is going to lose the moderate swing voters very soon if he hasnt already lost them if wmd's are not found soon.”

“and as to who pissed in my cornflakes, you did, with your condescending tone.

btw i love that phrase "....cornflakes?" i love colorful, preferably vulgar colloquialisms.”

“To hit some of your questions as I now have some time to spend on them:

(1) Based on my observation of the media, there is a whole lot more bashing being done on the Democratic side. As for here, my personal observation is that the left stirs up trouble more than the right, but that observation may be biased from not following such threads very far down before finding them tiresome.

(2) You call my statement a “weasel” statement. More like a shot across the bow to see the reaction around here from some of the folks who like to make similarly loaded statements from the other side of the fence. Implications and inferences are subject to the mindset of the reader, and are NOT something the author can create.

(3) As for condescending, that was not my intention and I do apologize that you felt it came across that way. Unfortunately the Lord has not blessed me with ESP and I am limited to interpreting the words others type instead of being able to see into their minds and discern what they mean instead of what they say. I saw what appeared to be a question about the electoral system (which I unfortunately mistyped as election) and tried to make an honest answer.

(4) I can let stuff roll off my back quite fine – yet sometimes taking up a verbal challenge can be useful to see from what sort of material the other party is made. Don’t worry, I don’t pin my self-esteem on the statements made by strangers over the Internet.

My thoughts regarding the left is that it is made up of a spectrum of people, some who think things through and have an honest desire to make this a better country, some who follow their leaders blindly, some few who are more interested in power than anything else, and a few troublemakers who like to stir things up.

The same can be said for BOTH left and right. I try to be mostly the first and sometimes a little of the last, but I try to keep that mostly to a level at which everyone can learn a little something from the resulting discussion.

In any event, this thread is becoming a bit tiresome and has diverged far from the original intent. See you on another thread.”