In article <0lsoivg4g7h3t7oqltevmn71s6jmkb8pi6@4ax.com>,
'nuther Bob <yetanotherphonyaddress@noplacereally.com> wrote:
>
>Maybe you don't understand the decision. It says:
>"Even accepting appellant's allegation, we conclude as a matter of law
>that the Palm Beach County ballot does not constitute substantial
>noncompliance"
>
>In other words, they *accept* the allegation that the ballot was
>illegal.

No. It means that they are accepting it for the sake of argument.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
 

"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:84jriv81opfhp9ll8o098r6qfs3jci0dir@4ax.com...
> DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 15:20:41 GMT, 'nuther Bob
> ><yetanotherphonyaddress@noplacereally.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 04:52:24 GMT, "David Allen"
> >><dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I wouldn't call the electoral college stupid. It recognizes the
interest of
> >>>states. If the election was strictly a national popular vote, large
> >>>metropolitan cities would always determine the presidency. That's
where
> >>>campaigns would focus and their interests catered to. Note how the
> >>>campaigns of the electoral method focus on "battleground states".
These
> >>>states were not necessarily CA or NY or FL. The smaller states of the
time
> >>>clearly saw the advantage of the electoral system so they wouldn't get
shut
> >>>out and the interests of their populations become irrelevent.
> >>
> >>That's nonsense - you are arguing both sides of the same issue. Using
> >>the popular vote would insure that *every* citizens vote would count
> >>as much as every other citizen. Obviously the politicians would
> >>concentrate on the more populated areas as they do now. That's
> >>irrelevant. What is relevant is ONE vote PER VOTER. With the current
> >>system, votes in certain states are worth more, other states less.
> >
> >No, you are just an idiot. The electoral college votes are based on
> >population in each state. Thus voters are treated equally.
>
> All electoral college members have the same vote. Assuming that 100% of
> the electoral votes go to one block for a state, then people from a less
> populous state have a greater percentage of involvement in the selection
of
> the president than those from a more populous state. That isn't "equally"
> as far as I can tell.
>

That's right actually. The selection of a president was never meant to be
equally weighted per individual across the country. The president's task is
to execute the business of government according to laws passed by congress,
the house representing the people and the senate representing the states.
Accordingly, the founders wanted to just have the senate elect a president
to do the job. After much debate and other possible methods discussed, the
electoral system was devised giving the power to elect the president to the
states (the state legislatures) by selecting electors representative of each
congressional district and then 2 electors representative of the 2 senators
in each state. So the weighting of electors to population is not equal from
state to state. This gives less densly populated states a slight weighting
in their favor. Theoretically, you could have a state with 10 people in it
and they would have 3 electoral votes.

This is in recognition of the sovereignty and independence of states. One
could argue that this is less and less relevent in modern times (especially
post civil war and post industrial age and post information age). Many
issues are being federalized and the federal government is becoming the
great equalizer for many issues previously the domain of states and
individuals. States are becoming less and less unique as we become more and
more governed by federal law versus state law.

I still don't think it will change because states with lower population
densities would never sign on to a national popular vote. With a 3/4's
requirement to pass a constitutional amendment, it's a high hurdle to jump.

> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"


 

"'nuther Bob" <yetanotherphonyaddress@noplacereally.com> wrote in message
news:ltosivkko12l3tj5ht6d809qimjpjdj0ln@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 23:04:14 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>
> >All electoral college members have the same vote. Assuming that 100% of
> >the electoral votes go to one block for a state, then people from a less
> >populous state have a greater percentage of involvement in the selection
of
> >the president than those from a more populous state. That isn't
"equally"
> >as far as I can tell.
>
> I'll only respond to one of your posts Marc and none of theirs
> regarding this issue since their arguments hold no weight at all.
>
> It's obvious that these folks are simply arguing for the electoral
> college in some mistaken impression that "their" candidate will
> have some advantage under the electoral system. I guess they missed
> the part of the history lesson where we learned how few times there
> has even been a difference in the popular vote vs. the electoral
> college.
>
> "One man, one vote" is the only fair system. They are more
> interested in preserving some relic that they mistakenly think
> benefits them in some odd way.
>
> Bob

You're way off base. You've got no clue as to why we have our electoral
system. A national popular election IS simple to think about, but the
consequences of having one versus one that recognizes the interests of
states are significant enough that you'll find many against it, mostly in
low population density states. Think Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, etc.

It's the same balance between peoples interests (the house) and states
interests (the senate) we have in congress. Your argument for a national
popular election equally argues for abolishment of the senate. Why do we
need a senate if states interests are pitched out the window?


 
'nuther Bob wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 23:04:14 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>
>
>>All electoral college members have the same vote. Assuming that 100% of
>>the electoral votes go to one block for a state, then people from a less
>>populous state have a greater percentage of involvement in the selection of
>>the president than those from a more populous state. That isn't "equally"
>>as far as I can tell.
>
>
> I'll only respond to one of your posts Marc and none of theirs
> regarding this issue since their arguments hold no weight at all.
>
> It's obvious that these folks are simply arguing for the electoral
> college in some mistaken impression that "their" candidate will
> have some advantage under the electoral system. I guess they missed
> the part of the history lesson where we learned how few times there
> has even been a difference in the popular vote vs. the electoral
> college.
>
> "One man, one vote" is the only fair system. They are more
> interested in preserving some relic that they mistakenly think
> benefits them in some odd way.
>
> Bob

Bob, you are so full of it your eyes are brown!

 
"David Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
>news:0osqiv4esfcstabkjblc99jmi2iv6dujgc@4ax.com...
>> "David Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The mere mention of the words "popular vote" is deceptive. There is no
>> >popular election, so there's no popular vote. Tabulating the aggregate
>of
>> >individual state elections is NOT indicitive of a honest to goodness
>> >national popular vote.
>>
>> Could you please explain how the sum of all state votes (done at the same
>> time in a manner consistent with the current "nation-wide" votes on
>> presidential election day) would differ significantly from a single
>> nation-wide vote?
>>
>
>Sure. Voter turnout would be significantly different. Voter turnout is a
>function of many things, but one of the significant factors is campaign
>intensity. Some states are so consistently Democratic or Republican they
>you never see much campaign activity in those states. Unique issues
>important to those states aren't focused on. Even within a state, certain
>congressional districts are the same way. This isn't significant for winner
>take all elections, but it is for the proportional elections a couple of
>states have.

So, you are saying that with a single nation-wide vote we'd see more
campaigning around the country? In the places, like TX and CA, there would
actually be real campaigning? Currently, the politicians completely ignore
the most populous states because they know what the outcome already is. CA
is Democrat and TX is Republican.

But changing the way the campaigns are run isn't going to change the vote.
Your position sounds more like fear mongering than anything else.

I think that it is that you think the least populous states vote for the
candidates you generally support, so you support a system, however flawed,
that supports the candidates you prefer. The need for the Electoral
College is long since past. The need was based in the idea of "states
right" which pretty much went away with the Civil War.

>A nationwide populare vote would be a very different campaign.

Different campaign, same vote.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 

"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:n7vsiv8tmr1rhvbdc2qj45iuf9aukdcnts@4ax.com...
> "David Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
> >news:0osqiv4esfcstabkjblc99jmi2iv6dujgc@4ax.com...
> >> "David Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The mere mention of the words "popular vote" is deceptive. There is
no
> >> >popular election, so there's no popular vote. Tabulating the
aggregate
> >of
> >> >individual state elections is NOT indicitive of a honest to goodness
> >> >national popular vote.
> >>
> >> Could you please explain how the sum of all state votes (done at the
same
> >> time in a manner consistent with the current "nation-wide" votes on
> >> presidential election day) would differ significantly from a single
> >> nation-wide vote?
> >>
> >
> >Sure. Voter turnout would be significantly different. Voter turnout is
a
> >function of many things, but one of the significant factors is campaign
> >intensity. Some states are so consistently Democratic or Republican they
> >you never see much campaign activity in those states. Unique issues
> >important to those states aren't focused on. Even within a state,
certain
> >congressional districts are the same way. This isn't significant for
winner
> >take all elections, but it is for the proportional elections a couple of
> >states have.
>
> So, you are saying that with a single nation-wide vote we'd see more
> campaigning around the country? In the places, like TX and CA, there
would
> actually be real campaigning? Currently, the politicians completely
ignore
> the most populous states because they know what the outcome already is.
CA
> is Democrat and TX is Republican.
>
> But changing the way the campaigns are run isn't going to change the vote.
> Your position sounds more like fear mongering than anything else.
>
> I think that it is that you think the least populous states vote for the
> candidates you generally support, so you support a system, however flawed,
> that supports the candidates you prefer. The need for the Electoral
> College is long since past. The need was based in the idea of "states
> right" which pretty much went away with the Civil War.
>
> >A nationwide populare vote would be a very different campaign.
>
> Different campaign, same vote.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

I never thought of the electoral college method as favoring any party. I
disagree that different campaigns would yield the same results. Like the
baseball analogy. If the team with the most runs over a season won the
pennant versus the team with the most wins, the strategies would be really
different with likewise different results.


 
In article <6bkniv4atl4p0htee8gbbfafjbae0fcv26@4ax.com>,
DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 13:24:03 GMT, 'nuther Bob
><yetanotherphonyaddress@noplacereally.com> wrote:
>
>>Saddaam was providing money to the families of dead terrorists who
>>were killed while engaged in terrorism in Israel. While I find it
>>repulsive, it was not a threat to the national security of the USA
>
>Nutter bobby, treaties require us to come to the aid of our allies.

There is no mutual defense pact with Israel.

And our friends the Saudis have raised money for the families of suicide
bombers too.

>
>If not, you would be speaking german right now.
>
>>and whether or not it constitutes support of terrorism is debatable.
>
>Supporting terrorists is not supporting terrorism. You must be a
>****ing liberal.
 
In article <3F2BF2F3.C9C4FD2A@kinez.net>, Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net> wrote:
>'nuther Bob wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 18:17:33 -0400, Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >You mean the one's that Clinton and Hans Blix said he had?
>>
>> Hans Blix wanted to finish the inspections to find out if Saddaam
>> had any WMD's...
>
>And said that Sadam was obstructing those inspections

How? The inspectors were there and given access to wherever they wanted.


> - not quite the
>disclosure that was demanded by the mutliple UN resolutions - and over
>how many years?

Did the UN authorize military action?

>
> GWB couldn't wait for some reason. If you think about
>> it, the only reason not to wait was because they might _not_ find
>> WMD and then GWB had no reason to invade.
>
>Not the only reason. How many years? How many (apparently) meaningless
>UN resolutions? Better to not make a resolution than to make it and not
>carry it out. If cops gave out nothing but warnings and never a real
>ticket for speeding (for about 12 years), do you think people would
>think twice about speeding if they thought it was safe?

If the legislature passed a law that didn't provide for the police to give out
tickets (analogous to UN resolutions that didn't provide for military action)
and the police did anyway (analogous to Bush invading), what would you say?

>
>> >> , Saddaam having any links to Al Queda; has been
>> >> disproven.
>> >
>> >You mean the terrorist training camps and safe havens?
>>
>> There were a couple areas in Northern Iraq the some of those folks
>> were using. They were located in the Kurdish Territory where Saddaam
>> did not tread because the Kurds would not let him. There was no
>> support from Saddaam for those terrorists. We could easily have
>> taken those camps out with a targeted strike.
>>
>> In all the papers they've found in Iraq, all the gov't buildings
>> they've searched, they have yet to find any direct links between
>> Saddaam and Al Queda. If they had, you can be sure they'd be waving
>> it like a flag at this point.
>>
>> >Or do you mean
>> >the payments to the families of those Islamists who blew themselves up
>> >while intentionally murdering innocent people. Which of those have been
>> >disproven?
>>
>> Saddaam was providing money to the families of dead terrorists who
>> were killed while engaged in terrorism in Israel...
>
>How noble and how non-supportive of terrorism.
>
>While I find it
>> repulsive, it was not a threat to the national security of the USA
>> and whether or not it constitutes support of terrorism is debatable...
>
>I would say not debatable at all to any reasonable person. Bush
>declared war on terrorism and followed thru with it.

Then why haven't we invaded Saudi Arabia? Most of the 9/11 terrorists were
from there, they have charities that raise money for terrorists, there's
evidence some people in the royal family support terrorists (and helped the
9/11 ones), their schools teach anti-Americanism, they're certainly the
fartherest thing from a democracy...

>
>> Certainly the Palestinian supporters would disagree. If we are going
>> to invade every country that supports the Palestinians in some way,
>> we have another dozen to go.
>
>We're not talking about "supporting the Palestinians in some way" as if
>we're talking about someone who sells them bread and soft drinks. We're
>talking about paying martyrs for their acts of murder and terrorism
>(again, to any reasonable person).
>
>>
>> I'll say it again: There is no link between Saddaam and Al Queda.
>
>But as you have pointed out, he did support terrorism by monetarily
>rewarding families of terrorists after the fact.

So do the Saudis.


> I would say that would
>be a target in a war that was declared on terrorism.

Are we going after the IRA maybe then?

>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
 
In article <e1doiv8tcn8krf1ftiki6srdgn18rcdm83@4ax.com>,
DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 09:21:01 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>
>>>Yes, I know. The issue is that every person on the ballot had the
>>>same requirements to determine what to check. So, anyone that voted
>>>for the wrong guy due to their stupidity, which is what it was, could
>>>have been a republican, democrat, green, blue, purple or any other
>>>party.
>>>
>>>Statistically no one candidate could have been harmed or benefitted
>>>from the ballot.
>>
>>Suppose that 50% wanted Gore, 45% wanted Bush, 2% for the Green Party, 2%
>>for the Libertarians, and 1% for the others. If 10% of all voters were to
>>select a random party from confusion, then the results would be
>>47/42.5/3.8/3.8/2.9 for the percentages.
>
>No.
>
>The way the ballot was laid out, the "check" marks were made in the
>middle, while the candidates were listed to either side. So the
>entire concept that voters voted wrong is bull****. However, if there
>were some way this happened, each voter could have voted either above
>or below the correct spot. This means that Bush, at the top,
>statistically received 50% LESS votes for him that were intended for
>someone else. Gore in the middle received as many erroneous votes as
>he lost.
>
>>So, statistically, the voter with the greatest popular support is harmed
>>the most.
>
>Which was of course Bush, as he had more votes in Florida by every
>count done, including the original one, the recounts by the state and
>counties, the recounts by every newspaper, every radio station, every
>tv station, every journalist.
Wrong. The final media analysis showed that depending on how you treated the
infamous "hanging chads," either candidate could have won.
 
In article <3F2C86CC.5BE9304B@kinez.net>, Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net> wrote:
>RickMerrill wrote:
>>
>> ....
>> >
>> >>So, statistically, the voter with the greatest popular support is harmed
>> >>the most.
>> >
>> >
>> > Which was of course Bush, as he had more votes in Florida by every
>> > count done, including the original one, the recounts by the state and
>> > counties, the recounts by every newspaper, every radio station, every
>> > tv station, every journalist.
>>
>> What is this dumb obsession with "popular vote"? Do you people go
>> around saying "well my team got more HITS, they should be the winner"?
>>
>> Electoral votes is how the game is played, and for good reasons. - RM
>
>No Rick - didn't you know that the Republicans went back in a time
>machine to set up the electoral system just so Bush could win in 2000.
>That's how it was rigged. 8^)
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>

Why not? You right-wingers blame Clinton for everything from the 1812 burning
of the White House to the sinking of the Maine.
 
In article <3F2C8D61.ED1F645B@kinez.net>, Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net> wrote:
>'nuther Bob wrote:
>>
>> ...But, none of this matters at this point. Whether Bush stole the
>> election or not, he still sucks as President.
>>
>> Bob
>
>Can we take a vote on that? 8^)

Poll last week shows only 46% think he should be re-elected.

>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
 
In article <cy0Xa.3730$8N.337151@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill Putney" <peva@kinez.net> wrote in message
>news:3F2C8FA1.7E4E2F9A@kinez.net...
>> 'nuther Bob wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 23:15:07 GMT, RickMerrill
>> > <RickMerrill@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Electoral votes is how the game is played, and for good reasons.
>> >
>> > I'd be interested in knowing what you think the "good reasons"
>> > for the electoral system are. About the only thing the electoral
>> > college does today is make the votes of some voters worth more
>> > than the votes of other voters. Only the political parties (both
>> > of them) have an interest in preserving this unfair, antiquated,
>> > dinosaur of a voting system.
>> >
>> > Bob
>>
>> That may be true or may not be true (it can be argued that there are
>> practical reasons that other, more "fair" ways, would not be do-able -
>> and arguably, in your favor, some of those practical reasons may no
>> longer apply in the modern world). *BUT*, right or wrong, it was the
>> rules of the game (which no one was violently disputing before that
>> election and the bizarre situations that occurred) at the time of that
>> particular election.
>>
>> It's kind of like football rules - some may be stupid (and even change
>> over time), but as long as they are applied to both teams equally during
>> any given game (election), and not pre-meditated to give one team
>> (candidate or party) an unfair advantage, it's disingenuous to argue to
>> change the results of the game after the fact when serious objections
>> weren't raised ahead of time. Maybe the rules will be changed - but
>> only for future "games".
>>
>> Bill Putney
>> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>> address with "x")
>>
>
>I wouldn't call the electoral college stupid. It recognizes the interest of
>states. If the election was strictly a national popular vote, large
>metropolitan cities would always determine the presidency. That's where
>campaigns would focus and their interests catered to. Note how the
>campaigns of the electoral method focus on "battleground states". These
>states were not necessarily CA or NY or FL. The smaller states of the time
>clearly saw the advantage of the electoral system so they wouldn't get shut
>out and the interests of their populations become irrelevent. Perhaps a
>better sports analogy is golf.

But candidates don't even go to Delaware or Idaho. Too few electoral votes.
OTOH, if the popular vote is close, those states' popular votes could make a
difference. CA is 1/3 of the electoral votes needed to win, so the current
system favors states like that, not the small states.

>
>The mere mention of the words "popular vote" is deceptive. There is no
>popular election, so there's no popular vote. Tabulating the aggregate of
>individual state elections is NOT indicitive of a honest to goodness
>national popular vote.
>
>
>
 
In article <GocXa.4270$8N.394334@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"David Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"'nuther Bob" <yetanotherphonyaddress@noplacereally.com> wrote in message
>news:ss9qivc62nk84chk6raenhff4tglb15m36@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 04:52:24 GMT, "David Allen"
>> <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >I wouldn't call the electoral college stupid. It recognizes the interest
>of
>> >states. If the election was strictly a national popular vote, large
>> >metropolitan cities would always determine the presidency. That's where
>> >campaigns would focus and their interests catered to. Note how the
>> >campaigns of the electoral method focus on "battleground states". These
>> >states were not necessarily CA or NY or FL. The smaller states of the
>time
>> >clearly saw the advantage of the electoral system so they wouldn't get
>shut
>> >out and the interests of their populations become irrelevent.
>>
>> That's nonsense - you are arguing both sides of the same issue. Using
>> the popular vote would insure that *every* citizens vote would count
>> as much as every other citizen. Obviously the politicians would
>> concentrate on the more populated areas as they do now. That's
>> irrelevant. What is relevant is ONE vote PER VOTER. With the current
>> system, votes in certain states are worth more, other states less.
>>
>
>It's not nonsense. The President is selected by the states. The method
>recognizes that states have unique makeup and interests apart from each
>other. It recognizes that local (state) government is what is significant
>to people.
>
>One could argue compellingly that much of this changed after the civil war
>and the 13th/14th ammendments passed ending much of the sovereignty and
>independence of the states. But the value of the electoral college is still
>significant enough that many states would never agree to abolish it.
>
>> >The mere mention of the words "popular vote" is deceptive. There is no
>> >popular election, so there's no popular vote. Tabulating the aggregate
>of
>> >individual state elections is NOT indicitive of a honest to goodness
>> >national popular vote.
>>
>> Huh ?
>>
>
>Uh, let's try it again. There is no national popular vote. Each state
>selects electors in a fashion they decide. Nearly all have adopted a winner
>take all statewide election. There are a couple of states that have a
>proportional take where each congressional district chooses it's elector
>independently and winner doesn't take all. A state could, if they choose,
>not have a statewide election. They could have a simple vote within the
>state legislature.

One wonders if Amendment XV would allow that, or XIX, or XXIV -- all mention a
"right of citizens of the United States to vote" and XXIV added "in any
primary or other election for President or Vice-President, for electors for
President or Vice-President..."

Amendment XIV is perhaps even plainer: "But when the right to vote at any
election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President... is
denied to any of the male inhabitants of the state, being twenty-one years of
age, and citizens of the United States... the basis for representation therin
shall be reduced in the proportion..."

Sounds like if a state takes away 100% of the male voters, it loses 100% of
its representation in the electoral college.

>
>Voter turnout is a function of many things, but it includes the effects of
>campaigning. Turnout in battleground states is higher. Also the
>expectation of the value of a vote, how many Democrats stay home in Alaska
>on election day?
>
>To derive a national count from the aggregate of each state election is not
>to be representative of a real national popular election. It's similar to
>the baseball analogy where number of runs over a season doesn't correlate
>perfectly with number of games won. There is a correlation, but it's a
>loose one. Hope that helps.
>
>> Bob
>>
>
>
 
In article <viqmhalfnl6m9b@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"'nuther Bob" <yetanotherphonyaddress@noplacereally.com> wrote in message
>news:a78qiv4jm078n7nbiap6v6fegunrkd5svh@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 00:29:21 -0400, Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >That may be true or may not be true (it can be argued that there are
>> >practical reasons that other, more "fair" ways, would not be do-able -
>> >and arguably, in your favor, some of those practical reasons may no
>> >longer apply in the modern world).
>>
>> Give me ONE single reason that the electoral system is more fair than
>> counting the popular vote.
>
>Al Gore had more popular votes than Bush, but geographically Bush blew Gore
>out of the water.

I wasn't aware square miles had representation in this country.


>I used to have a link that showed the votes per county,
>but can't find it at the moment. Regardless, most of the country voted Bush,
>only the large population areas voted Gore. With a true popular vote system
>like you propose, 80% of the country would be ignored by the high population
>20%.

That's just not so. Now, large states are concentrated upon and small ones
ignored. Why? If you win CA by 100 votes, you get 55 electoral votes; if you
win Wyoming by 10,000 votes, you get 3 electoral votes.

>
>>
>> >*BUT*, right or wrong, it was the
>> >rules of the game (which no one was violently disputing before that
>> >election and the bizarre situations that occurred) at the time of that
>> >particular election.
>>
>> I don't dispute that fact. I dispute the assertion that there
>> are "good reasons" for the electoral college.
>> >
>> >Maybe the rules will be changed - but
>> >only for future "games".
>>
>> Don't bet on it. The parties have a vested interest in the system.
>> We're long past the days where many politicians do things because
>> they're "right".
>>
>> If George Bush wanted to win the next election hands down, he
>> could have come out in force and pushed a constitutional amendment
>> to abolish the electoral college. The resulting popular appeal
>> would push his popularity to new heights. But, he didn't have
>> the nuggies or the smarts, and now he doesn't have the time.
>>
>> Bob
>
>
 
In article <viqm711pbq6212@corp.supernews.com>,
"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"'nuther Bob" <yetanotherphonyaddress@noplacereally.com> wrote in message
>news:j4aqiv4vprlihdsppj6tq6chfadg1fddrd@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 08:59:20 -0400, Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >But as usual, they either suggest nothing to
>> >replace it,
>>
>> Tally the votes across the country. Add them up. Most votes wins.
>> Was that so hard ?
>>
>
>With that method, my vote, and the votes of millions of Americans living in
>rural areas, will not count. All Presidents would be selected by the several
>major cities.

How so? There are more people living outside large cities than in them.
Heck, state-wide races here in GA are decided by suburban voters, by and
large.

>Fair? Not even close.
>You try hard to argue your side, but in my opinion you are wrong on ever
>point you've made in this thread, and I disagree with your conclusions as
>well.
>
>> > or what they would like to do would be worse or totally
>> >impractical
>>
>> In this day an age, tallying nationwide votes is not an issue.
>>
>> >(and in future unanticipated situations could actually bite
>> >them in the butts - i.e., cause them to loose an election that they
>> >otherwise would have won under the existing system - then they would be
>> >whining about how much fairer the old electorate system was, ad
>> >infinitum).
>>
>> That a foolish hypothetical being argued for partisan reasons.
>> You really are transparent.
>>
>> Bob
>
>
 
In article <c0nqivoddno6slbl919hfiuevr406qf4fl@4ax.com>,
DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 15:20:41 GMT, 'nuther Bob
><yetanotherphonyaddress@noplacereally.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 04:52:24 GMT, "David Allen"
>><dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I wouldn't call the electoral college stupid. It recognizes the interest
of
>>>states. If the election was strictly a national popular vote, large
>>>metropolitan cities would always determine the presidency. That's where
>>>campaigns would focus and their interests catered to. Note how the
>>>campaigns of the electoral method focus on "battleground states". These
>>>states were not necessarily CA or NY or FL. The smaller states of the time
>>>clearly saw the advantage of the electoral system so they wouldn't get shut
>>>out and the interests of their populations become irrelevent.
>>
>>That's nonsense - you are arguing both sides of the same issue. Using
>>the popular vote would insure that *every* citizens vote would count
>>as much as every other citizen. Obviously the politicians would
>>concentrate on the more populated areas as they do now. That's
>>irrelevant. What is relevant is ONE vote PER VOTER. With the current
>>system, votes in certain states are worth more, other states less.
>
>No, you are just an idiot. The electoral college votes are based on
>population in each state. Thus voters are treated equally.
Except for the winner take all part. A voter in CA who votes for the
candidate carrying his state sees his vote = 55 electoral votes; one in WY who
votes for the candidate carrying his state sees his vote = 3 electoral votes.
 
In article <rjmqiv0gpltfi0lb688fa468p2jgdbktrq@4ax.com>,
DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 14:57:06 GMT, 'nuther Bob
><yetanotherphonyaddress@noplacereally.com> wrote:
>
>>Give me ONE single reason that the electoral system is more fair than
>>counting the popular vote.
>
>Simple, but we all expect you will have significant difficulty
>understanding it.
>
>The population is spread throughout the country. There are areas of
>heavy concentration. Those areas should not be given more power than
>is reasonable, just like we shouldn't let the majority decide
>everything. The electoral college thus prevents NY, LA, Chicago and a
>few other liberal enclaves from adversely infecting our government.

Idiot alert!

>Instead of someone like al bore succeeding by focusing on just a few
>areas where he is popular, he has to campaign across the heartland
>also. Since people in the cities are more easily duped by democrats,
>this forces dems to the middle to get elected.
>
>>>*BUT*, right or wrong, it was the
>>>rules of the game (which no one was violently disputing before that
>>>election and the bizarre situations that occurred) at the time of that
>>>particular election.
>>
>>I don't dispute that fact. I dispute the assertion that there
>>are "good reasons" for the electoral college.
>
>Well idiots do have problems with complex issues like voting.
>
>>>Maybe the rules will be changed - but
>>>only for future "games".
>>
>>If George Bush wanted to win the next election hands down, he
>>could have come out in force and pushed a constitutional amendment
>>to abolish the electoral college. The resulting popular appeal
>>would push his popularity to new heights. But, he didn't have
>>the nuggies or the smarts, and now he doesn't have the time.
>
>No, unlike kkklinton/bore, Bush supports the constitution.

Except those pesky first 10 amendments.
 
In article <9quqivs4h0if7jg2ebnicfn8fhr3lfa0iu@4ax.com>,
'nuther Bob <yetanotherphonyaddress@noplacereally.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 12:18:12 -0400, Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I think that's absurd - it should be way down on the priority list for
>>the country with everything else going on. I still think that anything
>>you can propose that wouldn't bankrupt the country to administer is
>>going to have its own set of new flaws. I have no vested interest in
>>the electoral college - but if someone wants to propose something to
>>replace it, lets make darn sure we're not going to create something
>>worse (and, as with many "progressive" ideas, some problems may not be
>>possible to anticipate).
>
>Sorry, Bill, it's a simple solution with little time needed to debate
>or implement. Tally the votes like they do now, submit the total
>like they do now, add them up instead of applying the margins to
>the electoral votes. All done.
>
>Bob
Interestingly, GA had a system similar to the electoral college for governor.
The county unit system -- every county a candidate carried was worth one vote.
Federal courts ruled it unconstitutional as it was NOT "one man, one vote."
 
In article <3evqivkopt96sni56ohcp0a9o1c8ei31do@4ax.com>,
'nuther Bob <yetanotherphonyaddress@noplacereally.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 14:01:32 -0500, "Douglas A. Shrader"
><dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Here is one map, not the one I had, but it shows why your popular vote idea
>>won't work. Ignoring all rural areas, which are normally Republican, just to
>>assure your Democrats will win every election would, I am sure, start an
>>uprising to dwarf the Civil war.
>>http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/countymap.htm
>
>
>Who cares about a map ? Every person in the USA deserves an equal
>share of the vote for President. It doesn't matter if it's a city
>vote or a country vote. Every vote counts equally. This has nothing
>to do with Republicans or Democrats. It has to do with equal weight
>for _every_ vote in _every_ town, city, and state.
>
>Bob
>
>

Doug thinks every square mile deserves an equal vote, I guess.
 
In article <7hfXa.41191$cF.14886@rwcrnsc53>,
RickMerrill <RickMerrill@comcast.net> wrote:
>'nuther Bob wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 18:21:26 GMT, "David Allen"
>> <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>To derive a national count from the aggregate of each state election is not
>>>to be representative of a real national popular election. It's similar to
>>>the baseball analogy where number of runs over a season doesn't correlate
>>>perfectly with number of games won. There is a correlation, but it's a
>>>loose one. Hope that helps.
>>
>>
>> Stop dancing. One person, one vote, all done.
>>
>> Bob
>
>One man, one vote - never has been that way! For example,
>senators represent states, not population.

Except such a system is illegal in the states themselves -- all members of the
legislature must be chosen by population proportion to ensure "one man, one
vote."

>
>You are free to try to get the rules of the game changed,
>but until then, play by the rules and let up on the whining. - RM
>
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Discodevon
Jeep Cherokee 2.7 crd 2002
Replies
9
Views
2K
Firebobby1
Firebobby1
Slooby
P38 2.5 DSE Spares or Repairs [SOLD]
Replies
14
Views
2K
Grrrrrr
Grrrrrr
Blob
L322 Brake replacement opinions, Brembo discs? Yellow Stuff pads? What do you run?
Replies
3
Views
297
BIGrabbit100
B
Arctic2
Freelander 2 (LR2) Front Springs.
Replies
8
Views
956
Freddie17
Freddie17
R
TD4 2.2 Clutch Pedal Release - Normal Shuddering or Something to Check?
Replies
1
Views
369
Alteredtech
Alteredtech