It elects everyone but the president. How can you call it meaningless?
I think you might be having a harder time getting over it, JT. Conservatives seem to react with puzzling defensiveness and anger and cursing whenever the popular vote in the 2000 election is brought up. It's gotta be nagging at them.
A persistent doubt in the back of their mind. That's unsettling.
"It elects everyone but the president. How can you call it meaningless?"
The people of Iraq voted in a popular vote 100% for Sadam, how's that for meaningless! The electoral college has been around for quite some time now, get over it! The popular vote didn't get me my promotion at work either. It doesn't elect people on things like the municipal board or commissions. It doesn't elect people in cabinet positions. It doesn't elect the policy making judges. The popular vote in the New Jersey primary for the Dems was for a guy that decided to quit because he couldn't win so a few individuals could pick his successor.
FYI to all the liberals, you have had since 1888 to change this system if you didn't like it. Bush is not the first president to lose by popular vote, and they called that last guy President, too!
They count the votes of the electors which, by the way, have no obligation to the voters. They may vote for anyone they choose regardless of how people voted in their state.
Why do you guys care whether we get over it or not?
Why don't YOU move on?
When the red state/blue state debate starts is when we really see there are stark differences between Republicans and Democrats. I can't remember which color went for Bush, but when I hear people say that they are the states that "make America work" it starts opening things up for interpretation.
You know what they're thinking -- guys like Limbaugh who pander to voters in the Bush colored states. "Greatest generation heartland of America folks." You know those Gore-colored states -- northeastern, metropolitan, California. YOU KNOW WHO LIVES THERE!
There's a few exceptions across the country. But that code has been cracked.
To determine what kind of person will be our electorate. If a majority chose the Democrat's nominee, someone like Rick would be chosen to make the electoral vote. By that I mean someone who would obviously not vote for the Republican nominee.
There is no law saying that he cannot change his mind and vote for someone else, but since they are careful who they choose, that is highly unlikely to happen.
By the way, the electoral college worked exactly the way it was designed to in the last election as well as a few other close ones. It was designed to keep a few metropolitan areas from choosing who our president would be and give a slight advantage to the smaller states.
If you remember the red and blue map showing what counties voted for who, there was a lot more that went in favor of President Bush. This is because Al Gore's campaign platform appealed primarily to the special interests of large urban populations while ignoring most of the Rockies, Great Plains and South which was Bush's stronghold. If Gore would have won his home state, he would be President & Florida wouldn't have even mattered.
To determine what kind of person will be our electorate. If a majority chose the Democrat's nominee, someone like Rick would be chosen to make the electoral vote. By that I mean someone who would obviously not vote for the Republican nominee.
so, the popular vote determines the electoral voter
to pretend that the popular vote "don't mean shit" is absurd
You are twisting things a little, but it is somewhat as you state. The electorates are chosen in whatever way the states feel is proper, it just happens to be by popular vote in all states I can think of.
In the end, it is the vote of the electorate that chooses the president and not the popular vote.
The NAACP's top leadership lashed out Saturday at several of the major Democratic candidates for president, calling their intention to skip Monday's candidate forum an ''affront'' to the nation's oldest civil rights organization.
As many as four of the nine candidates have refused to participate in the forum,expressing reluctance to appear on stage with their rivals in a debate format, NAACP officials said...
...''If you can't come to the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization's national conference to lay out what you believe in and the direction you think our country should go in, you certainly have no legitimacy going into black communities asking for votes,'' said Mfume, as he prepared to welcome delegates to the NAACP's annual conference. ``If you can't do a forum where you're simply asked a question and asked to respond, the question is can you really lead?''
I notice that you didn't tell Bud to "get over it", on the contrary...you accused others of bringing it up and not getting over it. Is Bud one of us or one of you?
Because YOU guys continue to bring it up and we have to continue to explain it to YOU
now...if you want to lump us all into the catagory "you guys", certainly you are going to allow the same to be applied to "YOU" meaning you and Bud, right?
Lame. Now we have to debate the meaning of the word "you". I suppose if words like "is" and "sex" are difficult for Dems to figure out, then "you" would be as well. No wonder they think someone flunking and pointing a rifle at his head is more intellectual.
Funny stuff... All a person has to do these days is mention the simple yet historical fact that Bush is the President and the liberal sky falls, as a direct result.
Ah, "Coldfeet"... Martin Heldt's determined and factual pennings a the "Coldfeet-Press". He did a lot of reserach on old GDub, and NOBOBY has yet proved any of his investigative stories as anything BUT truthful. GDubbya is no hero, sorry Dan.
No. He wasn't. In fact I am not sure that any of the presidents that lost the popular vote but won the electoral college were assassinated. Let's see. John Q. Adams wasn't assassinated. Rutherford B. Hayes wasn't assassinated and neither was Grover Cleveland. Did I miss someone?
In any event, the electoral-college Tied in that election and when he finally did win, he won by 1 Vote. Same thing when R.B. Hayes was elected, by the Electoral College? One Vote.
I am not sure but was there even a popular vote in 1800? This site seems to indicate no: http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/results/restable.htmlYou have to remember though that Jefferson's competition was another of his own party Aaron Burr.
Voting is the most important part of any election and since 1960, the percentage of voters eligible to cast votes has steadily declined, and that, is the sad part of the story, and the reason why GDUbbya won at all. One of the reasons of the decline in percentage is that democrats keep insisting on registering people that will not vote.
Yeah...what the heck. It's only our Democratic Process at work, and it's suffering under the strain of people who don't seem to give a damn whether they elect a "Popular" President, or one who wins by default. GDubbya Bush, the Default-President!!! And then there's the people who don't "Really Care".
No one cares about the democraps. They are out of touch with common sense. The system will work fine and democraps will put up a loser. So what? And if you had a grasp of the system you would know Bush won by the rules of the system and not by default. Not that liberals care about rules.
Please detail how you think Bush is the default President. What part of the system broke down? What laws were violated? Let's start there and take it from there.
I need an answer either by e-mail or on the FF site on a question I asked there. If you have already answered I apologize. Just trying to get a consensus.
Oooooo! Zogby polls! Didn't the polls predict a sweeping defeat for Republicans last election?
"Yes, I am saying that he is President by default, because America is LAZY when it comes to VOTING, and that the de"fault", is on the backs of NON-VOTERS." - Fold
The NON-VOTERS don't care who gets in, had they all voted for "NONE OF THE ABOVE" the results would remain the same. I do agree that they are being lazy, but a right to vote is also a right NOT to. Why someone would not take the time to vote?...I have no idea.
Gephardt and Lieberman are having trouble. But between the whole group, they raised about as much as Bush did himself. And Bush can run a pretty lean campaign because he gets to do things, like, land on aircraft carriers for free. Democrats have to spend most of their money every quarter.
The good thing I've been hearing is that, at least people have donated money equal to Bush, but it's just divided among all the Democratic candidates.
Yes, I am saying that he is President by default, because America is LAZY when it comes to VOTING, and that the de"fault", is on the backs of NON-VOTERS.
So are you saying if Gore had won it would have been by default, too?
And Bush can run a pretty lean campaign because he gets to do things, like, land on aircraft carriers for free.
Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) made a tailhook landing on the USS Harry S Truman while it was deployed in the Mediterranean Sea. Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.) paid a tailhook visit to the USS John C. Stennis in San Diego. The carrier was docked and didn't even require air transportation.
Trips by lawmakers and their staff to aircraft carriers are frequently arranged for members and their staff during congressional recesses.
"Gore won in popular votes".
Get over it already.
Popular vote doesn't mean shit in this country.
It elects everyone but the president. How can you call it meaningless?
I think you might be having a harder time getting over it, JT. Conservatives seem to react with puzzling defensiveness and anger and cursing whenever the popular vote in the 2000 election is brought up. It's gotta be nagging at them.
A persistent doubt in the back of their mind. That's unsettling.
"It elects everyone but the president. How can you call it meaningless?"
The people of Iraq voted in a popular vote 100% for Sadam, how's that for meaningless! The electoral college has been around for quite some time now, get over it! The popular vote didn't get me my promotion at work either. It doesn't elect people on things like the municipal board or commissions. It doesn't elect people in cabinet positions. It doesn't elect the policy making judges. The popular vote in the New Jersey primary for the Dems was for a guy that decided to quit because he couldn't win so a few individuals could pick his successor.
FYI to all the liberals, you have had since 1888 to change this system if you didn't like it. Bush is not the first president to lose by popular vote, and they called that last guy President, too!
and they killed him
how many times did the SC decide it?
and tell me, if the popular vote doesn't mean anything, why do we go to the polls in the first place?
It didn't.
Bush 277
Gore 266
Bush 277
 Gore 266
and how did they arrive at these figures?
They count the votes of the electors which, by the way, have no obligation to the voters. They may vote for anyone they choose regardless of how people voted in their state.
how many times did the SC decide it?
Never. If you disagree, please enlighten us.
In D.C. one elector obstained from voting, it kept Gore from receiving 267 votes.
so why do we bother to vote at all?
JT:
"Get over it already"
CSC:
"..now, get over it! "
Why do you guys care whether we get over it or not?
Why don't YOU move on?
When the red state/blue state debate starts is when we really see there are stark differences between Republicans and Democrats. I can't remember which color went for Bush, but when I hear people say that they are the states that "make America work" it starts opening things up for interpretation.
You know what they're thinking -- guys like Limbaugh who pander to voters in the Bush colored states. "Greatest generation heartland of America folks." You know those Gore-colored states -- northeastern, metropolitan, California. YOU KNOW WHO LIVES THERE!
There's a few exceptions across the country. But that code has been cracked.
so why do we bother to vote at all?
To determine what kind of person will be our electorate. If a majority chose the Democrat's nominee, someone like Rick would be chosen to make the electoral vote. By that I mean someone who would obviously not vote for the Republican nominee.
There is no law saying that he cannot change his mind and vote for someone else, but since they are careful who they choose, that is highly unlikely to happen.
By the way, the electoral college worked exactly the way it was designed to in the last election as well as a few other close ones. It was designed to keep a few metropolitan areas from choosing who our president would be and give a slight advantage to the smaller states.
If you remember the red and blue map showing what counties voted for who, there was a lot more that went in favor of President Bush. This is because Al Gore's campaign platform appealed primarily to the special interests of large urban populations while ignoring most of the Rockies, Great Plains and South which was Bush's stronghold. If Gore would have won his home state, he would be President & Florida wouldn't have even mattered.
Why don't YOU move on?
Because YOU guys continue to bring it up and we have to continue to explain it to YOU.
so, the popular vote determines the electoral voter
to pretend that the popular vote "don't mean shit" is absurd
actually, YOUwere the onw who brought up Gore in some sort of bizarre attempt to show that GW is some sort of intellectual
You are twisting things a little, but it is somewhat as you state. The electorates are chosen in whatever way the states feel is proper, it just happens to be by popular vote in all states I can think of.
In the end, it is the vote of the electorate that chooses the president and not the popular vote.
actually, YOU were the onw who brought up Gore in some sort of bizarre attempt to show that GW is some sort of intellectual
When did I start the converstation comparing Gore and Bush? I did respond to the debate, but if you can show me where I started it, please do.
Democrats showing their true side again.
Missing Democrats an 'affront' to NAACP
The NAACP's top leadership lashed out Saturday at several of the major Democratic candidates for president, calling their intention to skip Monday's candidate forum an ''affront'' to the nation's oldest civil rights organization.
As many as four of the nine candidates have refused to participate in the forum,expressing reluctance to appear on stage with their rivals in a debate format, NAACP officials said...
...''If you can't come to the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization's national conference to lay out what you believe in and the direction you think our country should go in, you certainly have no legitimacy going into black communities asking for votes,'' said Mfume, as he prepared to welcome delegates to the NAACP's annual conference. ``If you can't do a forum where you're simply asked a question and asked to respond, the question is can you really lead?''
for once I would agree with Mfume.
actually, Bud (a proud Republican) brought Gore into it here...
Bud 7/12/03 4:52pm
and you continued it two posts later...
Dan Zachary 7/12/03 6:15pm
I notice that you didn't tell Bud to "get over it", on the contrary...you accused others of bringing it up and not getting over it. Is Bud one of us or one of you?
now...if you want to lump us all into the catagory "you guys", certainly you are going to allow the same to be applied to "YOU" meaning you and Bud, right?
Lame. Now we have to debate the meaning of the word "you". I suppose if words like "is" and "sex" are difficult for Dems to figure out, then "you" would be as well. No wonder they think someone flunking and pointing a rifle at his head is more intellectual.
YOU are the one throwing around the word YOU and YOU guys with such abandon.
the fact is, YOUO were wrong when YOU said YOU guys continue to bring it up...unless you consider Bud one of us.
yea...eating pretzels and falling off couches is so smart
shall we discuss how butchering the English language makes one intellectual? or is that pie too high for you?
Forget it Dan. crabs talks in circles on other threads all the time. He's very good at it.
you have confused talking in circles and talking circles around you.
YOU are the one throwing around the word YOU and YOU guys with such abandon.
Prior to this post, I counted 4 times I used "you" and they were in response to Rick and yourself using the word. You have used the word 10 times.
Forget it Dan. crabs talks in circles on other threads all the time. He's very good at it.
He needs something since he doesn't have the facts on his side.
yea...you YELLED it twice in this one sentence...
dispite the FACT that it was Bud who brought it up...now, does Bud fall under the umbrella of "you guys"?
Why don't YOU move on?
You're right. I'll try to ignore the dumb-ass "Gore won" posts in the future.
Funny stuff... All a person has to do these days is mention the simple yet historical fact that Bush is the President and the liberal sky falls, as a direct result.
Five years from now when GW is the President, the leftos will still be bitching about how Gore won the popular vote...back when?
Ah, "Coldfeet"... Martin Heldt's determined and factual pennings a the "Coldfeet-Press". He did a lot of reserach on old GDub, and NOBOBY has yet proved any of his investigative stories as anything BUT truthful. GDubbya is no hero, sorry Dan.
Everyone knows Heldt is a crank.
Bush is not the first president to lose by popular vote, and they called that last guy President, too!
crabbs responded: and they killed him
who was killed?
the last president to lose the popular vote before Bush
No. He wasn't. In fact I am not sure that any of the presidents that lost the popular vote but won the electoral college were assassinated. Let's see. John Q. Adams wasn't assassinated. Rutherford B. Hayes wasn't assassinated and neither was Grover Cleveland. Did I miss someone?
sorry...got some bad info
I think a Republican once told me that JFK didn't win the popular vote...that's what I get for listening to Republicans...mea culpa
In any event, the electoral-college Tied in that election and when he finally did win, he won by 1 Vote. Same thing when R.B. Hayes was elected, by the Electoral College? One Vote.
I am not sure but was there even a popular vote in 1800? This site seems to indicate no: http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/results/restable.htmlYou have to remember though that Jefferson's competition was another of his own party Aaron Burr.
Voting is the most important part of any election and since 1960, the percentage of voters eligible to cast votes has steadily declined, and that, is the sad part of the story, and the reason why GDUbbya won at all. One of the reasons of the decline in percentage is that democrats keep insisting on registering people that will not vote.
Now the "yellowcake" story (yellowcake being lightly processed uranium). Never mind that the president's statement was literally true -- the British government did report what Bush said it reported. Never mind that the statement was more illustrative than anything else -- an exempli gratia of Saddam's ferocious ways.
In my view, a balanced budget amendment will mainly lead to higher taxes -- whether imposed by Congress or possibly by the courts. The negative effects of the higher taxes will overwhelm whatever conceivable benefits might be achieved by eliminating deficits. A federal balanced budget amendment is a very bad idea that should be rejected.
Those past weekend was the filing deadline to the Federal Election Commission on fundraising activities by the presidential candidates.
You'll soon get a pretty good look at who will be the most likely frontrunners among the Democratic candidates.
You'll soon get a pretty good look at who will be the most likely frontrunners among the Democratic candidates.
As if anyone really cares.
Yeah...what the heck. It's only our Democratic Process at work, and it's suffering under the strain of people who don't seem to give a damn whether they elect a "Popular" President, or one who wins by default. GDubbya Bush, the Default-President!!! And then there's the people who don't "Really Care".
No one cares about the democraps. They are out of touch with common sense. The system will work fine and democraps will put up a loser. So what? And if you had a grasp of the system you would know Bush won by the rules of the system and not by default. Not that liberals care about rules.
fold, it is good thing that you don't know how stupid you really are. If you did you wouldn't be able to stand the embarrassment.
Bill,
Please detail how you think Bush is the default President. What part of the system broke down? What laws were violated? Let's start there and take it from there.
And sorry for the interruption but,
jethro,
I need an answer either by e-mail or on the FF site on a question I asked there. If you have already answered I apologize. Just trying to get a consensus.
Oooooo! Zogby polls! Didn't the polls predict a sweeping defeat for Republicans last election?
"Yes, I am saying that he is President by default, because America is LAZY when it comes to VOTING, and that the de"fault", is on the backs of NON-VOTERS." - Fold
The NON-VOTERS don't care who gets in, had they all voted for "NONE OF THE ABOVE" the results would remain the same. I do agree that they are being lazy, but a right to vote is also a right NOT to. Why someone would not take the time to vote?...I have no idea.
Some Dems got money woes
Gephardt and Lieberman are having trouble. But between the whole group, they raised about as much as Bush did himself. And Bush can run a pretty lean campaign because he gets to do things, like, land on aircraft carriers for free. Democrats have to spend most of their money every quarter.
The good thing I've been hearing is that, at least people have donated money equal to Bush, but it's just divided among all the Democratic candidates.
Yes, I am saying that he is President by default, because America is LAZY when it comes to VOTING, and that the de"fault", is on the backs of NON-VOTERS.
So are you saying if Gore had won it would have been by default, too?
And Bush can run a pretty lean campaign because he gets to do things, like, land on aircraft carriers for free.
Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) made a tailhook landing on the USS Harry S Truman while it was deployed in the Mediterranean Sea. Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.) paid a tailhook visit to the USS John C. Stennis in San Diego. The carrier was docked and didn't even require air transportation.
Trips by lawmakers and their staff to aircraft carriers are frequently arranged for members and their staff during congressional recesses.