Bush v Gore

Straight from "USA Today" the county by county US wide election results for your perusal.

All Hands!!! Prepare for impact! (http://fs.huntingdon.edu/jlewis/Outlines/BushCountyMapMandate.htm)

Gore president........ now that should be in humor

None of that info has any bearing on popular vote. It's just a way to confuse people with numbers.

Actual Popular Vote Info. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html)

This is less confusing... I don't really care, because I didn't vote for either of these chodes. I voted for that third guy... man we only needed 48,110,000 more votes... Sooooo close!

Gore should've won

Originally posted by tweb
Gore should won
I agree, only with better grammar. The Electoral College is an antiquated voting system that should have been thrown out 100 years ago. We should go by straight Popular Vote from now on. Until then, we can't even call ourselves a Democracy.

Yeah, Borg, then states like North Dakota and Alaska would have no voice in elections. Real smart.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Yeah, Borg, then states like North Dakota and Alaska would have no voice in elections. Real smart.
States should have nothing to do with it. Because as it is (with the Electoral College and states deciding elections) we are a Republic. And I thought we were supposed to be a Democracy.

"I pledge allegience to the flag, and to the Republic for which it stands"


Sound familiar Borg? Probably not as they no longer allow people to recite this in schools.

Probably not as they no longer allow people to recite this in schools.
I hope you were overexaggerating for the sake of sarcasm, as "they" (the Supreme Court) said that schoolkids cannot be forced to say the Pledge.

Slandering HaVoK - They can repeat the Pledge, just not the "...under GOD...." part, thanks in part to that dickwad out there in the land of fruits & nuts who's more interested in some weird interpertation of politically correct BS and drawing attention to himself than anything else. You'll notice that the clown has no trouble spending money with the phrase "...in GOD we trust..." emblazoned upon it.

Slandering HaVok apologizes and stands corrected. I thought that children could no longer pledge no matter the circumstances. And it changes the entirety of the pledge if you have to remove the "under god" part IMO.

agreed

States should have nothing to do with it.

Wow! You do realize that our country was founded with the strict understanding that there would be a balance of power between the federal and state governments, don't you? If there wasn't a balance, there would have never been a union, and there would be no United States.

Heh, your idea of allowing just a popular vote to decide what's best for our country would basically allow California and New York to decide what's best for the rest of the country, since those stats have a relatively high percentage of population in them. What a nightmare that would be. We'd probably have Arnold Schwarzenager or Hillary Clinton for our next president!!!

Arnie can't be pres. because he was not born in the U.S. (Remember Demolition Man... How fitting) and Hillary shouldn't be allowed to be pres. because she has already fulfilled her 2 terms. And I don't understand how anyone can be against pop. vote. (unless their candidate benefited from the lack)

Oh and BTW... I fail to see the correlation between states with higher pop. and increased candidate selection power. or in other words, how does this formula work?

(C x NY) /PV = AS ~ HC

Plz explain.

Ahnold is an ah-diot.

A couple of years ago, Texas surpassed New York as the 2d most populated state in the Union, behind California.

Question? If there is no brainwashing, then why does it matter what each STATE says, and what not each person says? Why would it matter that the states think, I thought according to you, people had brains and werent fed information from the media.

Well, I hate to say this but we are influenced by the media and the majority of that is liberal. This is mostly due to the fact that most of people that go into the journalistic field are liberal at heart. I don't think it is because "Jews own the media". And unfortunately there is a lot of rhetoric and propaganda going on. But as you pointed out, people do have a mind of their own, and if they wish to make an educated decision on a subject, they should research the facts on their own, and not take everything they see on T.V. at face value.

BTW... How did you aquire this title of grandeur "President of Worms"? As you can see, I am a "Newbie", and therefore ignorant.

Wait! I just made "Junior Member"! Woo-Hoo! Now I need to find me a "Newbie" to haze.

Originally posted by es347fan
A couple of years ago, Texas surpassed New York as the 2d most populated state in the Union, behind California.

Way more than a "couple of years" eh? I'm thinking it's been well over a decade. Minor issue, I know, but it's bothering me!

BTW... errr... How do I put a picture under my name? I know... I'm new... please don't ridicule...

Originally posted by BorgHunter
States should have nothing to do with it. Because as it is (with the Electoral College and states deciding elections) we are a Republic. And I thought we were supposed to be a Democracy.

You convey a misunderstanding of the foundation of our government with this remark. I recommend you read "The Federalist No. 10" of The Federalist Papers but James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay written in 1787.
Here's a link to a copy of the publication: http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_10.html

In this publication, these men justify why the nation should be an extensive republic and not a pure democracy or small republic.

Our founding fathers were very concerned with majorities oppressing minorities, that's why we have a representative system of government.

mY brAiN HUrTs...

I can understand the underlying wisdom there, but keep in mind that that was written during a time when the government was very unstable, and does this form still help the "little guy" as it was supposed to back then?

I don't understand how anyone can be against pop. vote.

Very easy. In a straight popular vote, one vote is worth a fraction of what one vote is worth using state-by-state majorities. There is already a very prevelent feeling that voting is a waste of time because your vote is essentially meaningless since it's one of millions. If you increase it to one of hundreds of millions, it's not going to help. If anything, measures should be taken to make a vote worth more, not less.

Originally posted by aVaTaR
BTW... errr... How do I put a picture under my name? I know... I'm new... please don't ridicule...
LOL. That's quite ironic, considering your username. :D Anyway, go to User CP, Edit Options, and it should be at the bottom, "Change Avatar".

But as you pointed out, people do have a mind of their own, and if they wish to make an educated decision on a subject, they should research the facts on their own, and not take everything they see on T.V. at face value.
But why would they, they watch the news, the news says that they are right, why must the research and find out if the media is lying or not? Maybe a little lazy?

BTW... How did you aquire this title of grandeur "President of Worms"?
It was in the science section(link (http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1892) and Mad Dog said "I think there communist they seem to work real good together. Blibblob I think they're here to take you, they want you as there leader." And since I have been the president of worms.

BTW... errr... How do I put a picture under my name? I know... I'm new... please don't ridicule...
User CP at the top, then Change options, down at the bottom is avatar.

Karankawa, your vote is worth more in your area, but less in the country. The one you vote for wins in your area, but where you live has a small electorial college, so it looses over all. Reverse, your vote could loose in your area, but with larger electorial colleges over all, it could win. Thats the problem, popular votes place your votes at equal tiny worth, instead of unequal larger worths.

Leper, I truly have no idea what to say regarding your post... I lost myself.

Karankawa, your vote is worth more in your area, but less in the country.

Yes.

The one you vote for wins in your area, but where you live has a small electorial college, so it looses over all.

It sounds like you are saying that it doesn't matter who you vote for when you have a small electoral college, because it is worth so little, it will have little impact over who wins the overall election. Presumptious, and I think you are missing my point. Regardless of whether you live in California or Alaska, your vote is worth a higher percentage of the overall votes than if we just used a popular voting method.

Reverse, your vote could loose in your area, but with larger electorial colleges over all, it could win.

Do what??? Okay, I think that you are trying to say the same thing you just said. Which is that if I'm in a state with a small electoral college, that again, my vote is meaningless compared to states with larger colleges.

Thats the problem, popular votes place your votes at equal tiny worth, instead of unequal larger worths.

Okay, after all that nonsense about votes being meaningless in states with small electoral colleges, you shoot yourself in the foot and admit that the popular vote makes a single vote worth very little. I agree with that!!!

I never did deny that popular vote makes everybody's vote worth very little. But at least you have equal say as the rest of your peers, regardless of where you live.

That's still the case using the electoral college, since smaller populated states get fewer votes in the college. The only difference is that basically, you are voting against fewer other voters. If it were my way, states that are worth a lot of votes in the college, such as California, would be subdivided so that the voters of that state didn't have to compete against so many others.

Well heck maybe no one should ever vote ever again seeing how none of our votes count anyway. Someone said Hillary for Prez. That's almost if not more funny then Gore(snore) for Prez.

"If voting could change anything, it would be illegal"- Jello Biafra

That's still the case using the electoral college, since smaller populated states get fewer votes in the college. The only difference is that basically, you are voting against fewer other voters. If it were my way, states that are worth a lot of votes in the college, such as California, would be subdivided so that the voters of that state didn't have to compete against so many others.
To me, that still doesn't make any sense. It seems to be more like a placebo than anything, you think your vote is worth more, but there are still just as many voters in the country, it is just that states beat the shit out of your vote.

You're 15? Man, I'd hate to tell you what I was doing at 15...

But I agree, Blib. So this makes the vote in less populated areas worth more, and more populated areas worth less... I see no justice here. How does that make more sense than doing what most of the country wants? It seems a little biased also... I hate to bring politics into politics but; those places that are less populated are probably rural areas, and rural areas are heavily populated with conservitive minds... that's why GW won the election even though he didn't have the popular vote.

What's good for the heavy populated area may not be good for the country. This is off topic some, but we had to vote on some water bullsh** a few years back up here in NY. Well it would (and did)raise eveyones taxes, but it would only benefit the city.

In away the same goes for the president vote, Hillary might be liked, and good, by city folks standards(:eek:)but she sucks for country folks.