NationStates Jolt Archive

A bipartisan group of former congressmen have started a campaign to institute a naitonal popular vote (http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/nation/13936431.htm)

I wish them luck, but as long as the shrubites see the electoral college as an advantage, which they obviously do (just look at the petulant nose thumbing in 2000) chances of seeing it reformed are less than slim.

Another problem is that the Electoral College is seen as an advantage to small states, even though most of those states will never lay eyes a presidential candidate. Pure and simple, a system that allows the candidate with less votes to become president is a system in horrible, desperate need of reform.

Bizump...

I agree. We definitely need a popular vote system. If the majority of people can vote for a guy, and that guy loses, there's a flaw in the Republic, because the people's will was not done.

And for the bushies here, you have a stake in this too. In '04 Bush won the popular vote, but the entire election came down to a squeeker in Ohio. If Kerry had won Ohio you'd be the ones complaining. Then "something would have to be done because it happened in two consecutive elections."

Gore didn't have a majority. He had a plurality.


(sigh)

Why we have the electoral college:

1) States' rights... each person is not only a citizen of the USA, but also a citizen of their state.

2) Keeps politicians interested in places like Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, etc... small states aren't ignored.


Imagine life with a popular presidential vote:
Only people in major metropolitan areas would matter to the politicians. States with less than, oh, 5 electoral votes in the electoral system would lose virtually all importance.

Gore didn't have a majority. He had a plurality.


(sigh)

Why we have the electoral college:

1) States' rights... each person is not only a citizen of the USA, but also a citizen of their state.

2) Keeps politicians interested in places like Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, etc... small states aren't ignored.


Imagine life with a popular presidential vote:
Only people in major metropolitan areas would matter to the politicians. States with less than, oh, 5 electoral votes in the electoral system would lose virtually all importance.


Dude, read the linked article about it before you get on your high horse.

1) States' rights... each person is not only a citizen of the USA, but also a citizen of their state.

Dude, why are you the only federation in the world to assume that states rights are a valid concept ad nauseam?

2) Keeps politicians interested in places like Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, etc... small states aren't ignored.

Dude, why do you have a legislative? Is the president supposed to be interested in places like Wyoming, Idaho etc? To do what?

2) Keeps politicians interested in places like Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, etc... small states aren't ignored.


Imagine life with a popular presidential vote:
Only people in major metropolitan areas would matter to the politicians. States with less than, oh, 5 electoral votes in the electoral system would lose virtually all importance.

except that this is already the case. if anything, the electoral college makes it worse.

Gore didn't have a majority. He had a plurality.


(sigh)

Why we have the electoral college:

1) States' rights... each person is not only a citizen of the USA, but also a citizen of their state.

2) Keeps politicians interested in places like Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, etc... small states aren't ignored.


Imagine life with a popular presidential vote:
Only people in major metropolitan areas would matter to the politicians. States with less than, oh, 5 electoral votes in the electoral system would lose virtually all importance.

Plurality systems of democracy are ancient relics which need replacing in both Canada and the United States. In this particular case, we're only talking about the Presidential race. Nobodies talking about redistributing the number of senators or congressman based on an even distribution of population. Idividual States still have power, after all, they have their own legislatures.

Dude, why are you the only federation in the world to assume that states rights are a valid concept ad nauseam?



Dude, why do you have a legislative? Is the president supposed to be interested in places like Wyoming, Idaho etc? To do what?

Why should a president be more interested in the people of New York than he is in the people of Wyoming?

If you take away Wyoming's 2 or 3 electoral votes (or however paltry few they have), candidates would likely have no interest in Wyoming.

---------------------------

anyhow, this is from Wiki:

Scholars continue to debate the reasons for the adoption of the Electoral College. Some believe it was created to protect small states. Others believe that the Founding Fathers intended to create a system of indirect election whereby the electors would come to a carefully considered decision to nominate a selection of good candidates and then the House of Representatives would again make a careful consideration of the names presented. Others still believe the system of electing the President was given little thought beyond a desire to have George Washington as the first President, pointing in particular to the extremely casual way in which the Vice President was selected, and that Congress was intended to be the most important part of the Federal government.

Still others hold that it was devised as a compromise between the election of a President by the states and by the Congress. Initially the electors were selected by the state legislatures, and it was not until later that states started holding a popular poll for the presidential elections to determine how they would cast their votes. Yet another theory contends that the Framers strongly opposed the development of political parties, as evidenced by the total absence of any reference to parties in the Constitution, and were aware of the difficulties in mass communication, and were attempting to devise a system that would function well with neither cheap, instantaneous, nationwide communication nor a strong political party system.

The Electoral College may have been implemented to negotiate compromises in cases of a split vote where each state was pushing its own native son. The United States presidential primary and the emergence of a two-party system has largely rendered this historical. One lasting theory is that the Electoral College helps soften the effect of votes from densely populated centers (major United States cities and the District of Columbia) which may steer away from the concerns of the rest of the country. Others have noted that the Electoral College enabled the Founding Fathers to deftly incorporate the Connecticut Compromise and three-fifths compromise into the system of choosing the President and Vice President, thereby sparing the convention further acrimony over the issue of state representation.

Regardless of why the system was chosen, the term "Electoral College" is not used in the United States Constitution, and it wasn't until the early 1800s that it came into general usage as the unofficial designation for the group of citizens selected to cast votes for President and Vice President. It was first written into Federal law in 1845, and today the term appears in 3 United StatesC. section 4, in the section heading and in the text as "college of electors."

Section 1, Article II of the Constitution says, "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector." It then goes on to describe how the electors vote for President.

Originally, each elector voted for two persons, with no designation for President or Vice President. The person receiving the greatest number of votes (provided that such a number was a majority of electors) would be President, while the individual who was in second place became Vice President (and did not need the backing of the majority of electors; in theory the Vice President could have been elected with the support of as few as two electors if every other elector either cast the sole vote for a candidate, voted for a virtually unanimous choice for President or did not cast their second vote). If no one had received a majority of votes, then the House of Representatives would choose between the five highest vote-getters, with each state casting one vote. In such a case, the person who received the highest number of votes but was not chosen President would become Vice President. If there was ever a tie for second, then the Senate would choose the Vice President.


Tally of electoral votes for the 1800 Presidential election, dated February 11, 1801.The original plan, while working extremely well in the absence of political parties and organized presidential campaigns, broke down almost immediately once they developed. In 1796, for instance, rumors of conspiracies led to some Federalist electors only using one of their two votes so that their Presidential candidate John Adams came in first, but the Democrat-Republican candidate for President Thomas Jefferson placed second. Thus, the President and Vice President were from different parties. Although a situation like that is arguably not a problem, the situation that occurred in 1800 was most certainly a problem: Republicans (that is, the 18th- and early 19th-century party, later known as Democratic Republicans, that eventually became the modern Democratic party) Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied the vote. Jefferson was the intended presidential contender, while Burr was the Vice Presidential one. However, electors did not differentiate between the two, nor could they under the system of the time, and all electors supporting them cast one vote for each. The electors for the Federalists, however, arranged it so that one elector voted for the Federalist presidential candidate but not for the Vice Presidential candidate. They voted instead for another person altogether. The election was thrown into the House of Representatives, which was controlled by the Federalists. The House voted 35 times, with Alexander Hamilton offering his support to Thomas Jefferson with the condition that Jefferson support certain Federalist policies and office-holders. Jefferson won on the thirty-sixth ballot after Delaware's only Representative, James Bayard—a Burr supporter—abstained in exchange for the terms Hamilton had originally offered. Burr became Vice President. For this, and numerous other reasons, Burr held a grudge against Hamilton, whom he later killed in a duel.


Tally of electoral votes in the 1824 Presidential election, showing the number of votes received by the four candidates: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, William H. Crawford, and Henry Clay, dated February 9, 1825.To address the problem of the 1800 election, the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed. It made some minor and major changes to the Constitution. First, electors would no longer cast two ballots for President. Instead, they would cast one vote for President and a separate vote for Vice President. The individual receiving a majority of votes in a particular election would be elected. If no one received a majority in the presidential election, then the House of Representatives would choose between the top three, again voting by state. Similarly, the Senate chooses between the top two in the case of the Vice President. Under the new rules, the House of Representatives did elect the President on one more occasion: the 1824 four-way race between Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, William H. Crawford, and Henry Clay resulted in no candidate receiving an absolute majority of electoral votes. The House elected Adams on the first ballot, even though Jackson received the most electoral and popular votes.

Under the provisions of the Constitution there is no requirement for a state to poll its voters. The state legislature can in theory appoint the electors as it likes, and, until 1860, South Carolina did just this. Furthermore, in 1788 the concept of "democracy" was widely seen as analogous to mob-rule, while the idea of political parties was equally frowned upon, and so the idea of a directly elected head of state was anathema to many. The Federalist Papers suggest that it was commonly assumed by the Founding Fathers that most Presidents would be selected by the House of Representatives, and the order of the articles of Constitution, in which Congress is established in Article I and the presidency in Article II, supports this view.

About time. In the case of the presidential election, there should be a popular vote.

-snip-
Why would a president be interested in the votes of some states over the others if the vote evens out? He would not be able to "see" any states, would he? They'll either get lost in the electorate, or remain the very same. Now, he knows for sure how many people he has to influence in a certain state in order to get the minimal mark that'll make him win that state. That is, if the state is in some way important for his arithmetics.
But that is besides the point, since, if the President has re-election as his goal, he still isn't able to tell for sure how his measures are seen at state level (while he might be able to anticipate changes in opinion at a central level).

As to why the electors are around, I stand by the easy answer: because an election would otherwise have taken a year or so in the early 1800s. The USians could not have compared it with anything else, since direct universl suffrage was not present, nor feasible, anywhere in the world. But the world has, for the most of it (and, where intended, of course), way beyond the 1820s.

Originally, the problem came up during the Constitution Convention. When they came to the president, they weren't sure how to elect him. One group wanted the House to elect him, one wanted the states to do it, and the third (and smallest group) wanted a popular election. They decided on a compromise: the people would vote for the electors, the electors would then cast their ballots for what the people voted on, and then if a clear winner wasn't decided the House would get to vote on who was the prez. The delegates thought that the House would choose the president 19 times out of 20. But it was the opposite. It would suprise them that their jury-rigged system is still being used today.

I would say go with popular elections...but, as a political science major, the people are too stupid to decide that. Let there be a little variable that those who know the country and politics can exploit.

2) Keeps politicians interested in places like Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, etc... small states aren't ignored.
No, it doesn't. That is a delusion of people who are pro-electoral college and can't objectively observe campaign trails.

Elections have becom so polarized politicians have no reason to go to certain states more than once just for show. Not to mention the fact that states like California has 18x more electoral votes than Wyoming - not 18 more, 18x more.

Removing the electoral college would influence politicians to travel to previously polarized states because there are people in every state who vote outside of the state majority vote.

No, it doesn't. That is a delusion of people who are pro-electoral college and can't objectively observe campaign trails.

it's strange, cause it's an empirical statement. so one would think that a person making it would have reasons to believe it true other than wishing. but they don't. why not find a claim that's true to use for support?

The BBC said during the latest election that the electoral college system was indrofuced to maintain slavery. I could use goole to check this, but as I;, here, Ill ask you lot instead.

Gore didn't have a majority. He had a plurality.


(sigh)

Why we have the electoral college:

1) States' rights... each person is not only a citizen of the USA, but also a citizen of their state.

2) Keeps politicians interested in places like Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, etc... small states aren't ignored.


Imagine life with a popular presidential vote:
Only people in major metropolitan areas would matter to the politicians. States with less than, oh, 5 electoral votes in the electoral system would lose virtually all importance.

Oh yah, with out the electoral college, the vote of city dwellers would be equal to that of the vote of a farmer in podunkia: one person, one vote. Has anybody actually seen it extrapolated into how many effective votes one persons vote is in each state?

Oh yah, with out the electoral college, the vote of city dwellers would be equal to that of the vote of a farmer in podunkia: one person, one vote. Has anybody actually seen it extrapolated into how many effective votes one persons vote is in each state?

No, but if you have a link, I'd certainly be interested in seeing it.

Imagine life with a popular presidential vote:
Only people in major metropolitan areas would matter to the politicians. States with less than, oh, 5 electoral votes in the electoral system would lose virtually all importance.

And states that are strongly for one candidate or another are ignored under the current system. You think either candidate actually care to go to Wyoming, or Idaho, or Montana, or Kansas under the electoral college? No, because they're all strongly Republican. Same for states like Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Texas. It's the exact same problem under the current system that you use to deride the proposed system. The winner take all electoral college system is even worse than the popular vote system because it takes all the problems of the popular vote system and adds to it a skewing of influence of voters in smaller states.

Forget either the electoral college or the popular vote.

If we switch to a popular vote, the candidates only need to focus on the coastal states (heaviliest populated) and neglect the issues of the inner states (lesser populated).

I propose a preferential system: you rank the candidates in the order of most to least preferred. Candidate with the highest overall ranking wins the election.
Oh, and the VP race should become separated from the presidency once again

The BBC said during the latest election that the electoral college system was indrofuced to maintain slavery. I could use goole to check this, but as I;, here, Ill ask you lot instead.

well, sort of. some of the slave states' delegates to the constitutional convention objected to the idea of direct election because they had effectively cut their voting population down by half or more. virginia, which had the most population by far, had approximately as many voters as new jersey, since nj gave women the right to vote during the revolution. by using the electoral college, they got to have all those slaves counted towards their presidential choice (at 3/5 discount, at least).

Forget either the electoral college or the popular vote.

If we switch to a popular vote, the candidates only need to focus on the coastal states (heaviliest populated) and neglect the issues of the inner states (lesser populated).

I propose a preferential system: you rank the candidates in the order of most to least preferred. Candidate with the highest overall ranking wins the election.
Oh, and the VP race should become separated from the presidency once again

lol, that could result in some pretty weird Prez/VP combinations!

If we switch to a popular vote, the candidates only need to focus on the coastal states (heaviliest populated) and neglect the issues of the inner states (lesser populated)

Coastal states are not that much more populated than other states. For example, Ohio's population is 11,353,140. That's a lot of votes -- not something to ignore.

Wouldn't this require a constitutional amendment?

The Electoral College never really made sense. The reasons for it were pretty stupid.

The Electoral College never really made sense. The reasons for it were pretty stupid.

Sounded sound to me at the time.

Wouldn't this require a constitutional amendment?

getting rid of it entirely would. but the constitution says nothing about how electoral votes must be decided - so this project is going to go to a bunch of states and get them to do it differently. the 'only takes effect after 270 votes worth of states' clause will probably be helpful in avoiding the argument that came up when colorado tried it last time around.

The Electoral College never really made sense. The reasons for it were pretty stupid.

wasn't the main reason because the founding fathers feared mob rule and the illiterate masses? the electoral college allowed the educated to vote and to matter. they feared exploitation of the illiterate majority. originally, the electors need not follow what their states did.

If we switch to a popular vote, the candidates only need to focus on the coastal states (heaviliest populated) and neglect the issues of the inner states (lesser populated).

actually, that's a problem created by the winner-take-all electoral college system. the big populous states' voters do not vote as a solid mass, but split their votes like 60-40. but the current electoral college system takes those 60 and pretends they were 100% instead. therefore, it actually makes the big states (especially if they are at all competitive) even more valuable than they would be under a direct vote.

if you only got the votes cast for you, you'd need to make up for the 3 million votes you didn't get in new york (that are effectively given to you by the current system) somewhere else.

wasn't the main reason because the founding fathers feared mob rule and the illiterate masses? the electoral college allowed the educated to vote and to matter. they feared exploitation of the illiterate majority. originally, the electors need not follow what their states did.

not really.

it was more about regionalism, taking advantage of the 3/5th compromise again, and making sure that washington got to be president.

The BBC said during the latest election that the electoral college system was indrofuced to maintain slavery. I could use goole to check this, but as I;, here, Ill ask you lot instead.

Actually... no that wasn't it.

'bout time they try and fix it again.

Actually... no that wasn't it.

so getting slaves to count towards electors was just an accident?

so getting slaves to count towards electors was just an accident?

Slaves counted towards electors to guarantee that the Southern states were satisfied. Anyway, white men counted more towards electors than slaves did.

so getting slaves to count towards electors was just an accident?

3/5ths compromise in the constitution ring a bell?

Gore didn't have a majority. He had a plurality.


(sigh)

Why we have the electoral college:

1) States' rights... each person is not only a citizen of the USA, but also a citizen of their state.

2) Keeps politicians interested in places like Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, etc... small states aren't ignored.


Imagine life with a popular presidential vote:
Only people in major metropolitan areas would matter to the politicians. States with less than, oh, 5 electoral votes in the electoral system would lose virtually all importance.

a popular vote system would make those states you mentioned more relevent

No one visits them now because they are 60-40 Republican territory. The Republicans don't have to campaign and Democrats don't waste their time.

Big states are irrelevent in the electoral system too. California, Texas, and New York, 1/3rd of the US population between them, are completely off the table in a Presidential election.

A popular vote would mean candidates would have to drum up votes wherever they can get them, not just in swing states like Ohio and Iowa.

Why should a president be more interested in the people of New York than he is in the people of Wyoming?

If you take away Wyoming's 2 or 3 electoral votes (or however paltry few they have), candidates would likely have no interest in Wyoming.


Do you even know the main reason why the electoral college was created? It was because the technology at the time couldn't possibly allow a direct election. Now that we have it, why not use it? Besides those people in Wyoming can see the candidates' ads on TV, they don't have to go to Wyoming to campaign. Speaking of Wyoming, under the current system, your vote counts roughly 3 times more (in Wyoming) than your vote would count in California.

A popular vote would also benefit places where people are more politically active. Imagine you have two states with 10,000,000 people each. In the current system, if one person votes Republican in state A, and 9,000,000 people vote Democrat in state B, each candidate gets the same number of electoral votes.

If there was a popular vote system, then it would encourage overall additional support, because just existing doesn't make your vote worth something anymore (at least, if you're on the winning side of the state)

3/5ths compromise in the constitution ring a bell?

right. and thus using representatives plus senators to determine the number of electors meant that slave states would get a much higher number of votes than they would under a direct election. which is why james madison said as much in objection to the direct election proposal at the convention.

the electoral college - like most bad ideas in american history - was a compromise with slavers.

a question for the small state protectors - when was the last time a person from idaho got elected president? how about montana? one of the dakotas?

now, how many presidents have been from virginia, new york, california, texas, etc?

Do you even know the main reason why the electoral college was created? It was because the technology at the time couldn't possibly allow a direct election. Now that we have it, why not use it? Besides those people in Wyoming can see the candidates' ads on TV, they don't have to go to Wyoming to campaign. Speaking of Wyoming, under the current system, your vote counts roughly 3 times more (in Wyoming) than your vote would count in California.While it is true that the technology at the time prevented a direct election, there is another reason that I haven't seen mentioned here.

The real benefit of the electoral system isn't in getting attention for the smaller states, it is in spreading the control of the election across all the states. Without this system, a corrupt politician would only have to rig the polls at a couple of places and he could easily steal an election. The electoral college system makes this sort of election stealing much more difficult, if not impossible.

actually, that's a problem created by the winner-take-all electoral college system. the big populous states' voters do not vote as a solid mass, but split their votes like 60-40. but the current electoral college system takes those 60 and pretends they were 100% instead. therefore, it actually makes the big states (especially if they are at all competitive) even more valuable than they would be under a direct vote.
But even if we split the electoral votes 60-40 like the state voted, wouldn't that just effectively be a streamlined version of the popular vote? And what about if the vote split doesn't split into whole numbers?

The thing about a preferential vote (my ideal voting system) is that it allows for the majority to soundly express which candidate(s) they think are best, while allowing political minorities to influence who's elected.

election stealing much more difficult, if not impossible.

Impossible? The last two elections have proven you wrong.

Impossible? The last two elections have proven you wrong.
Please, none of that noobish 'BUSH STOLE TEH ELECTION!' crap here. I can't stand him either, but get over the fact that he was elected democratically (at least the second time)! Which is re-enforcing why I dislike democracy

Please, none of that noobish 'BUSH STOLE TEH ELECTION!' crap here. I can't stand him either, but get over the fact that he was elected democratically (at least the second time)! Which is re-enforcing why I dislike democracy

At least I didn't type it in caps. ;)

And no, I will not get over the fact that he was elected democratically because I am a nut-job conspiracy theorist who thinks the voting machines were rigged in Ohio. Sane people who dislike Bush (like you) will probably disagree, though. Please excuse me as I put on my tin foil hat. :)

Speaking of Wyoming, under the current system, your vote counts roughly 3 times more (in Wyoming) than your vote would count in California.
Aka, magic bullshit numbers which don't mean anything. Your vote isn't "worth" more because there is no "value" to your vote. You vote in the majority with the state (except in maybe 2 or 3 states) or your vote doesn't count at all. And assuming it does count, it has to go up against heavy hitters like Florida, California, Texas, and etc who have a crapload more of tangible votes than your state does.

right. and thus using representatives plus senators to determine the number of electors meant that slave states would get a much higher number of votes than they would under a direct election. which is why james madison said as much in objection to the direct election proposal at the convention.

the electoral college - like most bad ideas in american history - was a compromise with slavers.

Actually, the 3/5ths compromise stemmed from the Electoral College. It was already settled on but then the arguement ensued on how to count slaves. The 3/5ths compromise was then hammered out.

And it was only the 3/5ths compromise that was with slavers. It was, in fact, the smaller states that insisted on having something like the electoral College, not the South.

I suggest someone go back and actually learn alittle US history.

Impossible? The last two elections have proven you wrong.

Not this again. This is so far out in left field that it shouldn't even be mentioned anymore because it is inaccurate.

Aka, magic bullshit numbers which don't mean anything. Your vote isn't "worth" more because there is no "value" to your vote. You vote in the majority with the state (except in maybe 2 or 3 states) or your vote doesn't count at all. And assuming it does count, it has to go up against heavy hitters like Florida, California, Texas, and etc who have a crapload more of tangible votes than your state does.
Yes it does. Do I have to explain it to you? (Assuming the ratio of voting population is roughly the same between states would not skew data, only make numbers slightly larger.) There are nearly 500,000 people who live in Wyoming. Wyoming has 3 electoral votes. That means each person has 6.0 x 10^-6 of an electoral vote. There are roughly 34 million people who live in California, and it has 55 electoral votes. That means each person in California has 1.62 x 10^-6 of an electoral vote. Make sense? Good.

Yes it does. Do I have to explain it to you? (Assuming the ratio of voting population is roughly the same between states would not skew data, only make numbers slightly larger.) There are nearly 500,000 people who live in Wyoming. Wyoming has 3 electoral votes. That means each person has 6.0 x 10^-6 of an electoral vote. There are roughly 34 million people who live in California, and it has 55 electoral votes. That means each person in California has 1.62 x 10^-6 of an electoral vote. Make sense? Good.
Magic bullshit numbers which mean nothing, just like Lohan denying she had a drug problem.
When it comes down to it, Wyoming has 3 votes and California has 55, and the people who didn't vote in the majority have 0 votes. The people's votes mean two things: Jack and Squat, and Jack has left the building.

Magic bullshit numbers which mean nothing, just like Lohan denying she had a drug problem.
When it comes down to it, Wyoming has 3 votes and California has 55. The people's votes mean two things: Jack and Squat, and Jack has left the building.
Why do you still refuse to understand it? I spelled it out as clearly as I need to. Can't you understand simple mathematics?

Why do you still refuse to understand it? I spelled it out as clearly as I need to. Can't you understand simple mathematics?

Math makes my head hurt.

Do you even know the main reason why the electoral college was created? It was because the technology at the time couldn't possibly allow a direct election. Now that we have it, why not use it? Besides those people in Wyoming can see the candidates' ads on TV, they don't have to go to Wyoming to campaign. Speaking of Wyoming, under the current system, your vote counts roughly 3 times more (in Wyoming) than your vote would count in California.
As long as ES & S, AG Siemens and Diebold are discounted from the contract, i don't see a problem with that. *nods*
Interesting thread, btw.

Not this again. This is so far out in left field that it shouldn't even be mentioned anymore because it is inaccurate.
Prove it. Not using right-wing blogs or your memory/opinion to qualify it, either.

Prove it. Not using right-wing blogs or your memory/opinion to qualify it, either.

Didn't the major newspaper and tv stations pay for the recount and found out that Bush really did win the state?

Not this again. This is so far out in left field that it shouldn't even be mentioned anymore because it is inaccurate.

Let me mention a couple of reasons that point to a fraud:


Bush far exceeded the 85% of registered Florida Republicans’ votes that he got in 2000, receiving in 2004 more than 100% of the registered Republican votes in 47 out of 67 Florida counties, 200% of registered Republicans in 15 counties, and over 300% of registered Republicans in 4 counties
Bush got more votes than registered voters, and the fact that by stark contrast participation rates in many Democratic strongholds in Ohio and Florida fell to as low as less than 8%
Bush “won” Ohio by 51-48%, but this was not matched by the court-supervised hand count of the 147,400 absentee and provisional ballots in which Kerry received 54.46% of the vote
In every single instance where exit polls were wrong the discrepancy favored Bush
The National Election Pool’s exit polls13 were so far off that since their inception twenty years ago, they have never been this wrong, more wrong than statistical probability indicates is possible

Let me mention a couple of reasons that point to a fraud:
Source please?
You should probably abide by what Straughn said too, and Prove it. Not using ...your memory/opinion to qualify it, either. So produce them sources, please

Let me mention a couple of reasons that point to a fraud:


Bush far exceeded the 85% of registered Florida Republicans’ votes that he got in 2000, receiving in 2004 more than 100% of the registered Republican votes in 47 out of 67 Florida counties, 200% of registered Republicans in 15 counties, and over 300% of registered Republicans in 4 counties
Bush got more votes than registered voters, and the fact that by stark contrast participation rates in many Democratic strongholds in Ohio and Florida fell to as low as less than 8%
Bush “won” Ohio by 51-48%, but this was not matched by the court-supervised hand count of the 147,400 absentee and provisional ballots in which Kerry received 54.46% of the vote
In every single instance where exit polls were wrong the discrepancy favored Bush
The National Election Pool’s exit polls13 were so far off that since their inception twenty years ago, they have never been this wrong, more wrong than statistical probability indicates is possible


I may not know much about politics but one thing I did learn is that exit polls are normally false.

As to Ohio, I don't know nothing about it and would like to see some sort of proof ot it as well as to your accusations in regards to florida because if they were remotely accurate, they would've been blasted all over the news and they have not.

Actually, the 3/5ths compromise stemmed from the Electoral College. It was already settled on but then the arguement ensued on how to count slaves. The 3/5ths compromise was then hammered out.

And it was only the 3/5ths compromise that was with slavers. It was, in fact, the smaller states that insisted on having something like the electoral College, not the South.

I suggest someone go back and actually learn alittle US history.

incorrect on both accounts.

i suggest someone take a look at madison's notes on the convention.

the 3/5 compromise was agreed on in june for representation in both the lower and upper houses, some system presidential electors were talked about in july, and the brearly committee's electoral college proposal was discussed in september.

the delegates who vocally argued against direct election were from the populous states that had slaves. and since the convention had voted against legislative election of the executive on republican grounds, and the southerners didn't like direct election, it fell to a committee to throw something together - and thus, the electoral college.

I may not know much about politics but one thing I did learn is that exit polls are normally false.

hahaha

incorrect on both accounts.

i suggest someone take a look at madison's notes on the convention.

the 3/5 compromise was agreed on in june for representation in both the lower and upper houses, some system presidential electors were talked about in july, and the brearly committee's electoral college proposal was discussed in september.

the delegates who vocally argued against direct election were from the populous states that had slaves. and since the convention had voted against legislative election of the executive on republican grounds, and the southerners didn't like direct election, it fell to a committee to throw something together - and thus, the electoral college.

Still doesn't mean it was a compromise with slavers. The smaller states actually pushed for it. Not the slave holding south.

Didn't the major newspaper and tv stations pay for the recount and found out that Bush really did win the state?
Are you asking me or are you proving it?

Source please?

It's too late and I'm too tired to look up more mainstream sources:

http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/voter_fraud.html

But exit polling is HIGHLY accurate.

It's too late and I'm too tired to look up more mainstream sources:

http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/voter_fraud.html

But exit polling is HIGHLY accurate.

Guess what? They weren't.

You may not know this but not everyone fills out those exit poll things.

Guess what? They weren't.

Wow, you can defy years of accepted statistics in two words. Good for you.

Wow, you can defy years of accepted statistics in two words. Good for you.

All I know is that these so called exit polls have failed in 2 elections in a row. If they were as solid as you said they were, they wouldn't have failed twice.

But then, nothing is 100% perfect now is it?

Guess what? They weren't.
You may not know this but not everyone fills out those exit poll things.
And to strengthen our case, a snip from Wiki's article on exit polling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_polling):
Leaks of exit poll figures for the 2004 presidential election, mainly via the Internet, appeared to indicate a victory for John Kerry. The discrepancies between the exit poll data and the vote count that were outside of the margin of error, coupled with irregularities in the election which seem to explain the discrepancies and what many perceive as evasive tactics by the polling companies, have shed doubt on the legitimacy of that election amongst political activists and some government officials.

Are you asking me or are you proving it?

My bf knows more about this than I do but he did tell me that CNN, Miami Herald and others went down to florida to recount and found out that Bush really did win the election.

All I know is that these so called exit polls have failed in 2 elections in a row.

You think they've failed. I don't. I trust accepted mathematics over Bush's morality (not Bush in particular, but all those involved in the rigging).

And to strengthen our case, a snip from Wiki's article on exit polling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_polling):

I have to question the author of this.

You think they've failed. I don't. I trust accepted mathematics over Bush's morality (not Bush in particular, but all those involved in the rigging).

:rolleyes:

My bf knows more about this than I do but he did tell me that CNN, Miami Herald and others went down to florida to recount and found out that Bush really did win the election.
Well credit for not using blogs or opinions, but usually when i say "prove", i tend to mean "links".
I have some stuff archived someplace that goes both ways. And also Katherine Harris' involvement in the first one.

I wish them luck, but as long as the shrubites see the electoral college as an advantage, which they obviously do (just look at the petulant nose thumbing in 2000) chances of seeing it reformed are less than slim.

http://img80.exs.cx/img80/2826/Bush53.gif

Someday, those in the United States who tried to steal that election will stop spending all their time bemoaning thier failure and blaming others for thier problems. What a fine day that will be. Until then, I revel in the fact that George Bush won both his elections despite the attempted thefts.

http://img80.exs.cx/img80/2826/Bush53.gif

Someday, those in the United States who tried to steal that election will stop spending all their time bemoaning thier failure and blaming others for thier problems. What a fine day that will be. Until then, I revel in the fact that George Bush won both his elections despite the attempted thefts.
See you can tell there's a lot of veracity to this post because ... there's ... a dancing fanatical fundamentalist-fellating psychopath doing a jig on it in a hideous orange number. Well that just cinches it. Hope one of the judges on high bumps off early so another SECOND of your precious, prescient vitality won't be wasted on lowlifes like us.

No, but if you have a link, I'd certainly be interested in seeing it.

:( me too, maybe if I'm bored sometime I'll figuere it out.

Calfornia: Population:33,871,648 Electoral Votes:55 Ratio: 615, 848 : 1

Kansas: Population:2,688,418 Electoral Votes 6, ratio is 448,069 : 1.

This means the people have Kansas' Vote counts for 1.5 of a citizen of California. Is this fair? Maybe, maybe not. But the electoral undeniable benefits small states, and to say otherwise ignores the simple math involved.

Calfornia: Population:33,871,648 Electoral Votes:55 Ratio: 615, 848 : 1

Kansas: Population:2,688,418 Electoral Votes 6, ratio is 448,069 : 1.

This means the people have Kansas' Vote counts for 1.5 of a citizen of California. Is this fair? Maybe, maybe not. But the electoral undeniable benefits small states, and to say otherwise ignores the simple math involved.

you left out an important consideration. how important are california's 55 electoral votes vs. kansas' 6? if a candidate doesn't carry ca, how many other states do they have to take to make up for it compared to not taking kansas.

in small states, each individual has a greater say over the outcome of the state's selection of electors. but that says nothing about the relative importance of their vote to the national outcome.

My bf knows more about this than I do but he did tell me that CNN, Miami Herald and others went down to florida to recount and found out that Bush really did win the election.

it depends on the standard employed. essentially, the florida vote was a tie. different standards (that are all legal) give different outcomes, with it going heavily to gore if we go by clear intentions rather than strictly legal ballots.

you left out an important consideration. how important are california's 55 electoral votes vs. kansas' 6? if a candidate doesn't carry ca, how many other states do they have to take to make up for it compared to not taking kansas.

in small states, each individual has a greater say over the outcome of the state's selection of electors. but that says nothing about the relative importance of their vote to the national outcome.

Nonsense. If a canditate gets 33 milion votes from CA, he will get 55 Electoral Votes. If he gets those same 33 million votes from Small states he will have around 80 Electoral Votes. This is simple math. You have votes based on population plus 2 (Senators). That skews the numbers.

Which is good. The Federal Government is not made up of the people, it is made up of the States. That is why our legislative houses are made up of State reps, not members at large. Federalism is a beautiful concept.

Nonsense. If a canditate gets 33 milion votes from CA, he will get 55 Electoral Votes. If he gets those same 33 million votes from Small states he will have around 80 Electoral Votes. This is simple math.

you math may be simple, but that isn't a point in it's favor.

firstly, you only need approximately 6.5 million votes to win california. secondly, if you got those 6.5 million votes from small states it is entirely possible to not get any electoral votes at all. or to get some and lose some. if you have a fighting chance at both california (or texas, new york, florida, pennsylvania, illinois, ohio, etc) and a bunch of small states, you go for california first.

winner-take-all is a terrible implementation of an already sketchy system in a sham version of what collective decision making should be in a free society.

While it is true that the technology at the time prevented a direct election, there is another reason that I haven't seen mentioned here.

The real benefit of the electoral system isn't in getting attention for the smaller states, it is in spreading the control of the election across all the states. Without this system, a corrupt politician would only have to rig the polls at a couple of places and he could easily steal an election. The electoral college system makes this sort of election stealing much more difficult, if not impossible.

Apparently not impossible, Bush did it.

Calfornia: Population:33,871,648 Electoral Votes:55 Ratio: 615, 848 : 1

Kansas: Population:2,688,418 Electoral Votes 6, ratio is 448,069 : 1.

This means the people have Kansas' Vote counts for 1.5 of a citizen of California. Is this fair? Maybe, maybe not. But the electoral undeniable benefits small states, and to say otherwise ignores the simple math involved.


I'm from Kansas; I voted Gore/Kerry; I lost.