BF2S Forums Facts about voting in good ol US of A

PuckMercury wrote:

I think this is all conspiracy theory.  The biggest problem with voting in the good ol US of A is this:

Your vote for president does not matter.  Not one bit.  Not even the smallest iota of a sliver of significance.

The president is elected or impeached by one body and one body alone - the Electoral College.  In the past, the popular vote has elected a different president than the Electoral College, and guess what - the president elected by the Electoral College was sworn in.

The only influence we have is indirect.  The Electoral College is comprised of the Senators and Representatives - which we DO directly elect.  The idea is they then cast a vote in a manner best suiting their constituents.  This is obviously where the breakdown is.

Anyway, we're not a Democracy.  We're all republicans.  Even Jesse Jackson.  Why?  Because the United States of America is a republic. 

First, to the original poster, Chuck Hagel and Bush aren't exactly bosom buddies.  They've locked horns on Iraq and other matters of foreign policy quite a few times.

Second, most states have rules requiring that it's electors, who are not Senators or Representatives but rather chosen by the parties, vote for the person that receives a plurality of the popular vote.  The only exceptions are Nebraska and Maine, where it works a little differently.  I believe 24 or so states have laws that provide for the prosecution of faithless electors, or electors that don't follow the will of the popular vote in their state.  So we still have to have the correct guys winning the popular vote.  For instance, had Gore only carried his home state's popular vote he'd have won the Presidency.

Not to mention election fraud...not naming anyone, of course.

Chuckles wrote:

PuckMercury wrote:

I think this is all conspiracy theory.  The biggest problem with voting in the good ol US of A is this:

Your vote for president does not matter.  Not one bit.  Not even the smallest iota of a sliver of significance.

The president is elected or impeached by one body and one body alone - the Electoral College.  In the past, the popular vote has elected a different president than the Electoral College, and guess what - the president elected by the Electoral College was sworn in.

The only influence we have is indirect.  The Electoral College is comprised of the Senators and Representatives - which we DO directly elect.  The idea is they then cast a vote in a manner best suiting their constituents.  This is obviously where the breakdown is.

Anyway, we're not a Democracy.  We're all republicans.  Even Jesse Jackson.  Why?  Because the United States of America is a republic. 

First, to the original poster, Chuck Hagel and Bush aren't exactly bosom buddies.  They've locked horns on Iraq and other matters of foreign policy quite a few times.

Second, most states have rules requiring that it's electors, who are not Senators or Representatives but rather chosen by the parties, vote for the person that receives a plurality of the popular vote.  The only exceptions are Nebraska and Maine, where it works a little differently.  I believe 24 or so states have laws that provide for the prosecution of faithless electors, or electors that don't follow the will of the popular vote in their state.  So we still have to have the correct guys winning the popular vote.  For instance, had Gore only carried his home state's popular vote he'd have won the Presidency.

When it comes to authoritive position including their own, everyone is buddies in the politician bowl.
Popular vote ?


Link to full size image

Last edited by alpinestar (2006-08-03 11:41:53)

As someone mentioned earlier, the Electoral College is not comprised of Senate/House members.  The Electoral votes each state gets is based on population, just like Congress.  The amount of Electors is directly related to the amount of Senators/Representatives.  We do not appoint Electors, rather the national political parties do.  That is the reason you hardly ever see electors not vote for their respective parties candidate (that and laws in some states punishing those who do not vote for their party's candidate).  When you vote for the president, you are not actually casting a vote for the president, you are casting a vote for the elector.  The Electoral College has been around since the founding of this government, therefore the popular vote was never a direct vote for the president.  Further, when a candidate wins a state, he wins all the electoral votes for that state, not just the percentage (with the exception of Maine and Nebraska).  Therefore, a candidate could win the popular vote in California 52%-48%, but still gain all the electoral votes for that state.  This is one of the problems with the Electoral College, highlighted by the 2000 election.  Instead of focusing on votes all over the country, a savvy election team can mathematically calculate how many and which states it must carry to be assured of the win.  This is why certain states are fought so hard over; winning California is much more significant than winning Wyoming.  This virtually assures the candidate does not have to appeal to the nation on a whole, just to certain areas, ambiguously made important by the Electoral College.

I have certain arguments against the Electoral College and the Senate in general, because I see the two as acting in the same way- The Senate makes laws, not necessarily endorsed by their constituents, not necessarily for their constituents.  The Electoral College casts votes not necessarily endorsed by the population, definitely not for the state's population.  We have a fucked up system of Government here in the United States, with a few people making the decisions for all of us.  Look at the voting patterns for your state's Senator or Representative, and see how many things your representative in the Government (both Senate and House) has voted on that has the people he/she represents in the best interest.

My solution?  Every bit of legislation that is passed must be voted through a popular vote.  The Senate and House can still bring up laws to be made, but after that a popular vote must be made.  That is a direct democracy, and that is how I believe this country should run.

As far as automated election screens, I am all for them.  I am also all for the government heavily regulating them.  These machines should not be connected to each other in any way.  There needs to be a paper trail to follow when the need arises (which it will).  There needs to be impartial oversight on these machines, just like there still needs to be impartial oversight on the Presidential Election.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-08-03 14:24:44)

WHO CARES!!! this is such a worthless topic!

elite wrote:

WHO CARES!!! this is such a worthless topic!

for 13 year old it is.

kessel! wrote:

nice work!
i still think gore won.

but without the war in iraq, would bf2 be what it is today?

of course he did! as long as you ignore the fact that the 3 counties in question were hand re-counted by Democrats, since they were democratically controlled counties with dem staffed polling stations, counting "confusing" ballots designed by a democratic commission, and each successive recount increased the margin of victory for Bush

for the record, I would like a paper trail, but exit polls are horribly inaccurate and should never be used to gauge the outcome of an election, more often they seem to be used to browbeat ppl into voting a certain way
"look, everyone else is doing it!!", but the rest of it seems to be tired reruns of the same old bs accusations, libs have a tendency to persecute on the "severity of the charge" as opposed to the "veracity of the facts"

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-08-03 19:31:28)

YOU LOST!!!!!

GET OVER IT!!

Do the world A FAVOR, scratch off your gay Gore/Lieberman stickers as well as your Kerry/Edwards!!!

This argument is soooooo played out its rediculous!!! Bush is in his SECOND TERM by the way, so maybe 2008 eh guys . . .  maybe then you'll get a "fair" election!

Oh yea explain how an extra 150,000 people who were dead by the way, voted for JFK, so he could win Illinois, thus winning the presidency over Nixon!! Kennedy won by a bare 9,000 votes, and Mayor Daley, who held back Chicago's vote until late in the evening, provided an extraordinary Cook County margin of victory of 450,000 votes. NOW THATS VOTER FRAUD!!!!!

Last edited by fadedsteve (2006-08-03 19:50:17)

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

You bush haters(and Ignorant Folks from other countries) Are a pretty fucked up bunch.

Good post, But hell if ANYONE was to dig far enough, you could find Bad things on Anything. On every Dem in the party, on EVERY company in the world in fact. So this is no Big news to anyone who pays attention to propaganda........ I use to be 100% supporter of GW, But Since have been declining in my Support. Around 30% now matter of fact. But it surely doesn't have anything to do with the fictitious Claims that the elections were bought.

Im a folk from other country and  guess what I hold american citizenship, believe it or not you have immigrant blood flowing in your vains too so get over it.

Bush as president ? He can barely read "My Pet Goat"

Last edited by alpinestar (2006-08-03 20:44:36)

elite wrote:

WHO CARES!!! this is such a worthless topic!

don't read it then junior.

rh27 wrote:

All I can say is I am glad I don't live in America.

Privatised governing of votes is not a democracy.

Quoted For Truth.

spastic bullet wrote:

*Looks of stunned confusion*
"And we here at NBC Election '08 are going to have to call Utah for Ralph Nader, at... 99%... of the vote...?!"

!!! +1