The electoral college is the system is place, and it obviously does not often clash with the popular vote. The fact that the last time it did before 2000 was 112 years earlier does not make it any less valid.topal63 wrote:
LOL (-->), ... In the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, ... and 2000, ...
That wiki article is of course a work of pure genius...FEOS wrote:
Sure...you can focus on that. Or you can read the entirety of both sides of the argument.topal63 wrote:
LOL (-->), ... In the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, ... and 2000, ...
You know...whatever you think is reasonable.
And the arguments "for" (found therein) are so logical and reasonable...
PS: This wiki garbage is utterly off topic, and so is a discussion about the current system (electoral college), so I am done with it.Arguments for the current system:
Requires widespread popular support to win
Enhances status of minority groups
Encourages ... the two-party system
What relevant part don't you understand?
a.) utterly off topic,FEOS wrote:
Because there is no text other than the section headings in the entire article roll...
b.) ... and so is a discussion about the current system (electoral college),
c.) I am done with it.
Go ahead, more power to ya, go start a thread about the current system and electoral college. Enjoy.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-03-20 11:07:31)
Read the arguments for and put it in the context of state's rights versus federal government responsibilities.Mek-Izzle wrote:
It doesn't matter. If you're in a room and there's 10 people and 6 vote for you and 4 don't, why would you expect the 4 to win.
It's not the "big states" fault that they have high populations, it's a moot point. More people voted for Gore, more people wanted Gore. I wouldn't be giving a shit if it wasn't for how Americans talk like they're the greatest thing to Democracy since Sliced Bread. You heard me
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Because there is no text other than the section headings in the entire article ...topal63 wrote:
That wiki article is of course a work of pure genius...FEOS wrote:
Sure...you can focus on that. Or you can read the entirety of both sides of the argument.topal63 wrote:
LOL (-->), ... In the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, ... and 2000, ...
You know...whatever you think is reasonable.
And the arguments "for" (found therein) are so logical and reasonable...PS: This wiki garbage is utterly off topic, and so is a discussion about the current system (electoral college), so I am done with it.Arguments for the current system:
Requires widespread popular support to win
Enhances status of minority groups
Encourages ... the two-party system
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
As if that really changes a thing?FEOS wrote:
Read the arguments for and put it in the context of state's rights versus federal government responsibilities.
I thought we fought a war over this issue 140 years ago...
I'm trying to relay why the electoral college was set up the way it was...well prior to the Civil War.Spearhead wrote:
As if that really changes a thing?FEOS wrote:
Read the arguments for and put it in the context of state's rights versus federal government responsibilities.
I thought we fought a war over this issue 140 years ago...
The Civil War was certainly about states' rights versus federal government responsibilities, but if I remember my history correctly, the electoral college was not one of the causus belli for either the North or the South.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Very good points. America is most hypocritical when we talk of supporting democracy throughout the world. We really don't. We support capitalism.Mek-Izzle wrote:
It doesn't matter. If you're in a room and there's 10 people and 6 vote for you and 4 don't, why would you expect the 4 to win.
It's not the "big states" fault that they have high populations, it's a moot point. More people voted for Gore, more people wanted Gore. I wouldn't be giving a shit if it wasn't for how Americans talk like they're the greatest thing to Democracy since Sliced Bread. You heard me
Besides, the electoral college is proof that we live in a plutocracy, not a democracy or even a democratic republic. The last few elections have been very close, which means there is a lot of potential that these elections could have been thrown. Diebold (a major company in our voting infrastructure) has been part of numerous voting scandals.
The scariest thing about the electoral college is how it essentially makes it easier to throw an election than it otherwise would be, because all it takes is a few manipulated votes in a few key states. If a straight popular voting system was used, all eyes would be on the votes themselves, but with the electoral college, perceptions are muddled along state lines.
Certainly it was worthy of more coverage than it received. If the roles were reversed Fox news would have tore into it. Don't be so naive. Do you always need to go to extremes to try and spin a point?Lotta_Drool wrote:
Sounds like Bob Jones University and Obama's spiritual leader are on the same page.
So what was the connection between GWB and Bob Jones University besides him talking there? Did he agree with them? Belong to thier Church? Have them as Advisors? Proclaim them as Spiritual advisors?
Just posting this thread goes to show how racists Democrat cool-aide drinkers are compared to Republican cool-aide drinkers. This is the best you got, nothing about McCain even. Nothing from this year even. Nothing relevent.
The President spoke at a racist school in 2000, wow, that is much worse than going to a racists church for 20 years and having a racist as a close friend, campaign advisor, and spiritual advisor. Now I hate McCain! /sarcasm
BTW I pulled this story off of a conservative website. I've also been a registered republican for 14 years. It was a legitimate question about the MEDIA.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I remember it being in the news. Can't remember any more than that, but I would guess that it wasn't the biggest story of the week unless it was a REAL SLOW news week. I am talking like Britiany Spears didn't even flash her twat slow.Kmarion wrote:
Certainly it was worthy of more coverage than it received. If the roles were reversed Fox news would have tore into it. Don't be so naive. Do you always need to go to extremes to try and spin a point?Lotta_Drool wrote:
Sounds like Bob Jones University and Obama's spiritual leader are on the same page.
So what was the connection between GWB and Bob Jones University besides him talking there? Did he agree with them? Belong to thier Church? Have them as Advisors? Proclaim them as Spiritual advisors?
Just posting this thread goes to show how racists Democrat cool-aide drinkers are compared to Republican cool-aide drinkers. This is the best you got, nothing about McCain even. Nothing from this year even. Nothing relevent.
The President spoke at a racist school in 2000, wow, that is much worse than going to a racists church for 20 years and having a racist as a close friend, campaign advisor, and spiritual advisor. Now I hate McCain! /sarcasm
BTW I pulled this story off of a conservative website. I've also been a registered republican for 14 years. It was a legitimate question about the MEDIA.
So maybe you can fill me in on the rest of this big story? Did Bush appologize? Did Bush defend Bob Jones's policies? Did Bush state he wasn't aware of their policies? <---Hint Hint Did Bush state he disagrees with their policies? <--- Hint Hint
Do you really think that the " Bush is a racist " story would stick to someone with his history? What is Obama's history on race? Seriously, I don't know because he is a nobody. All I have heard is that he has close relations to a racist preacher, thus I assume he is racist.
Bush didn't research an educational institutes history before he gave a campaign speech and then appologized. hmmmm. Two very different stories.
Last edited by Lotta_Drool (2008-03-20 15:57:11)
Obama's pastor is also a single person. The University was an entire administration making a decision and taking physical action to enforce segregation. They weren't just heated words spoken in the moment, they acted on there hate.Lotta_Drool wrote:
I remember it being in the news. Can't remember any more than that, but I would guess that it wasn't the biggest story of the week unless it was a REAL SLOW news week. I am talking like Britiany Spears didn't even flash her twat slow.Kmarion wrote:
Certainly it was worthy of more coverage than it received. If the roles were reversed Fox news would have tore into it. Don't be so naive. Do you always need to go to extremes to try and spin a point?Lotta_Drool wrote:
Sounds like Bob Jones University and Obama's spiritual leader are on the same page.
So what was the connection between GWB and Bob Jones University besides him talking there? Did he agree with them? Belong to thier Church? Have them as Advisors? Proclaim them as Spiritual advisors?
Just posting this thread goes to show how racists Democrat cool-aide drinkers are compared to Republican cool-aide drinkers. This is the best you got, nothing about McCain even. Nothing from this year even. Nothing relevent.
The President spoke at a racist school in 2000, wow, that is much worse than going to a racists church for 20 years and having a racist as a close friend, campaign advisor, and spiritual advisor. Now I hate McCain! /sarcasm
BTW I pulled this story off of a conservative website. I've also been a registered republican for 14 years. It was a legitimate question about the MEDIA.
So maybe you can fill me in on the rest of this big story? Did Bush appologize? Did Bush defend Bob Jones's policies? Did Bush state he wasn't aware of their policies? <---Hint Hint Did Bush state he disagrees with their policies? <--- Hint Hint
Do you really think that the " Bush is a racist " story would stick to someone with his history? What is Obama's history on race? Seriously, I don't know because he is a nobody. All I have heard is that he has close relations to a racist preacher, thus I assume he is racist.
Bush didn't research an educational institutes history before he gave a campaign speech and then appologized. hmmmm. Two very different stories.
Yep, you've said a mouthful there.Seriously, I don't know because he is a nobody. All I have heard is that he has close relations to a racist preacher, thus I assume he is racist.
Your not getting my point at all. You really can't help but defend the gop. I'm not even attacking them. It's the selective media coverage at Fox news I find hypocritical. Are you really prepared to defend the bias at Fox?
Bush had the appropriate response.
Xbone Stormsurgezz