swede316 Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 I agree they are not US citizens...but do they count againt the census? If they don't...are they imaginary..They do live here yet don't exist?
Buftex Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 Okay, let's throw away the 2000 election. It was a mess, and nobody will agree what happened. Let me ask you this, about the 2004 election. Just say Kerry had won Ohio (he only lost by 130,000 votes, or so, last I heard). He would have then won the election, even though Bush still would have finished with 3million more popular votes. I think some of you on the board would be singing a different tune. Many on the right would be clamoring for an investigation.
Alaska Darin Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 Okay, let's throw away the 2000 election. It was a mess, and nobody will agree what happened.Let me ask you this, about the 2004 election. Just say Kerry had won Ohio (he only lost by 130,000 votes, or so, last I heard). He would have then won the election, even though Bush still would have finished with 3million more popular votes. I think some of you on the board would be singing a different tune. Many on the right would be clamoring for an investigation. 104455[/snapback] I wouldn't. The Electoral College was a brilliant solution to an age old problem. It still is.
JimBob2232 Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 Okay, let's throw away the 2000 election. It was a mess, and nobody will agree what happened.Let me ask you this, about the 2004 election. Just say Kerry had won Ohio (he only lost by 130,000 votes, or so, last I heard). He would have then won the election, even though Bush still would have finished with 3million more popular votes. I think some of you on the board would be singing a different tune. Many on the right would be clamoring for an investigation. I also wouldnt me. Okay, perhaps I would be frustrated, but lets look at this objectively. Bush really doesnt have national appeal. The entire northeast and west coast voted strongly against him, while the entire middle of the country voted strongly for him. The EC is in place to require a candidate to have national appeal. Bush is very borderline in his "national appeal". Its just the way it is.
Rich in Ohio Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 I expect some interesting responses! 104308[/snapback] This system was set up by a group of men who knew what the hell they were doing. Just because the libs are unable to win it this way, they want to change the rules to somehow favor them. Kind of the "I'm gonna take my ball and go home now if you don't change the rules" routine. Losers are losers, and they will always be losers. Nuff said.
/dev/null Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 Bush really doesnt have national appeal. 104549[/snapback] and kerry had even less national appeal. just look at the red vs blue county map
Adam Posted November 7, 2004 Author Posted November 7, 2004 This system was set up by a group of men who knew what the hell they were doing. Just because the libs are unable to win it this way, they want to change the rules to somehow favor them. Kind of the "I'm gonna take my ball and go home now if you don't change the rules" routine.Losers are losers, and they will always be losers. Nuff said. 104622[/snapback] 1. I am not a liberal, or a democrat 2. Bush would have won the popular vote anyways- how would this favor Frankenstein?
Mickey Posted November 7, 2004 Posted November 7, 2004 If you went by popular vote...Cali, Texas, FL and NY would be the only states that mattered. 104309[/snapback] That would be true if people voted by states but they don't. As many people as there are in California, there are plenty of people elsewhere. As it is now, we do vote by states and because we do, any state that is not a "battleground" state is ignored. Even if you are right, that means we have a choice between having the states with the most people ignored and the election being decided by a handful of voters in Ohio and having the election decided by the vast majority of people with New Mexico being ignored. I guess if I had to make a call, I'd say it would be better to ignore New Mexico and Iowa and the 2.1 million voters there than to ignore California and New York and the 16.4 million voters there. Pretty easy call actually.
OGTEleven Posted November 7, 2004 Posted November 7, 2004 That would be true if people voted by states but they don't. As many people as there are in California, there are plenty of people elsewhere. As it is now, we do vote by states and because we do, any state that is not a "battleground" state is ignored. Even if you are right, that means we have a choice between having the states with the most people ignored and the election being decided by a handful of voters in Ohio and having the election decided by the vast majority of people with New Mexico being ignored. I guess if I had to make a call, I'd say it would be better to ignore New Mexico and Iowa and the 2.1 million voters there than to ignore California and New York and the 16.4 million voters there. Pretty easy call actually. 105493[/snapback] Mick, These people in the populous states are "ignored" during the campaign, not during the administrations. Being ignored during a campaign process is not the worst punishment I could imagine. It actually feels like a reward. The candidates are trying to get the votes to win the election. This year's were in Ohio. So what? The concept of each state mattering is valuable to our overall society. If you ask me it has been watered down too much over the years for us to be able to see enough of it.
Campy Posted November 7, 2004 Posted November 7, 2004 Being ignored during a campaign process is not the worst punishment I could imagine. It actually feels like a reward. 105500[/snapback] AMEN brother!!!
Recommended Posts