FLORIDA! FLORIDA! FLORIDA!

[Chris B]

hmmmm.... not to offend all you guys from america or anything, but your election system sounds pretty damned unfair to me!

I always thought that a democratic election/vote meant that you followed the majority!

[Chris B]

Pace.... I can´t speak for the rest of my country (Denmark that is), but the general conception among my friends, co-workers and family is that Gore would be the wise choice for president.

[Raptor^]

Its all about how you define majority though

Most democratic systems define the winner by the number of land areas they control rather than the total number of votes they won.

[Chris B]

Maybe it just seems strange to me because I´m used to a system where we decide things on who gets more votes.

It just seems wrong that you could (in theory) win the U.S. election by 2 mio votes, and still loose the presidency!

By the way..... Any numbers on how many % of voters used that right?? (the right to vote that is)

[This message has been edited by Chris B (edited 08 November 2000).]

[cjolley]

The thing to keep in mind understanding the American system is that we have a Federal type government.
The States are semi-autonomous. Hence, a system that gives weight to votes per State as opposed to per individual.
I voted for Gore and think Bush is a moron.
I thought Bush would win out-right, so I am not too displeased.
Winning the electoral vote and then losing the popular vote will have the nasty effect of putting Bush in the White House and then cutting his nuts off.
Chuck

PS Gore may still win though, I hope.

[Gurm]

You people actually WANT Gore to WIN?

Are you smoking CRACK?!?!?

Do you enjoy being allowed to maintain your constitutional rights? If so, enjoy them while they last, because Al "Evil Inside" Gore will take every last one of them away from you. He'll start with your guns and cars, and his wife will start with your free speech.

From there, who knows?

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[cjolley]

Exactly!
This has been the case with Clinton. Both houses are controled by the republicans.
Add to this the appointed-for-life Judges
and you get the tri-partite checks & balances that every American at least hears about in school. Though, a shocking number don't retain it for very long.
It's just like sausage. Wonderful stuff and works very well but, watching it being made can be stomach turning.
chuck

[cjolley]

Gurm, it's pretty well established that the one that knows about cocaine is Bush. And maybe his Drinkin & Drivin buddy Cheney.
chuck

PS If you start believing your oun propaganda you are headed for a fall.

[ahartman]

Contrary to popular belief, the Electoral College is in NO WAY _required_ to follow the popular vote. 99.9% of the time, they do, but they are not required to.

As for stealing our rights, c'mon. You think Tipper is going to do more damage to your freedom of speech than the religious right? Gurm, even YOU can't be blinded by your ideals enough to believe that...

At any rate, be prepared for 4 years of absolutely NOTHING getting done. An even Senate, a close-enough-to-even House. A president who may win without getting the popular vote. Well done, America.

And my obligatory rant for Naderites...

[rant on]

Happy? Not only did you get nowhere close to 5%, you have given the environment, your baby, right to the Republicans. Your vote really did count!

I am all for a 3rd party, I just think you chose a horrible time to press the issue. There wasn't a single 3rd party candidate worth voting for. Blinded by your goal of securing funding ($7 million, btw) for _A_ 3rd party (I say _A_, because I refuse to believe nearly 3 million Americans REALLY believe what Nader was selling), you handed the election to the worst possible candidate from Nader's supposed point of view.

For $7 million dollars...

[rant off]

[Gurm]

I simply believe that Al Gore's true agenda is so horribly WRONG that anyone, ANYONE, even Bush-the-unprepared-and-perhaps-foolish, is better.

And yes, I think Tipper is more dangerous than the religious right. The Christian-Coalition types have been trying to get stuff banned and censored for 50 years. Tipper, in one bold stroke, actually ACHIEVED some measure of audio censorship.

And frankly, wouldn't you RATHER have a president who has gotten shitfaced a few times? Or maybe toked up? I mean seriously - how out of touch would a teetotaling president be? VERY.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[Wombat]

There was no way I would let Bush put Justices on the Supreme Court. Dubya "There oughtta be limits to freedom" Bush.

[ahartman]

How did Tipper censor anything? She labeled music. She in no way prevented someone from saying anything they wanted to say. Big difference...

Is it so bad that she doesn't want 13 year old kids listening to someone like Eminem spout his racist, homophobic, violent lyrics?

I can't believe you're making me defend her... I disagree with what she did, but on the basis of personal/parental responsibility, not censorship.

[HedsSpaz]

YEAH Gurm!!

Heh, I'm probably going to get myself into trouble by getting into this conversation, but oh well.

I honestly don't care that Bush may or may not have done coke, or had a drinking problem. I don't care that Clinton perhaps did inhale. What's important to me is that they stopped and they aren't doing it anymore. What I don't like about Clinton is that he committed adultery. On a select few issues I tend to agree at least partially with the religious right, so it's no use flinging that argument at me.

Gore may be an extremely intelligent man, but he has no morals. Bush may be an idiot, but at least he conforms to a code of ethics that will keep him from committing treason, which I believe both Clinton and Gore already have done.

Furthermore, Gore's plans for social engineering frighten me. Medicare is setting this country up for bad things. The SS system is horribly fuxored over and it needs to be fixed (preferably be abolishing it), and it that means more deficet spending for a few years, then so be it.

Gore has no concept of what sort of trouble he would be getting us into with his plans.

Something else that people desperately need to learn is this.
Strong Economy !=> Strong gov't
Strong Gov't !=> Strong Economy

In other words, the economy is doing well, and the gov't had jack sh*t to do with it. At the very least people should remember that there is more than just one party in the Gov't. The credit for the good economy CANNOT be given to the Democrats OR the Republicans.

Ok, I'll stop ranting now...

Ian

[cjolley]

Gov, or rather a change in gov did have an effect on the economy.
Clinton made an agreement with Greenspan that Clinton would curb his spending inclinations and go for a balanced budget if Greenspan would lower interest rates.
Both men kept their word and the economy has prospered.
(I might ad that refinancing my house at these lower rates saved me $60,000 in cold hard cash.)
Bush is just as incapable as his father was of seeing the real drain that high interest rates have on the economy because they and everyone they know are net interest earners.
Inevitably a Bush presidency will lead to policies that ratchet interest rates up.
The massive problem with this is that we are so in debt now that while all this did to Bush sr. was stiffle the economy, under Bush jr. it will lead to much more dire consequences.
If Bush wins I will hold my stock savings for no more than 18 months, then I'm dropping them like a hot potato(e).
Maybe I can find some Bush supporters with short term memories to buy them.
chuck

[paulcs]

"Contrary to popular belief, the Electoral College is in NO WAY _required_ to follow the popular vote. 99.9% of the time, they do, but they are not required to."

I believe this is actually incorrect, or more accurately, half incorrect.

I believe 25 states have laws which dictate that their electors must all vote for the candidate that won the popular vote in those states. The other 25 do not.

Talk about State's Rights. I think this election is all about the states now. Real power in an election this close, I think, is skewed towards the states. The number of electors each state appoints is determined by representation in Congress. Representation is the House is a function of population; representation in the Senate is not. Small (population) states like Wyoming and Hawaii have the same number of Senators as California and New York. Therefore, the process favors individual states over the the the will of the majority.

Turnout in California was extremely high yesterday. It appears we voted for Gore in numbers high enough to put him over the top as far as the popular vote goes. Yet, if the Florida numbers hold, the results will be the same as if the entire State of California stayed home. This, in my opinion, is very wrong.

Americans are frequently convinced that the "majority rules." They may be about to receive a harsh lesson in constitutional law. The US Constitution, by design, actually limits the powers of "temporary majorities," typically in favor of the individual. I generally think this is good policy, although I think the Electoral College gives no advantage to the individual and limits the power of the majority more than it should. It's time to get rid of it, once and for all.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net