FLORIDA! FLORIDA! FLORIDA!

[Bursar]

I'm not into politics a huge amount, and coming from the UK, only have the barest grip on what actually happens when you guys elect a new president.

One point I do want to mention (that I read on the BBC News site), is that the postal votes need to come in and be counted from Americans living abroad.

Last time, it took an extra 10 days to sort out the results.

Maybe there are not enough votes to completely change things, but it might be enough to change the popular vote of one of the college states.

[Himself]

In Canada each region gets a number of seats based on population, the party with the most number of seats at the end of the day controls the government.

There is less emphasis on the leaders of the parties than the US, in Canada, the leader of a party is only there by the grace of the party members, he knows if he gets into too much trouble, he's out and someone else from the party will run things. There is no direct mandate from the people for a paticular politician to run the country. If the leader of the winning party doesn't win the seat he was running in, he can't sit in the house, so a by election is generally called to make room for him, but the ruling party could just as easily get someone else to do the job. (Use of "he", but it could be "she" quite easily, we've had a woman PM before, and technically one of the leaders in our current election is female, for what that's worth. )

I also think the ruling party in office in Canada has a lot more potential to get things done, what the leader says goes to a larger degree than in the US. There is no stagnant but powerful senate full of partisan opposition to get in the way, ours is a retirement home, they have a veto but they never use it.

[cjolley]

Our system (if you can call it that) is designed to give me, personaly, an ulcer.
How did the Confounding Fathers Know?
chuck

PS http://slate.msn.com/Features/bushisms/bushisms.asp

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

[Gurm]

WHAT is it with people and the Supreme Court? Are you that worried about Roe v. Wade getting overturned? Guess what? IT WASN'T A CONSTITUTIONAL DECISION ANYWAY! The federal government has NEVER been granted, by the constitution or the states, the right to legislate personal health issues.

So what exactly is it that you're worried about if we get some conservative justices?

And we would ALL be better off without Social Security and Medicare. They are crappy programs that need to be abolished. NO, we shouldn't leave seniors out in the cold. But at some point we have to cut people off. Who? I don't know. What is the cutoff point? I don't know.

Obviously it's not fair to tell people who have contributed to SS for 30 years that they will not see the benefits of the system. But those of us who have contributed for 10 years? Yes. 20 Years? Quite possibly.

Because it's a flawed system that CAN'T keep working.

Medicare is an equally flawed system. It CAN'T keep working. You can't get something for nothing!

So if Bush actually overhauls these systems... who cares? Can what he proposes possibly be worse than Al Gore's REAL agenda, which would have those of us in our 20's paying 50% of our income and NOT getting the benefits the people in European countries get?

I already give 25% of my income to the Feds. Next year it might even be closer to 35%. And what do I get for it? Not even the most optimistic person believes that in 40 years when I retire there will still be Social Security, or Medicare. So why am I paying these taxes?

Think, people.

- Gurm

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

[paulcs]

Certainly the Supreme Court has a lot more to say about the interpretation of the First Ammendment and censorship than the First Lady. Or the President for that matter.

If this thread degenerates into yet another flame war or right wing polemic, I will delete it. Frankly, this sort of stuff has alienated many of the former Soap Box regulars and has seriously changed the tone of this forum.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[ahartman]

Huh? Why would you delete it? This is the same issue we've had for a while now. If the topic doesn't interest you, don't read it.

This is a perfectly valid SB thread - just as valid as "NVidia sucks".

If your beef is that we hijacked your thread and are taking it a different direction than you had intended, well, I suppose you could delete it, but again, I ask... WHY?

Everyone has been civil. That's WHY I enjoy debating things with the folks here - I LEARN things.

As for a "right wing polemic (had to look that word up)", no one has even come close.

Don't just take your ball and go home.

[paulcs]

I don't have to look polemic up, and I damn well know that saying Clinton and Gore are guilty of treason is polemical. Look again.

I had no intention of creating yet another maelstrom in the Soap Box. If someone else wants to do it, fine. I'm guilty of making a political statement to Dave in a thread I created about procedure. It was my mistake, and I certainly have the right and means to correct it.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[ahartman]

Paul,

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I meant that *I* had to look up the word. Sorry if it sounded like you were using words you didn't understand...

As for the treason comment, I saw that. There's a big difference between a well thought out point/argument and an off-the-hip pointless unsupported remark. One gets my attention, the other gets the attention it deserves (ignored!).

Aside from that, I think the posters have been pretty good.

Andy

[Pneumatic]

If you look at the exit polls from you will find that the people that voted for Gore tend to be the lower educated, lower income, non-religious crowd. As you go up the economic and educational ladder the percentages go to Bush. That's exactly how Gore wanted it. He has instituted this class warfare tactic the whole campaign. Unfortunately there are a lot more of "them" than there are of "us".


Here are the exit polls from Florida: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/res...president.html

Notice the shift as you go:
1) Down in income (under $15k = 62% Gore ; over $100k = 66% Bush)
2) Less educated (no HS diploma = 50% Gore ; College Grad = 57% Bush)
3) Less Religious (never attend = 54% Gore ; attend weekly = 52% Bush)

[paulcs]

Well, I guess denying those very people a direct vote for president, people many of the framers thought of as "rabble," is what the framers intended when designing and implementing the Electoral College.

It's all but over. The absentee ballots are primarily military personnel, and they tend to vote Republican. It appears Bush will win Florida and in the Electoral College, while Gore will win the popular vote. Bush will be President. Short of some sort of malfeasance, the only "do-overs" provided for in the Constitution take place in the House of Representatives, and this doesn't look like it qualifies. It's the law of the land, and it is not ambiguous.

This has happened all too often in US history. I think the Constitution should be amended to emilinate the Electors once and for all.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

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

[Pace]

Chris:

In the UK there are approx. 650 constituencies. If each and every one of these is close, and by pure chance, it turns out that say, Labour won every single one they would have total power. This could happen and the representative voting system introduced in the Scottish parliament partially alleviated this.

I can't exactly remember how it worked but here's what I think. In a certain region there are 20 seats and is Labour get 50% of the votes in the region they get 10 seats. Also, rather than having a set person who was elected into any particular sub-region it was decided by the party who would get the 10 seats. So they'd have a list Mr A, Mr B, Mrs C etc and if they only got 2 seats then Mr A and Mr B would get in.

This keeps the politicians in relatively their own area whilst moving closer to a fully representative system.

As Chuck says, however, in America, each state is a fairly independant unit. If the majority of Californians want Gore in then Gore gets all of California's 'Presidential' votes. Meanwhile, within that, there are senators who are voted by majority voting. This could mean, I think, that the President could be outnumbered in the US Gov't by Democrats, showing that the individual votes do count.

Again, please correct me if I'm wrong guys but this is my interpretation of the US voting system from a few checks of MSNBC

I'll go over and check the latest happenings now anyway!

Paul.

[Pace]

So then, how's about my idea (ok, so I've borrowed it from Scotland!)

I don't know the specifics so I'll just limit this to 3 states: Oregon, Florida and New York which I think have 7, 25 and 33 electoral votes respectively.

Let's say then, that these 3 states are allowed 65 seats in Congress. Each state has a state leader, let's call this person BigCheese , and several LittleCheese. So Oregon will have 1 BigCheese and 6 LittleCheeses. The majority vote in Oregon will decide who has the BigCheese title then the rest is split up representatively. So each 17% accumulated gains any particular party 1 LittleCheese. This will be drawn from a list, so the Democrats will have 7 nominees for Oregon.

Then, with our 3 BigCheeses and 62 LittleCheeses nationwide (well on the 3 states) the majority total cheeses get's the Presidency. Here we have 2 options, either the party leader/a BigCheese or another option on the voting ballot.

The BigCheeses have no extra ranking in Congress, where they are simply 'Cheese' but in their own state the are indeed the BigCheese.

I'll have a think about this and see what happens when the BigCheese drinks some red wine whilst a BlueCheese get's involved in a Foreign relations nightmare with Cheddar.

Seriously, anyone like this idea - for a Scot to reshape America.

Oops, almost forgot Clause 1, if the right-honourable gentleman, Mr. P. McCarroll, so chooses to call a BigCheese past his sell by date he may do so, with the backup of a Internet voting poll, whether or not tainted my the MURC.

Regards,

Paul.

[Thundrchez]

For those of you ranting that Ralph Nader cost Gore the election, take a timewarp back 4 and 8 years ago when Ross Perot cost Bush Sr. and Dole, respectively, those elections.

If you have time to blow, check out http://www.nadersucks.org

Did my candidate win? Nope. He was on all 50 ballots, though, but barely got mentioned at all.

Social Insecurity is just a pyramid scheme to take the money of those paying in now and distribute it to those receiving benefits now. The federal policy has had the unwritten rule that they can just dip their hands into this wad of money and reallocate it to other federal pork programs. When the baby boomers come to collect their $ in about 10 years, the system is going to thoroughly crumble. However, I doubt if the blame will go to the politicians who mismanaged all that money for all those years.

Big gov't has gotten way out of control. They want to micromanage your life, taking away your freedom with their policies of "good intentions". Why not let people live their own lives without having to worry about what goes on in DC? I'm thoroughly sick how socialist the USA is leaning.

I can see that we really are on the verge of winning both the war on drugs and the war on poverty. I wouldn't want to be the one to stop the spending on those money pits.

[paulcs]

Sorry, we can't accept advice as to how we chose our Head of State from anyone whose Head of State is a Hanoverian monarch.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[Joel]

Here's what the Constitution has to say about presidental and vice-presidental elections and the electoral vote.

C. Article II
Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows

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.

Comment: The president ensures that the nation's laws are carried out and enforced. The president serves a four-year term, and is formally elected by electors of the Electoral College. Originally the state legislatures chose the electors, but since the 1820s they have been chosen through direct elections.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be no more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by Ballot one of them for President: and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the Votes shall be taken by the states, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall choose from them by Ballot the Vice President.

Comment: Congress formally counts the presidential election ballots from the electoral college. If no presidential candidate receives a majority of votes in the electoral college, the House chooses the president. Originally the second place winner in the electoral college became the vice president, with ties decided in the Senate. This section was amended by the 12th Amendment, which specified that the vice president be chosen on a separate ballot.

L. Amendment 12
(Ratified July 27, 1804)

The Electors shall meet in their respective States and vote by ballot for President and Vice President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;—The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;—The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.—The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice President, shall be the Vice President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States.

Comment: If no presidential candidate wins a majority in the electoral college, then the House of Representatives, voting by state, chooses the president, and the Senate chooses the vice president.

You can find the whole text of the constitution as well as the history behind it at encarta.msn.com/find/print.asp?&pg=8&ti=04491000&sc=0&pt=1


Joel