Why don't they just split the electoral votes...

[Joel]

between the two of them based on the percentage of vote they recieved. Opps that would give Al Gore the electoral votes he needs to win and based on popular vote isn't that what the people wanted.

Of course I don't care either way and I will complain no matter who gets in. You see I didn't vote for either one of the idiots. Then again would we even be questioning this if wasn't for the thrid party candidates. Don't most analyst say that the thrid party votes would have gone mostly to Al Gore? Which means he would have won by large margins everywhere. Think about it for a minute.

Joel

[Brian R.]

I'd like to see them split the electorial votes in every state as a change in election procedure.

[Admiral]

I'd like to see Russia or the EU send people to observe the US ellections.

[paulcs]

I'd like to see a do-over: with Bill Bradley and John McCain.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[Admiral]

I got a feeling this is gonna turn into an "I'd like to see" thread

[cjolley]

I'd like to see this turn into an "i'd like to see" thread.
chuck

[Bixler]

I'd like to see PaulCS's dream come true...but it won't in this lifetime.

[Joel]

You know what amazes me, and it shouldn't. Is how the Repulicians are now crying foul over 1,400 oversea ballots being rejected because of missing postmarks but didn't bat an eye over the 19,000 ballots thrown out in just one county in Florida. They are also claiming that the overseas ballots are confusing and you would need to be a rocket scientist to figure them out. Hmmmmmmmmmmm!!!! Sound familiar???

Joel

[HollyBerri]

Joel, I'm proud of you (I really am, for what it's worth ).

I admit, I'm amazed that you didn't vote (or vote for either one of the idiots, whichever). It's not quite up there with getting the heck outta Dodge, but hey, ya gotta put your foot down somewhere, and refusing to pretend that this money- and media-controlled exercise has anything to do with "the will of the people" is a good place to start.

Maybe one day I'll get an answer to the question I've had for many years: If only one American voted, would that one vote elect the President?

This whole thing just makes me sick.

I'd like to see a lot more names on the ballot, and a dag-blasted quorum of votes cast before an election can be valid, whatever the count-- and heck, why not a do-over if the winner doesn't have 60% or more of the popular vote? What is the point of having a President that half the country doesn't want?

/end rant, sorry.

[HedsSpaz]

http://www.discover.com/nov_00/gther...atbestman.html

[Jorden]

Question: Would you want a president that won by 0.05% in the White House, or would you want re-elections? This time done right, so the Supreme Court and all of the other judges included right now, just saying: We declare these elections off the record, let's vote again. (?)

Maybe the American people should just riot and say: we don't want either of you (4) anymore, or just give them (2) each half the votes, and let one of them be President, and the other Vice-President. And let them draw straws between themselves, 3 times, to find a winner at that. The one with 2 times the longest straw can be President

I see they have other problems in some other country, where the President and Vice President don't want to do another 4 years, but no-one else has stepped up to become President. And their elections are on the 1st of December Wonder what their ballots look like, with all the blanks

Jord.

[This message has been edited by Jorden (edited 20 November 2000).]

[HedsSpaz]

Would you want a president that won by 0.05% in the White House, or would you want re-elections?

This is a tough one to call. It depends on where that .05% lies. If one guy wins 50.03% to 49.98%, then .05% it may be, but it is a majority. As far as a win of .05% with a plurality, well, read that article that I posted a link to and you'll understand my feeling on that.

As for the thought of a re-vote? Only under the most strict of circumstances. Clear evidence of fraud being about the only valid reason. However calling for a re-vote just because it is a close election sets and EXTREMELY dangerous precedent. Do it once and pretty quickly every time there is a close election you end up calling for a revote. You get one oportunity to vote, if you choose to vote Nader and Gore loses because of that, well, too bad. Vote Browne and Bush loses? Too bad. A revote would cause a LOT of people in these circumstances to vote for their more mainstream counterparts which would horribly skew the results of the vote. How many Nader supporters do you suppose would vote for Nader again if there were a re-vote in Palm-Beach? 10 to 1 says not more than a thousand.

Ok, I think I've made my case. Time to go be productive or something.

Ian

[Admiral]

Hmm, I thought we'll have elections on the 26 of November, if you're refering to us Jorden. December 1st is our national day
And we don't have a Vice President, only a puppet Prime minister.

Re Edit: Oh shit ! he was talking about Peru

[This message has been edited by Admiral (edited 21 November 2000).]

[SCompRacer]

Rather than recount/revote, why not have a Quake deathmatch? Best two out of three.

[Pertti]

Originally posted by SCompRacer:
Rather than recount/revote, why not have a Quake deathmatch? Best two out of three.

Or do it for real, the last man standing gets the seat