This Popular Vote Crap!

Even if Gore did win the Popular vote, he won it by such a small margin, that it does not out-weigh the decision of the Electoral College.

The Electoral College was invented to moderate the peoples votes, so that what happend in Germany could never happen to America. What if the south had 6 times the population as the north? Now if a majority of them wanted to vote that all Blacks should be hanged, the rest of the nation is powerless to stop that. Because of the Electoral College, we will never have a leader that appeals to the masses, but rather a leader that appeals to the nation. there maybe a need for some reform of the Electoral College, to have it match the times, but in no way does having 100,000 more people say you should be president than the other guy, make you a good average example of who should really be president.

There have been cases before where the President losing the popular vote, won the Electoral, and they turned out to be a decent president, but I can't quite remember who he was, it wasn't Taft? Was Taft even president

Anyways....popular vote doesn't mean # when it is nearly 50/50, Bush/Gore is like 49.99999991/50.00000001

If it were 12/98, MAYBE THEN THERE'D BE SOMETHING TO B|TCH ABOUT!

Sincerely,
no signature

agreed

And now Gore is backing out ..saying he wont run this next Pres race..he said he will wait ..lol...wait for what?

Boomslang..

I think maybe he realized that the Democrats use their party to support the anti-bush and consequently anti-Iraq war. He probably sees that the events today would make him look like a hypocrit, I watched him talk on Conan O`Brien and he had a hard time not sounding like Bush.

He probably wants to wait till some of this is delt with, so that he can focus more on social issues and such, like he was planning before...

...Shame too because I think he's wisened up a bit, and probably woulda voted for him now.

Sincerely,
no signature

I believe I'm correct in saying it's happened 3 times before: 1824, 1876 and 1888 - and to no very great controversy.
Of course, the issue -like the exact nature of the Electoral College -is rather obscured by nassive changes in the electorate -who actually had the franchise.
Similarly, the very poor turn-out in the US makes clarity difficult. Furthermore, a healthier third-party scene would make it clear that winners could often get less than 50%. The two-party dominance in the US makes many comparisons invalid e.g. with coalition-dominated proportional representation in much of Europe.
nevertheles: GWB is the constitutionally elected President and there one has it.
Let those who want this change look forward to the next election ( assuming the Dems are still around and have a leader, if they are!) rather than complaining about history.

what does this have to do with the war on terrorism?

- qo.

I think they're pointing out the similarities between Iraq and America.

you know, how like both the countrys claim that their president won a fair open general election and , like, none of the other countrys in the world believe them.

Originally posted by Lupe_101
I think they're pointing out the similarities between Iraq and America.

you know, how like both the countrys claim that their president won a fair open general election and , like, none of the other countrys in the world believe them.

True indeed, true indeed!

Gore won the popular vote by 550,000...a half million + more votes. The reason that the issue in Florida went on for 36 days is that the popular vote was to dictate who the electoral college sent into vote. By every state wide recount method, Gore won Florida as well. That the Supreme court intervened on a States issue where it clearly had no right to, and that they in no way shape or form could rationally explain their actions other than to invoke an interpretation of our 14th amendment that deals with harm to an individual ( which no Floridian ever filed) as the only remotely reasonable excuse, is not nor ever will be 'a constitutionally elected presidency of GW Bush'. That the Gore camp so clearly saw the fix was in and that country would be ripped apart should he proceed, should always be given credit for the unselfishness of the act.

Originally posted by Bout Time

Originally posted by Lupe_101
I think they're pointing out the similarities between Iraq and America.

you know, how like both the countrys claim that their president won a fair open general election and , like, none of the other countrys in the world believe them.

True indeed, true indeed!

Gore won the popular vote by 550,000...a half million + more votes. The reason that the issue in Florida went on for 36 days is that the popular vote was to dictate who the electoral college sent into vote. By every state wide recount method, Gore won Florida as well. That the Supreme court intervened on a States issue where it clearly had no right to, and that they in no way shape or form could rationally explain their actions other than to invoke an interpretation of our 14th amendment that deals with harm to an individual ( which no Floridian ever filed) as the only remotely reasonable excuse, is not nor ever will be 'a constitutionally elected presidency of GW Bush'. That the Gore camp so clearly saw the fix was in and that country would be ripped apart should he proceed, should always be given credit for the unselfishness of the act.

Ahhh, excuse me, but could we have some verifiable proof of the accusations made in this diatribe?

No, Gore did not win any count or recount of the Florida vote.

Yes, a politically active Florida Supreme Court intentionally ignored its own laws to find in favor of Gore.

Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court did not allow the Florida Supreme Court to do this.



And Lupe, would you like to show documentation on this allegation of no other nation saw our election as free and open? On second thought, don't bother trying. You can't. And only a dimwitted dolt would compare the U.S. election process to Hussein's "election".

It amazes me how much some people will howl like bad sports when the laws are not allowed to be broken in favor of their team.

It amazes me that some americans are so vastly insular as to believe for no aparent reason that not liking Bush meens they must support Gore.


The contention was not that people could prove that your election was unfair, it is that it is generally percieved as having been screwed up.

Similarly you cannot provide proof that Husseins election was unfair, or indeed that ours in the UK was fair.

what you can say however is that the general feeling in Europe about both elections, yours and the one in Iraq, is that they were suspicious.

Its an interesting Dichotomy however that in Husseins case its percieved that this is because he is evil, in the US's case its percieved that it was because your idiots.

as can be demonstrated by the massive satirical backlash against it in our media and the prolification of US election jokes immediately after the election.

wether you or I agree with this stance or not is irrelevant, what is relevant is that it was seen as yet another demonstration of "stupid yanks" syndrome and perpetuated the global opinion of you lot as fat burger munching politicaly illiterate morons.

which is a shame, becasue just as My Mate Gay who lives in Scotland doesn't wear a kilt, toss cabers and drink Iron Brew, I know a fair number of U.S. peeps who really don't fit their global stereotype.

Whats really interesting is that there are some U.S. peeps who have enough self confidence to see the humerous side of this stereotype.
there are others, like yourself, who simply don't.

Maybe thats why you seek validation on the internet.

I swear to Christ, if I have to keep printing this over & over...can't I just use it as my signatur file, please?

RECOUNTS:
I'll take it for granted that you know there was a Media Consortium that investigated the count ( at least I hope you know)

Palm Beach Post: Gore wins under six of nine scenarios
( All covering statewide recount = Gore)
Monday, November 12, 2001

www.gopbi.com...

Chicago Media Watch: "Gore Wins!
One year later, the truth finally comes out. So why is the media refusing to admit Bush's defeat? " "
The truth is the recount clearly establishes that Al Gore would have been president if the Supreme Court had allowed the recount. "

www.chicagomediawatch.org...

A good comprehensive site
From the Miami Herald: Miami Herald: With flawless ballots, Gore wins by 23,000 votes ( note: Miami Republicans make Thomas look like Ralph Nader, they're so Right Wing...and this is their paper!!)

www.issues2000.org...


The USSC over ruled the FLSC on the select county recount...good move. They stopped the statewide recount...bad & partisan move. Go to the 14th Amendment and read it.

Here it is:
Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
No matter the debate variables, this is the legal reason that the USSC stated to install GW Bush as president. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how a statewide recount with no predetermined winner DEPRIVED BUSH OF 'LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY or DUE PROCESS'!?!?!?!?!

Logic:
"Now, in the equal protection cases I've seen, the aggrieved party, the one who is being harmed and discriminated against, almost invariably brings the action. But no Florida voter I'm aware of brought any action under the equal protection clause claiming he was disfranchised because of the different standards being employed. What happened here is that Bush leaped in and tried to profit from a hypothetical wrong inflicted on someone else. Even assuming Bush had this right, the very core of his petition to the Court was that he himself would be harmed by these different standards.

But would he have? If we're to be governed by common sense, the answer is no. The reason is that just as with flipping a coin you end up in rather short order with as many heads as tails, there would be a "wash" here for both sides, i.e., there would be just as many Bush as Gore votes that would be counted in one county yet disqualified in the next. (Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument,! that the wash wouldn't end up exactly, 100 percent even, we'd still be dealing with the rule of de minimis non curat lex--the law does not concern itself with trifling matters.) So what harm to Bush was the Court so passionately trying to prevent by its ruling other than the real one: that he would be harmed by the truth as elicited from a full counting of the undervotes?"


That the Consortium had the answers and held off releasing the data till nicely after Sept. 11th is lost on everyone, I suppose?

[Edited on 18-12-2002 by Bout Time]

That�s ridiculous, BT. What does that amendment have to do w/ anything here? Gore only asked for a select county recount � now the idiot runs around and says that if there was a state wide recount he probably would have one �yet he didn�t ask for one. Gore lost 4 recounts. And BT, great links, here�s one that I saw on one of them (www.gopbi.com...) Here�s the headline: �Under the two most likely scenarios, Bush Wins Florida�

Gore�s plan was to keep counting till he won and try to ignore the law, the Supreme Court in Florida themselves ignored their own election laws � that�s why the USSC ruled they had no basis to act.

It�s also noteworthy that the media called the election for Gore before the polls closed. Terribly irresponsible �would have prevented voters from voting. One story I read (or maybe it was in some book) looked at past voting turnouts and realized that vote total were down in some areas where the polls were still open when the media called it for Gore. If you here the media call a winner � you might not bother voting � and that�s what seemed to happen.

Originally posted by Bob88
What does that amendment have to do w/ anything here? Gore only asked for a select county recount

If you take as a given a non-complicit media, you've got a point. But even within that article, this quote "But the national election that came down to a tiny fraction of votes in Florida never would have been that close if not for Palm Beach County's infamous butterfly ballot. The confusing ballot led thousands of would-be Gore voters to vote for archconservative Pat Buchanan and many more to cast invalid over-votes, votes for more than one candidate."
That's why I posted this:
www.chicagomediawatch.org...

and this:
www.issues2000.org...

That Gore ran a great campaign in winning the popular vote by 1/2 a million votes and a crappy appeals strategy in the litigation process by not going for statewide recounts at the outset, is a matter of record.

"What does that amendment have to do w/ anything here?"
That is the one question that I hear frequently when debating this topic...and the most troubling.
The way the law works is that when a court makes a ruling, they refer to the article of law which makes that ruling binding and legitamate. They just don't do a Parental ' Because I say so' and it's over!
Now after rereading the SOLE quoted reason, the 14th amendement, and the Scalia or Rehienquist briefs on why it applied, please explain to me how a statewide recount with no predetermined winner DEPRIVED BUSH OF 'LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY or DUE PROCESS'!?!?!?!?!
If there is no reasonable explanation, then all we are left with is a Partisan court delivering the office to their boy.

The fact is, Gore went after a few counties in a tightly contested state to try and win the election that he lost, 4 times. Why not go after all contested areas throughout the country? And I am sure many people are too stupid to vote properly - not just those in Florida. They could and should have asked for another ballot. And if the democrats didn't design such awkward ballots they wouldn't have had this problem. Taylor County was another area that had some tricky ballots - it's typically pro-republican - so Gore didn't bother w/ that county. Duvall County was another. Then Gore has the audacity to try to have votes from the military thrown out for because of postmark problems while arguing felons votes (that had no legal right to vote!) should count. Like it or not, Gore lost. Saying Bush stole the election is a myth.

Bush had votes posted for him that didn't even have a postmark, how obvious a manipulation is that? ( read article above)
That felon-scrub voter list, that Jeb Bush paid a company $4 million to put together( paid less than $7 thousand to the previous co.) - happens to be run by a Bush Pioneer level donor - happen to be wrong on a grossly disproportinate level in traditionaly Dem areas. Also had a bunch of errors with predominately black voters......imagine that. 173,000 people, Bob, were on that list....173,000 we were suppose to have believed, were felons in Florida; not even the whole state, but select areas had 173,000 felons!?!? Is Florida our Australia and no one told me?
"Smith says ChoicePoint would not respond to queries about its proprietary methods. Nor would the company provide additional verification data to back its fingering certain individuals in the registry purge. One supposed felon on the ChoicePoint list is a local judge. "
"
ChoicePoint's board and executive roster are packed with Republican stars, including billionaire Ken Langone, a company director who was chairman of the fund-raising committee for New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's aborted run against Hillary Rodham Clinton. Langone is joined at ChoicePoint by another Giuliani associate, former New York Police Commissioner Howard Safir. And Republican power lobbyist and former congressman Vin Weber lobbies for ChoicePoint in Washington. Just before his death( yup, another-buddy-knows-the-dirty-deals-because-he-did-them-with-the-Bush-crime-family on the deceased list...funny how long that list has gotten) in 1998, Rick Rozar, president of a Choicepoint company, CDB Infotek, donated $100,000 to the Republican Party. "



archive.salon.com...

Still no explanation on how the 14th Amendment covered the Scalia 5 in their appointment of Bush?
I'll never say Bush stole the election; doesn't have near the wattage needed to design what occured.....but he sure is a willing jockey.

[Edited on 18-12-2002 by Bout Time]

FreeMasons comment that it was created to avoid what happened in Germany(?) is inaccurate (I'm being as kind as I can here), since the EC has been in place for over 120 years or more Germany's issue in 1939 is moot. I could not find accurate data online for the EC history but I'm sure someone here might have access to its date of origin.

What I do know is the intention for its creation was due to the size of this country and the amount of people whose votes could not all be counted individually in a timely manner, so the EC was created to be a voice for each region or state.

With todays technology WE CAN count every vote of every voter in a timely manner (except in Florida apparently) so the need for the EC is no longer there.
I say remove it from the process before it can taint another election.

If another election is affected by the EC's moronic leadership and a candidate who won the popular vote still loses the election; there will be a rebellion in this country and the nect election will garner no votes for any candidate, but instead only garner votes of NO CONFIDENCE in the system as a whole!!

People should not stand for antiquated methods when the technology is there to better represent the CHOICE OF THE AMERICAN VOTERS!!! The country was founded on the ideal of leadership with representation of the masses, any other selection process undermines our constitution and creates a dictatorship.

THIS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!!! It should not be tolerated by either the left or the right, and its only because the republicans won that we are not hearing them screaming from every right-wing sector of this country.

So tell me ATS right-wingers, if the tables were reversed would you not be as outraged as I and my fellow dems are? Go ahead, lie if you can but we know the truth!!

The EC dear bimbo, was created with the nation itself, with the writing of the constitution. Its importance is literally such that the massess will not be a$sess.

Originally posted by USMC Harrier
What I do know is the intention for its creation was due to the size of this country and the amount of people whose votes could not all be counted individually in a timely manner, so the EC was created to be a voice for each region or state.

Wrong, it was created so that the states with 50 million people, did not overly out weigh the states with 1 million people.

And so that if california and New York and Florida wanted to elect someone to be their god for the next 4 years, the rest of the population could have a say in it.

I say, remove the EC and all you have left is California, Florida, and New York, there'd be Civil War in a decade as people learn their votes are #. California does not represent any state but its self, yet its popultation is nearly a 1/4 of the USs total population. Whom they want for president, will benifit ONLY California. Without the EC, the largest states can coalition to rule all other states.

But I don't blame you bimbo, for not understanding federalism. The government has done little to truly teach what Federalism is, and why it is so important. It masks it, instead favoring to teach a centralized government, like that of Rome. An Empire, masked behind a senate, ran by the kings of industry.

The rebellion, bimbo, will come from the unrepresented massess of smaller states, due to the lack of an EC to properly have their voices heard.

Originally posted by USMC Harrier
any other selection process undermines our constitution and creates a dictatorship.

How ignorant your youthful mind is, to think that letting megacities chose our future presidents is democracy!

I would not care had it happend to Bush or Gore, as long as who was chosen kept to his word, and stayed decent presidents. Because I know to sacrfice freedom for a childish idea is insane.

Sincerely,
no signature

I've already cited the Florida law in regard to this, and anyone with cursory understanding can see thier ruling was in direct violation of the law. This makes the ruling arbitrary, and it is not a huge leap to accuse them of having political motives.

As they ruled against the law and not interpreting it or judging by it, it was perfectly acceptable that the USSC was called to intervene. This does not violate the 14th amendment which, by the way, was never ratified. That is a moot point, though. The fact that is does not violate it is good enough.

Lupe, I understand that the old world thinks we're a bunch of dolts. Amazing what this bunch of dolts has accomplished, huh? No need to thank us for what we've brought to the world in such a short amount of time, we understand. Good thing we broke away so that we could become our creative selves!

Personally, I've often found humor in the attitude, but that's probably because I've always had enough self-confidence to afford it. Besides, no matter what, we'll always have the French to point at and laugh about. And, I for one, need no validation here or anywhere else. I merely try and explain a little to those who come here to criticize and point fingers. I'll not point fingers, I'll just say if that shoes fits, pull it out of your mouth.

[Edited on 19-12-2002 by Thomas Crowne]

"I merely try and explain a little to those who come here to criticize and point fingers. I'll not point fingers"

You do realise the hypocracy inherent in that statement don't you?