"I voted for Obama a couple times!"

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Oh, I'm sorry, is our election system full of dangerous gaping holes that should have been fixed 8 years ago? I wanted to tell you earlier, but you thought your party won the last two elections and I didn't want to take that away from you.
Sincerely,
The Other Half

That was priceless and yet so damned true.

Flawed system, a misconception, or foul play, it's all just fine as long as our party wins.

We will hear much about irregularities from the same folks that saw none last election. Ironically it's probably some of the same ones that brazenly displayed the "Sore/Loserman" bumper stickers.

I hope the Dems have more grace and just let the Republicans whine this out of their system without poking too much fun. Anyway it's over.

Whether Bush cheated his way in or Obama did they are both now...our president.

Meanwhile I look forward to reading the new conspiracies.

- Lee

reply to post by Indevolatile


Forgive me for my lack of understanding but I still didn't read anything out of that that says one persons vote should carry more weight than the other. Perhaps I fail to see where a farmer in Kansas and a Iron worker in new york should be different? When it comes to their personal decision.

Originally posted by Indevolatile
The electoral college exists in order to level the playing field a bit between the states. The number of electoral votes for each state is equivalent to senators (2 per state) + congressmen (based on population) If they got rid of the electoral college, then the higher population states such as New York and California would carry even more relative weight than they already do, and the lower population states like Alaska and Montana would become almost entirely irrelevant.

You are absolutely correct, but!!!...

Until the electoral college divides it's vote according to the representative area they cover, with only the senate vote going according to the popular vote (2 electors) It will not work properly.

As it stands right now, the popular vote in a a state determines how the electors vote, not how the represented area voted by popular vote.

IF (BIG IF) the electoral vote worked as it should - the electors vote according to the popular vote in their represented areas, we might have seen very different outcomes in the last 3 presidential elections.

Fixed typo


[edit on 11/5/08 by redhatty]

reply to post by CreeWolf


He won classically "red" states.
Hell...no Democrat has won Virginia in FORTY FOUR YEARS!

This man must have been traveling across country.
Just kidding.

I just think it's just a matter of acceptance at this point.

I'm sure there were some goof-ups, and there is always cheating going on to some degree. I know some people had to come back and vote after waiting in line for hours which is what this man "could" have meant...but even still, I honestly think the people have spoken.

I doubt Obama had his supporters cheating him into office in overwhelming numbers.

- Lee

reply to post by redhatty


I hear exactly what you are saying, the damn thing was enacted before rapid communication (internet, databases, telegraph, etc.) existed. At that point in time someone had to ride a damn horse to represent a large number of people. And that is exactly what they were supposed to do is represent a large number of people that could not be heard otherwise... at least at that point in time.

reply to post by lee anoma

But cheating "just a little bit" is ok? Keep your condescending tone. I'm not an idiot and at no point did I suggest that "cheating" got him the election. Its obvious that it went on though.

The Electoral College was designed to even the playing field amongst states; look at each state as a different group of people. Now, just because one group is littler than another, does that mean the littler group should not be heard? That's why it was designed...and remains.

BTW, my other anonymous post in another thread didn't get posted. I'm wondering if the Obamanites got to the mods here too....

This could be a slip of words on his part, as many people here said. This is very vague and not enough to claim voter fraud, probably a slip up of words many of us do make, sad pathetic attempt on the OP's part.

RECOUNT*****

INCLUDE WRITE IN TALLIES!

He won and now he must deliver. Honestly, as against him as I was I really think he'll be a better president on his worse days than George Bush was on his best.

There is hope. The excitement of Obama's supporters, although I loathed them for months, is kinda contagious. I'm really hoping he can do great things for our country.

Here I am eating crow. I hope anyone I offended during the election can forgive me.

Originally posted by -zeropoint-
This could be a slip of words on his part, as many people here said. This is very vague and not enough to claim voter fraud, probably a slip up of words many of us do make, sad pathetic attempt on the OP's part.

Thank you.

the guy slipped his words, its not like a proof read post complete with spell check.

If the reported had at all sensed that he was saying anything relavent that was not a joke, he would have asked the man to clarify his answer, or at least repeat it.

It was a joke, it happens sometimes when you get off your computer and enter the real wold.

People will take up for the AntiChrist until their dying breath. But oh well I can't say I'm surprised. People don't seem to care about all of the bull surrounding Obama.

You guys... That was obviously an attempt at a joke. He didn't actually mean he voted a couple of times. Just because he had a straight face when he said it doesn't prove otherwise, in fact if you look closely there's a hint of a smile. He's a black man in Philadelphia; what do you expect? If CNN's response is a cause for outrage, then you're taking this way too seriously. Especially since that too was itself a joke. You can tell because of the reporter's quickness to respond, his lack of confusion regarding the voter's comment, etc. There are a bunch of social ques there. My god, you've all seemed to develop autism as a result of living in your computers, and analyzing everything out of YouYube videos. Sometimes you just have to accept jokes for what they are, and don't criticize everything so much. There is no cause for concern for such pettiness. Any outrage is entirely unwarranted, and excessively superfluous.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by cognoscente]

reply to post by shizzle5150


That notion is incorrect. The representative system of Democracy is deeply concerned in the Constitution. It was founded, based on principle alone. It was never meant to be a popular vote, if that is what you have suggested. It wasn't planned out of convenience, although it surely was convenient the way things went at the time. All you have shown is that it is even more convenient today. And according to your reasoning, it should become even more convenient in the future, am I correct? To be honest, that's quite a simple observation. Of course, that says nothing of the principle of the system itself. What you assumed is the result of pure, unresearched speculation.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by cognoscente]

reply to post by CreeWolf


Vote Early, and Vote often


How the election was won in 2008

I love how when asked the voter couldn't think of one thing he was fed up with, he just said he was fed up. With what? Ah, who cares, just say "time for change."

Yeah, it's time to change who gets to vote.

reply to post by CreeWolf


Are you folks to busy being outraged to understand that I too voted for Obama a couple of times.


I voted for him in the Primaries, and I voted for him in the General Election.


Come on! Get with it and stop looking for stuff to be outraged about.

Originally posted by Christian Voice
People will take up for the AntiChrist until their dying breath. But oh well I can't say I'm surprised. People don't seem to care about all of the bull surrounding Obama.

Yeah, like the Bull that he is somehow the antichrist.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


How do you know that that is bull? Do you have proof that he is not the AntiChrist? PLease don't answer that with another question. Do you have proof that he is not? Let's see,,,,, raised Muslim, he claims he's not now however. Refuses to put his hand on the Bible. Refuses to put his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegience. The world is heralding him as a savior despite these things. The UN is calling for a NWO and there have been suggestions of him being the head of it. He was elected to the highest office in the US with only two years political experience. The Godless heathans of the US put him in office. I would imagine that a survey of God fearing Christians would show very low numbers of people that voted for him.

I voted in PA, but if I wanted to, I could have driven up to NY and voted at my hometown there. I was still on the books, yet haven't lived there in 25 years.