It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Did Bush "steal" the election?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 12:06 AM
No, projected re-counts both had either Bush or Gore winning, no one really knows who Florida would have really gone to had the moronic people been able to punch a hole in a card.

With the question unanswerable scientifically, the US Supreme Court was called in to make a ruling, their ruling was that there shall be no recount as the election must be completed by a specific time per the US Constitution and therefore all those freaked-up votes would be discounted because there is no way to tell who really voted for who with those punch-cards.

Bush received 48% of the Popular vote.

Gore received 48% of the Popular vote.

Nader received the rest with a few going to other peoples as usual.

Bush received 271 Electoral votes, Gore only had 267.

Compared to Rutherford B. Hayes who received only 185 Electoral votes as opposed to his opponent Samuel J. Tilden who received 184 Electoral votes, Bush won by a fair margin.

Reason I mention Hayes is because Hayes received 47.9% of the Electoral votes while Tilden received 51.0%.

A clear victory for Tilden if we were not a Union of States.

But we are a Union of States (well supposed to be, see my signature) therefore we shall follow the Electoral College which is the equalizer for the States so that small populated States are not completely left out.

For instance, Bush came to Nevada not long ago, wow, 2,000,000 people ... compared to say Florida with 15,000,000 and compared to California with 38,000,000.

Yet without Nevada the election would still have gone to Gore.

So to anyone who thinks that the election was stolen, please ... take your best shot at the US Constitution. God knows the Federals sure have.

posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 12:40 AM
The constition provides for it to be stolen. The electoral system doesn't mean the same thing it did when it was first conceived...

posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 12:46 AM
Elaborate more Jamuhn, right now I'm inclined to say you're wrong but I'm not sure what you're getting at.

posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 12:53 AM
no he didn't steal it.. It was given to him by his brother in Florida. Geez

posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 12:56 AM
I say its naders fault. If he had just left the election alone, gore would be in the white house.

Its also the fault of the governer of flordia, being related to bush, he had to lie to get bush in office.

IMHO, If it wasn't fro those two dumba**es, our country would be in better shape than it is now.

posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 12:59 AM
The electoral system as I take it was designed to allow states to profess their common views so that it has equal weight in respect to their population. But state boundaries are virtually meaningless, with little, if any, pride among the bulk of its citizens. So, although, it would be good to keep the states individual, that's not the way this country is viewed anymore. Its viewed as the US, the states are merely for tax jurisdiction purposes. I know you believe that the states have a major impact on its citizens, but I can't think of anyway I have been affected in a major way by legislation of the states.
So basically, if the states are virtually meaningless these days, then there is no need for the electorate system. Unless, we want to hold on to the state representation from days of old. But I just don't see states meaning that much in the eyes of the government anymore so why would they care about the electorate system.
Where I grew up, there was a city called the Central Area for Relocated Yankees. Althought Yankees were all over the place, and this was in the South. So as people move between state borders all the time, and immigration occurs, this occuring over the last hundred years mind you, the general wishes of a state seem virtually meaningless.

For example, do you think Hillary Clinton really represents the wishes of the entire state of New York. You can say yes because she was elected to office, but that had nothing to do with the ideal of the state, more of name recognition along partisan lines. This is due to the fact that people are largely uneducated about what their state stands for, people are uneducated about the platforms of politicians. States get diluted and most important of all.....more homogenuous in US citizen representation.

posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 01:01 AM
He stold the election with diebolt voting machines that went threw a stolden u.s. sattilite system called k-11. At least 700,000 vote's were switched with the help of "Inslaw also called Promis software that was used also to steal the vote in the 2000 election.

More to come on this later.

posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 01:03 AM
TheShadowKnows maybe not, more popular vote doesnt' mean more electoral votes.

Jahmun, the Electoral College is as it should be, what you're talking about is the obvious fact that people have lost faith in States because the big bad Feds crushed the States in the War of Northern Agression. (More appropriately, "Federal" instead of Northern).

Jamuhn you know why we need States, the day will come again when we shall return to State-Centered Federalism, when the people are fed-up with the Feds.

Oh sure falcon, I suppose you have REAL evidence for that claim?

posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 01:05 AM
ya know, the elections are a bunch of crap anyway. Excuse my language. But what's with the electoral votes??? Who cares how many states majority want Bush in the White House. I think popular vote should be the only thing that counts. That would make the majority of the CITIZENS have the chance to put who they want in the White House. Otherwise, why do we bother?

posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 01:08 AM
So deeprivergal you are going to subject Nevadans such as myself, to being forced to let people in Clifornia, New York, Delaware and a few other States elect the President.

If you dare to try such a thing mark my words I will be very very upset at you and anyone else who tries and this is not an idle threat.

There is no room in The United States for people who don't understand the words "United States".

EDITED for more "Love"

[edit on 3-7-2004 by Kano]

posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 01:10 AM
Yea, thats why I have mixed feelings, I don't want Bush in office, nor a Democrat for that matter. But I do want to see more localized forms of governments to avoid all this controversy.

posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 01:10 AM
But don't we, as a United Nation of States, have the right to vote the majority? I think that would do. Although those on the Hill think otherwise.

Thanks for the threat though.

posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 01:11 AM

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Yea, thats why I have mixed feelings, I don't want Bush in office, nor a Democrat for that matter. But I do want to see more localized forms of governments to avoid all this controversy.

I for one am not voting for Kerry this year. I am voting against Bush, against his ideals, and against his father.

posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 01:21 AM
Hey no problem about the threat. I'm just drawing the line.

We can be great friends but when you cross that line I'm still going to have to kill you, it's not like I'd hate you or anything but it just can not be allowed. The last thread this nation has to being anything the Founding Fathers wanted is that Electoral College.

The Founding Fathers wanted that because NO ONE wanted to become "Rome" and they needed to devise a Federal Government the States would ratify. They devised one that would not become Rome.

Of course all that flew out the window in 1867 and we're fastly becoming Rome.

I might as well explain moderately why I'd blow you away though if you cross that line.

We are not a "United Nation of States".

This nation is a Union of States. What is good for Michigan is not good for California and is not good for Alabama and for Nevada and so on.

People want to live their own ways.

That is what being free is all about.

You take that away in a popular election, because the most people are concentrated in a few cities and surrounding megalopolises.

Less idealistically, same thing but using economics.

The Economy of Nevada is much different than the Economy of California, and the Economy of New York.

So why would Nevada want to allow Californians and New Yorkers decide totally, who the President will be?

The Presidents motivate economics and so Nevada will lose ANY say in the Federal control of economics.

Also counter-argument, why bother electing Senators and Representatives then if you have a national popular election for President?

Why not just have national popular elections for Congress?

The same reason we don't allow that for Congress, is the best reason why we shouldn't allow it for the President.

posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 01:23 AM

But we are a Union of States (well supposed to be, see my signature) therefore we shall follow the Electoral College which is the equalizer for the States so that small populated States are not completely left out.

I think the whole point of FreeMason's thread was that we need to keep the electorate system because it allows the identity of the states as individual to thrive. A lot of the problems people have is because we are one big chunk of state with 250 million people or so. Its hard to allow for everyone to get their views met. But if we allow states to choose their own laws without government intervention, then people can move to the state that most represents their views. Plus, the people already in the state can deem whats necessary for them as FreeMason expounded on. At the same time, all the other states will help out any if a problem arises. Look at the 14th amend and reconstruction acts.

[edit on 3-7-2004 by Jamuhn]

posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 03:27 AM

Originally posted by FreeMason
TheShadowKnows maybe not, more popular vote doesnt' mean more electoral votes.

true. But I thought gore got the most of popular count, or am I wrong?

*edit- I see your statistics at the begining of your thread, are you sure they're corrcet? I cold have swore gore was ahead a bit.*

[edit on 7-3-2004 by theshadowknows]

posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 03:49 AM
My statistics are correct, Gore was ahead by so little (so little infact the figures are in despute as to who was really ahead anyway), that it does not affect the % within the tenth place. Maybe the hundreth but not sure.

So it could be 47.99 Bush and 48.01 Gore...barely anything.

Just noticed the change in my other post, haha "very very upset". -shrugs-.

I wouldn't be angry at her that defeates the point, I don't need to be upset at someone to defend my rights from their opinions.

posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 04:07 AM
Here you go : Gore was ahead by over half a million votes . No I am not stalking you FM . Just like the political posts . see ya around !

Bush won Florida by 1725 votes , I misunderstood wich votes you were talking about , thought it was the popular vote , and 550,000 didn't seem like .01%
A close one for sure !

[edit on 3-7-2004 by oddtodd]

posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 05:42 AM
550,000 voters is only .00367% of the electorate that voted. Hmmm...Let me round down to 100,000,000 and that gives us....0055% so as you can see, not even with rounding down is it even a full .01% of the electorate

So splitting hairs, Gore won the popular vote by 48.0055% and Bush lost it by 47.9945%.

Not very far apart

posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 06:27 AM
right you are , never could do percentages...

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in