How was the ATS electoral college won?

Supreme Court appointees' decisions became acceptable practice in the non-election of 2000.

Supreme Court appointees' decisions became acceptable practice in the non-election of 2000.

They did not "decide the election" They did what the supreme court is supposed to do. Apply the Constitution of the United States!

can I laugh yet?

edit: damned fingers



[edit on 18-10-2004 by Fry2]

Originally posted by Fry2
They did what the supreme court is supposed to do.

can I laugh yet?

You mean follow the golden rule - him who's got the gold makes the rules? A good job was done and no-one bit the hand that fed them.

Corruption.

Yes, please laugh at the comitragedy of the US electoral system.



[edit on 18-10-2004 by Fry2]

Sarcasm is a very difficult thing to communicate through text. I assure you, MA, that you missed what I failed to translate properly. No harm no foul.

My poem from the 2000 Election:

If If You feel you've been had
By the hanging chad
Let the SCOTUS
pick your POTUS

Spacedoubt



As for the Results, here at ATS..
I thought Kerry would have won by a greater margin..
To me, this is good news..
Bush ROCKS in 04

My fellow ATS's: Thank you for having the wisdom to save the country and the world!!!!!

Originally posted by Fry2
Sarcasm is a very difficult thing to communicate through text. I assure you, MA, that you missed what I failed to translate properly. No harm no foul.

But I will record one strike against myself for not picking up on your subtext. My apologies.

When can we look forward to the ATS inauguration of new President John F Kerry?

Well I'm glad Kerry won ATS. I think that the strong Libertarian turnout may have to do with the strong amount of Libertarian support I've seen recently. I think a lot of credit should go to Amuk for making the Libertarian cause so strong on ATS

I personally hope never but it's really hard to say right now. I hate both of the men and they both represent a threat to the future of America as it has been in the past and should be again. Hence the reason I refuse to support either one.

America is a sad place to be living and raising a family when a good many of Americans are not for either candidate. If you are like Fry2 and myself, you have three choices; vote for the less worse of the two candidates, vote with your eyes closed and hope for the best, or don't vote at all. Either way, it's Bush or Kerry. Unless both get knocked off the face of the planet.

All the people who are pro Kerry/anti Bush, will elect Kerry and see him slip right into Bushies old shoes. All people who are pro Bush/anti Kerry will elect Bush and see him continue on his road to the destruction of America far worse than he's done so in the previous 3 years.

Solution #1-Take a stand to protect YOUR constitutional rights ASAP or see them slip further and further away until you realise you have none and in fact America is not the "Land of The Free and The Brave"

Solution #2-Run run as fast as you can to some other foreign land.

(I'm sure there are other solutions, but I do not condone war and violence)

Ahem. I believe we're losing sight of the true point.

We won.

You didn't.

Na na...na..nananana!

Originally posted by magestica
If you are like Fry2 and myself, you have three choices; vote for the less worse of the two candidates, vote with your eyes closed and hope for the best, or don't vote at all. )

No another choice is vote third party they wont win BUT if they get 5% of the vote it gets them into the Big leagues.

I dont see not voting as being better than an attempt to make a change

[edit on 18-10-2004 by Amuk]

Congrats to the Libertarians on their strong turnout too. They may share some of our champagne. Bwahahahaha!

Originally posted by Amuk

No another choice is vote third party they wont win BUT if they get 5% of the vote it gets them into the Big leauges.

I dont see not voting as being better than an attempt to make a change

But the average American who thinks the way I presented will not vote at all. And I do not see how 5% of the votes can put another party in the "Big Leagues"?

As Amuk said it vote third-party. Although third-party canidates won't become president anytime soon they won't ever win if nobody votes for them. I would rather say that I voted for someone who I though was the best person for the job regardless of the outcome, than saying I voted for the lesser of two devils even if they won.

He said "big leagues" because once you reach 5% you qualify for federal funding just as the big 2 do.

With aproximately 35% of board visitors non-American and likely to vote against Bush I think this poll actually shows it alot closer amoung Americans on the board than it at first appears.

In more sensible electoral processes than the outdated system of the US, pooling 5% of the national vote provides for 5% representation in parliamentary seats.

Originally posted by magestica
But the average American who thinks the way I presented will not vote at all. And I do not see how 5% of the votes can put another party in the "Big Leagues"?

It gets them funds from the government to run. Instead of having thousands they would have Millions to use. I think it also gets them equal news coverage but I am sure someone will let me know if thats wrong.

In other words the 5% mark puts them on the same level as the Big Two

[edit on 18-10-2004 by Amuk]