It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Lost the popular vote by 500,000. Did everyone forget?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 11:23 AM
link   
How can a guy that lost the popular vote by half a million votes get reelected. And for that matter how in the he!! did he get in in the first place. The electoral college should reflect what the voters want

It's the biggest scam in the USA. They should divide up the votes evenly. If a state has 10 votes and 70% vote for KERRY he should get 7. Bush should get 3. The way it is now is completely unfair anfair getting elected without the popular vote shows this to everyone.

If you don't agree try explaing this voteing system to a bunch of fourth graders. Even they can see it is stupid.



(I voted for BUSH in 00 and I was wrong)





[edit on 15-10-2004 by IXRAZORXI321]



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 11:27 AM
link   
I agree with the fix...I believe that's actually in Badnarik's platform if I'm not mistaken....



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   
If we didn't have the 'winner take all' approach to the electorial votes, Al Gore would be President right now. In fact, some states are trying to do just that. Spilt-up the electorial votes. That way cadidiates wouldn't ignore states where they have the majority of electorial votes.

[edit on 15-10-2004 by curme]



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 11:36 AM
link   


In fact, some states are trying to do just that. Spilt-up the electorial votes


The problem with that is that if they wanted a change they should have started working on it after the last election. Why did they wait until a month before this election to try to make this change? Seems highly suspicious.

Jemison



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 11:43 AM
link   
I want a recount of the entire 2000 popular vote.

I do not believe Al Gore won the popular vote.

Too many irregularities in Wisconsin, Missouri, Arizona, New York, Chicago etc etc etc.

;



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Suspicios or not any educated fourth grader can see the flaw in the current system.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I grow tired of all the "Bush was selected not elected" rhetoric that emminates from the Democrats. Al Gore did not win, get over it. How many absentee ballots from the military were not counted. In fact, the sad truth is that some absentee ballots are never counted. If a person has a big enough lead in one state, and if the number of absentee ballots do not match that number then they are not counted. So it's possible that a million ballots were not even counted in 2000. There is no way to tell who these ballots were cast for.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by IXRAZORXI321
They should divide up the votes evenly. If a state has 10 votes and 70% vote for KERRY he should get 7. Bush should get 3. The way it is now is completely unfair anfair getting elected without the popular vote shows this to everyone.


heh maybe someone heard you...



Facing Colorado voters on Nov. 2: a ballot measure to change the state constitution so that Colorados nine electoral votes would be allocated in proportion to the popular vote in the state instead of a winner-take-all basis
source






[edit on 15-10-2004 by transient]



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by IXRAZORXI321
How can a guy that lost the popular vote by half a million votes get relelected.

By wining the election.


And for that matter how in the he!! did he get in in the first place.

By winning the election. 'Snot decided by popular vote.


This ELECTORAL stuff is completely flawed and I think we should all sue until the ELECTORATE actually reflects what voters want.

First off, this sentence is gibberish. The electorate is the voters, so it can't not relflect what the voters want. I assume you meant that the electoral college should reflect what the voters want, well, it does. Just not in a "direct democracy" manner. The nation is made up of states. The framers were concerned that states have a say in the manner, not mobs of people. You wouldn't change the electoral college to do what I think you are suggesting, you'd simply abolish it. Secondly, you can't sue to ammend the constituion.


It's the biggest scam in the USA. They should divide up the votes evenly. If a state has 10 votes and 70% vote for KERRY he should get 7. Bush should get 3. The way it is now is completely unfair anfair getting elected without the popular vote shows this to everyone.

Why alter the electoral college, why not simply get ride of it?


If you don't agree try explaing this voteing system to a bunch of fourth graders. Even they can see it is stupid.

Fourth graders, on average, tend to not be concerned with states and proportional representation, so what they think about the constiutional system of government is irrelevant.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 01:10 PM
link   
If you get rid of the electoral college, you might as well only open the polls in NY and Cali.

A large chunk of the nation would be silenced, something the existence of the electoral college prevents from happening.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 01:25 PM
link   
And how exactly would you do this? If you vote for the individual delegates, then you still have a winner take all situation. What about third party candidates? What is the cut off. Take a state like California, with 55 delegates. If the two main candidates got 43 and 41 percent respectively, and a third party managed to get 16 % of the vote, rounding that off means that the candidates would get 24, 23. and 9 delegates for a total of 56! How do you avoid round off errors and disputes?

Such a set up would make an electoral college tie even more possible. In this case it is a probable lock that Bush would win. shapeofdays.typepad.com...



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by IXRAZORXI321
How can a guy that lost the popular vote by half a million votes get relelected. And for that matter how in the he!! did he get in in the first place. This ELECTORAL stuff is completely flawed and I think we should all sue until the ELECTORATE actually reflects what voters want.
[edit on 15-10-2004 by IXRAZORXI321]


We do not live in a pure democracy. We live in a democratic republic.

The reason for the electoral college is to give the states of the Union more power.

If you reas your history, you will notice that all of our founding fathers were very very afraid that the federal government would become more powerfull then the states, and thus, specific states with large cities would dominate control of the United States at the expense of smaller less populated ones.

The Electoral college is to insure that states like Alaska, Rhode Island, and Montana have a proportional say as do states like New York and California. The fact is that it is the law, and was made the law for a reason.

If you don't like it leave.

It is very typical of a clearly liberal minded person like yourself to complain about the rules because you lost.

The fact is more states wanted Bush, and thats all that matters. Chew on that.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 01:41 PM
link   


The fact is more states wanted Bush, and thats all that matters. Chew on that.


Yep, and the fact is, the same will be true this election.

Hangin chad? Bumped chad?

hey what's that???

a dimple!

think we can count it?

sure, count it?

where's my glasses?

go get a couple more beers will ya?

sure, whoops, dang, dropped them cards, think it damaged em?

naw, put 'em in the Gore pile!

sure, ok.

Electoral College = Fair Representation...period



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Hey don't get me wrong. I voted for Bush in 2000. But looking back I would change that vote now and I agree with the majority of people who voted then.
After 4 years of a president that didn't get the most votes, and the insane direction he has taken the country, we should eliminate the ELECTORAL college. If not eliminate it we should balance it and make it pointless.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Personally, and I have nothing to support this idea other than my own rather strange reasoning, I think that the electoral college serves another purpose. Look at what you said, 'alter it to make it pointless'. In a sense it is pointless, in so far as why have actual people, electors, meet to do the deed of casting their electoral vote? Might as well just do it all on paper and have congress tally the votes or something automatically. I think that the framers made it involve actual people that could theoretically vote differently than they are supposed to to prevent a -real- maniac from gettign into power. Imagine them saying 'What if that bastard Aaron Burr won the vote, we all know what he's like, he'll just make himself king and start executing everyone. You can't trust the mob. Better have a failsafe'



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 06:09 PM
link   
'What if that bastard Aaron Burr won the vote, we all know what he's like, he'll just make himself king and start executing everyone. You can't trust the mob. Better have a failsafe'


Well that is rediculous you have to be very rich and popular to even get on the ballot. Anyone with blemishes on their record are torn to shreads by the media in the primaries.




If we can't agree on how to fix the ELECTORAL College. Can we all agree that when it no longer reflects the will of the people it is broken?

[edit on 15-10-2004 by IXRAZORXI321]



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Get ready to start see alot of this. Whinning leb losers. This voting system has been around for a long time. It only sucks when your guy loses. Don't worry. This time it well be a landslide. But the lebs can use the new voter intimidation angle.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 06:19 PM
link   
I'm sick of people saying PRESIDENT BUSH LOST THE ELECTION IN 2000!

And for you people saying WE SHOULD CHANGE THE WAY WE VOTE BLAH BLAH BLAH, why do you think this is so? I understand that the elastic clause is in the constitution so generation after generation of Americans can mold the masterpiece that is the constitution to thier modern time, but the electoral college WORKS. It's the fairest way to give small, medium, and big states all a fair say in the election.

If it isn't broke, don't fix it.
And the only people that think the electoral college is broke are whining liberals that are still shouting for a recount 4 years and a terrorist attack later.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 06:28 PM
link   
I told you I voted for Bush and I was happy then....

But tell me this if BUSH had lost and AL GORE ran the country into the ground wouldn't you complain?



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by IXRAZORXI321
'What if that bastard Aaron Burr won the vote, we all know what he's like, he'll just make himself king and start executing everyone. You can't trust the mob. Better have a failsafe'



Well that is rediculous
Yeah, it was wasn't it? Fun nonetheless


If we can't agree on how to fix the ELECTORAL College. Can we all agree that when it no longer reflects the will of the people it is broken?

Since it wasn't built to reflect the will of the people only, then it can't really be said to be broken. If the founders had wanted a direct democracy, they'd've not created the electoral college in the first place. And if one were to get ride of it, then one might as well get rid of state governments too.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join