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

Well, we have a popular vote on a state to state basis, and that's why the electoral college is a winner take all situation. You want to make it so that if you get 55% of the vote in a particular state then you should get 55% of the electoral vote? So I guess then the loser of any election should get to be the guy/girl in office 55% of the time and the other guy/girl 45%? Rediculous!

The reason the electoral college works so well is it gives each individual state an opportunity to have a say in the process. If we went simply by the popular vote, only the major population centers would determine our nationally elected officials, and the regular, less populated states would lose any voice in any national issue. With the electoral college and the winner take all on a state to state basis, when a candidate wins the popular vote in a given state, then that state has effectively elected the candidate based on this popular vote basis that everyone is angry about. The truth of the matter is Bush won the popular vote on a sufficient state by state basis that he won the election. Why should I have to accept a candidate as my leader because CA said so? or NY? Here's a perfect example ( I like this and use it alot). In the state of Illinois, the candidates elected on a statewide basis ( a popular vote, by the way) are heavily influenced by Chicago and Springfield. When tallied, whichever way these two cities go, is the way the entire state goes. Ask the people of southern Illinois how it feels to see their candidate squashed because Chicago said so. That is why there has been a growing movement (although rather fringe) to seperate Illinois into two states. The people of Southern Illinois don't like not having a voice. I'm sure the people of Nebraska would not want California or Illinois telling them who their leaders would be. I prefer a state by state basis. Worked for over 200 years, no complaints. Then Al gore lost and the Democrats lost power. Now the system is magically 'outdated'? Why? Because the slave populations of the inner cities and low income havens you created through social engineering of the handout programs didn't heave you into greatness? BAH! If the situation were reversed, you wouldn't even hear a peep from the Republican leadership. Why? because we know the system works, and we are happy that the democratic process gooes forward, even though we are dissappointed when we lose.

And if one were to get ride of it, then one might as well get rid of state governments too.

I'm all for it I'm tired of paying State and Federal tax. 1 tax would be plenty.

. I prefer a state by state basis. Worked for over 200 years, no complaints. Then Al gore lost and the Democrats lost power. Now the system is magically 'outdated'? Why?

WHY? because it was the first time a president was elected without winning the Popular vote and the Electoral vote.

Something is flawed. If we did it your way every state would have an equal amount of votes. But they do not. Something is flawed.

[edit on 15-10-2004 by IXRAZORXI321]

Why does everyone forget the ALGORE lost his home state of Tennessee?

Florida means nothing if ALGORE's home state votes for him.

The Electoral College is the only way to go. Thank God, we don't live in a true democracy. We live in a Representative Republic!

Originally posted by Carseller4
Why does everyone forget the ALGORE lost his home state of Tennessee?

Florida means nothing if ALGORE's home state votes for him.

The Electoral College is the only way to go. Thank God, we don't live in a true democracy. We live in a Representative Republic!

Well bush has lost his hometown in Texas according to the local paper.

Originally posted by IXRAZORXI321

. I prefer a state by state basis. Worked for over 200 years, no complaints. Then Al gore lost and the Democrats lost power. Now the system is magically 'outdated'? Why?

WHY? because it was the first time a president was elected without winning the Popular vote and the Electoral vote.

Something is flawed. If we did it your way every state would have an equal amount of votes. But they do not. Something is flawed.

[edit on 15-10-2004 by IXRAZORXI321]

It has happened 2-3 times before...Losing popular vote but winning electorally.

[edit on 15-10-2004 by Carseller4]

Originally posted by IXRAZORXI321

Originally posted by Carseller4
Why does everyone forget the ALGORE lost his home state of Tennessee?

Florida means nothing if ALGORE's home state votes for him.

The Electoral College is the only way to go. Thank God, we don't live in a true democracy. We live in a Representative Republic!

Well bush has lost his hometown in Texas according to the local paper.

He lost the endorsement from the towns liberal paper. He did not lose support from the people. I've also heard that subscriptions to that paper have dropped dramatically since.

Originally posted by IXRAZORXI321
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?

No. The fact of the matter is that the electoral college votes determine the winner, not the popular vote.

Actually, the true facts are that whichever candidate wins the popular vote in a particular state, gets that states votes because the candidate won the state's popular vote. Hmm, numbers game? If I won the popular vote in 40 states, but becuase the population of the remaining ten outnumbers the other 40, then only those ten get to choose the president (assuming 100% vote for one candidate in the 40/30 example among the states).

Bush won the majority of the popular votes on a state level, thus the federal process went forward and he won by majority rule. end of story.

I hate this argument. I feel like I'm becoming a broken record here but I am NOT a Bush supporter...but he was fairly elected in 2000.

The Electoral College is there for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, without the Electoral College...New York City and the State of California would be extremely over-represented. Hell, my hometown is in Upstate New York and on the state level...everyone outside of NYC feels very under-represented because senatorial races and campaigns are almost exclusively focused on NYC, since more than half of New York State's population is focused in and around NYC. So, policies and campaigns are based on pandering to the NYC area. There is a lot of economic depression in upstate NY. Many upstate New Yorkers who grow up there eventually leave never to come back because of NYC's influence (I myself don't plan on going back).

Now, if you extend this to a national level - with a popular vote - New York City's surrounding area comprises close to 1/20 of the country's population..and California is the most populous state in the union. I know NOBODY outside of these entities wants them to exert the political force they would, given a strictly popular vote.

Then there is the belief that the average American is not intellectually capable of electing the best president for the job. I agree with this...we are a country of 230+ million, and I assume most posters to this board are of the "upper crust" in terms of intelligence. I am in college and have had my IQ tested at very high levels...this is not to brag but I'd imagine most posters to ATS are of the same educational and intellectual background. This does NOT reflect most Americans. The average American STILL does not have a college education. Therefore, the electorate is comprised of the more educated types...who are more in tune to politics and the world in general.

Now, do I believe that the electoral system needs tweaking? Yes. And I am almost burnt out from a week of exams...so I don't feel like thinking of a reform proposal...but the electoral system we have now is FAR more efficient and reflective of America's will than a strict popular vote would be.

I agree with this...we are a country of 230+ million, and I assume most posters to this board are of the "upper crust" in terms of intelligence. I am in college and have had my IQ tested at very high levels...this is not to brag but I'd imagine most posters to ATS are of the same educational and intellectual background. T

I've been tested at the Genious level. The government once called me and asked if I wanted to help build "Rocket Engines".

Your right about this topic sounding like a broken record. I just rented Farenheight 9/11 and it got me thinking about this again.

[edit on 15-10-2004 by IXRAZORXI321]

Here is some intresting reading none the less:
Undedog-Communications

I have been told when I was younger that the Electoral College was put in place because of the lack of education throughout the Country itself. More points were given to States that had a Higher Education than to those without. It was to be handled this way to make sure someone 'capable' was chosen to run the Country. Now if this holds true, to me it is saying that States with Lower points are not as bright as those with higher ones. This may have been true over a hundred years ago, but I think that alot of doors have opened to everyone since then and the Citizens are able to make a decision on who they want as president, not what the rest of the State thinks. IMHO this needs to be done away with.

Originally posted by IXRAZORXI321

I agree with this...we are a country of 230+ million, and I assume most posters to this board are of the "upper crust" in terms of intelligence. I am in college and have had my IQ tested at very high levels...this is not to brag but I'd imagine most posters to ATS are of the same educational and intellectual background. T

I've been tested at the Genious level. The government once called me and asked if I wanted to help build "Rocket Engines".

Your right about this topic sounding like a broken record. I just rented Farenheight 9/11 and it got me thinking about this again.

[edit on 15-10-2004 by IXRAZORXI321]

I wasn't trying to offend you. I actually agree with your proportionate electoral vote proposal in a lot of ways.

And I didn't mean this topic was a broken record...I meant my stance as not being a Bush supporter was a broken record because I have stated it repeatedly (while making seemingly-Bush supportive posts, because I don't support Kerry either).

I was just trying to say that Bush was fairly elected under our current system (which has been in place since our founding days). It's not like the Republicans tweaked the system in a way to be advantageous to Bush.

Well, I think that if that is true (that education level determined the electoral college) then perhaps a redistribution by population among the states would be in order. This would keep it fair. States with higher popualtions get more electoral votes, states with fewer, wellthen, get fewer. I thought that was the way it was set up originally, or was the electoral college only set up recently? Wasn't the college set up in the early days of the country?

Originally posted by everlastingnoitall
Well, I think that if that is true (that education level determined the electoral college) then perhaps a redistribution by population among the states would be in order. This would keep it fair. States with higher popualtions get more electoral votes, states with fewer, wellthen, get fewer. I thought that was the way it was set up originally, or was the electoral college only set up recently? Wasn't the college set up in the early days of the country?

The Electoral College has been in existence SINCE our country was founded.

The electoral college is set up to give more votes to higher populated states...but its aim is to not OVER represent factions such as can be seen in NYC.

Frankly, a strict popular vote will NEVER work. Too many factions which would marginalize other voters.

Well, I guess that blows the 'education level' theory, then doesn't it?

Originally posted by IXRAZORXI321
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?

I would complain that Gore was a bad President, but not that the election process was flawed.

Well let's see,

When I was in the fourth grade I can Remember a discussion with Mrs. Deering and the class. At that time our class voted and it was decided to do away with the electoral college. Because it could be all to easily manipulated by the few. Especially by the use of Pork Barrel Politics. That was in 1958 and nothing has changed.

Originally posted by IXRAZORXI321
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]

Bush,s handlers secured the election through the use of Nepotism and the manipulation of Power. In order to change the math. Bush and crew secured the electoral vote by 271 to 266. Bush lost the popular vote by 547,864 votes. Very close. Only one electoral vote away from it going to The H.of R. for ballot. This was decided by one electoral college rep in D.C.


2000 election: D.C. elector Barbara Lett-Simmons, pledged for Democrats Al Gore and Joe Lieberman, cast no electoral votes, protesting what she described as the federal district's "colonial status."




Then the recount where the U.S. Supreme Court fumbled the hot political/legal ball. Question should be why. Why did they rule that a manual recount of votes was fundamentally wrong. I mean if you do not manually recount them, how do you recount them. Answer you don't.

The U.S.S.C. handed the ball to the Supreme Court of Florida. Enter Nepotism, let George's brother Jeb and his Judges decide the Presidential election, after all this is where the recount request began.
That is a very good definition of Nepotism in action


"These moves come in the wake of a bitterly divided decision by the U.S. Supreme Court late Tuesday evening, ruling that the manual recount of votes in Florida was unconstitutional. The decision is certain to be among the most controversial ever made by the nation's highest judicial body.

Technically, the court remanded the case to the Florida Supreme Court, instructing it to come up with a constitutionally defensible argument for its order. But it also made clear that, to a majority of the court, such a defense simply did not exist, and that time had run out.

"Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount order by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy," the majority opinion ruled.

In a blistering dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens blasted the majority opinion as undercutting the highest court's moral authority. "Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."

dir.salon.com...

The Florida Supreme Court ordered to stop counting and George won the State election by 1000? votes. Disregarding Dade-Broward+Palm Beach Counties all heavily populated poor and middle class Democrats. Thus giving Bush 27 electoral votes to secure the Presidency through Power and Manipulation of the Judicial System. None of your votes counted you wasted your precious time and a mere handful disgraced our entire Political Belief System
If Florida's 27 E votes had of been allowed to go Democratic the results would have been 293 E's for Dem's and 244 E's for Rep's So due to the decisions of one voter in D.C.'s College and a fumbling Supreme Court and State Court ruling in his brothers state. The crew one by 5 E votes switch it around and Gore would have won by 49 E votes.
Moral to the story 27 manipulated votes cancel 547,864 citizen votes!Why Vote?





Detractors of the college
Supporters of direct election argue that it would give everyone an equal vote, regardless of which part of the country they live in, and oppose giving disproportionately amplified voting power to voters in small states. In contrast, the Electoral College disenfranchises those voters in every state who cast their votes for the candidate receiving fewer votes in that state. And it also partly disenfranchises voters in larger states by reducing their proportional contribution to the final election result.

It is also worth pointing out that the Electoral College assumes that voters within states vote monolithically, when in fact this is not the case. Many states are often deeply divided over how to vote in a Presidential election. A key element of democracy is that voters disagree among themselves on what they consider their interests, and this happens within states as well as between states. Thus, for example, in the 2000 election, New Hampshire (a small state) gave 48% of its votes to Bush, and 47% to Gore. According to the pro-Electoral College model, as a small state, New Hampshire necessarily voted for its own local interests in supporting Bush. This in itself skews the campaign process, as candidates focus their efforts on states whose electoral votes are in question, rather than individual voters whose ballots are in play, and may contribute to broader sectional divisions.

Opponents also argue that the Electoral College tends to favor a two-party system. Even when a third-party candidate receives a significant number of popular votes, he may not receive a majority in any state and may not garner even a single electoral vote, as was the case of Ross Perot in the 1992 elections.

Yet another problem with the electoral college is what would result if no candidate won a majority of electoral votes, basically an election which fails to elect. In several elections of the Twentieth century, 1912, 1948, 1960, and 1968, third party candidates won electoral votes. It is certainly within the realm of possibility in a three-way race no candidate would reach the magic 270 number. If no candidate hit 270, the election would go to the House, where, under special election rules, each state delegation would have one vote, no matter its size. If the House election tied, or if enough delegations split evenly, there would be no winner at all.

Most electoral reform plans in the US include ways to abolish the College.



en.wikipedia.org...


Hope this Helps,

TUT

p.s.-i find it unusual that a genius should vote for a Dunce

Originally posted by IXRAZORXI321

Originally posted by Carseller4
Why does everyone forget the ALGORE lost his home state of Tennessee?

Florida means nothing if ALGORE's home state votes for him.

The Electoral College is the only way to go. Thank God, we don't live in a true democracy. We live in a Representative Republic!

Well bush has lost his hometown in Texas according to the local paper.

Population of Crawford, Texas: 705

Population of Texas: 22,118,509

Not exactly an overwhelming statistic.

Originally posted by tututkamen
Well let's see,

When I was in the fourth grade I can Remember a discussion with Mrs. Deering and the class. At that time our class voted and it was decided to do away with the electoral college. Because it could be all to easily manipulated by the few. Especially by the use of Pork Barrel Politics. That was in 1958 and nothing has changed.

Originally posted by IXRAZORXI321
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]

Bush,s handlers secured the election through the use of Nepotism and the manipulation of Power. In order to change the math. Bush and crew secured the electoral vote by 271 to 266. Bush lost the popular vote by 547,864 votes. Very close. Only one electoral vote away from it going to The H.of R. for ballot. This was decided by one electoral college rep in D.C.

2000 election: D.C. elector Barbara Lett-Simmons, pledged for Democrats Al Gore and Joe Lieberman, cast no electoral votes, protesting what she described as the federal district's "colonial status."




Then the recount where the U.S. Supreme Court fumbled the hot political/legal ball. Question should be why. Why did they rule that a manual recount of votes was fundamentally wrong. I mean if you do not manually recount them, how do you recount them. Answer you don't.

The U.S.S.C. handed the ball to the Supreme Court of Florida. Enter Nepotism, let George's brother Jeb and his Judges decide the Presidential election, after all this is where the recount request began.
That is a very good definition of Nepotism in action


"These moves come in the wake of a bitterly divided decision by the U.S. Supreme Court late Tuesday evening, ruling that the manual recount of votes in Florida was unconstitutional. The decision is certain to be among the most controversial ever made by the nation's highest judicial body.

Technically, the court remanded the case to the Florida Supreme Court, instructing it to come up with a constitutionally defensible argument for its order. But it also made clear that, to a majority of the court, such a defense simply did not exist, and that time had run out.

"Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount order by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy," the majority opinion ruled.

In a blistering dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens blasted the majority opinion as undercutting the highest court's moral authority. "Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."

dir.salon.com...

The Florida Supreme Court ordered to stop counting and George won the State election by 1000? votes. Disregarding Dade-Broward+Palm Beach Counties all heavily populated poor and middle class Democrats. Thus giving Bush 27 electoral votes to secure the Presidency through Power and Manipulation of the Judicial System. None of your votes counted you wasted your precious time and a mere handful disgraced our entire Political Belief System
If Florida's 27 E votes had of been allowed to go Democratic the results would have been 293 E's for Dem's and 244 E's for Rep's So due to the decisions of one voter in D.C.'s College and a fumbling Supreme Court and State Court ruling in his brothers state. The crew one by 5 E votes switch it around and Gore would have won by 49 E votes.
Moral to the story 27 manipulated votes cancel 547,864 citizen votes!Why Vote?





Detractors of the college
Supporters of direct election argue that it would give everyone an equal vote, regardless of which part of the country they live in, and oppose giving disproportionately amplified voting power to voters in small states. In contrast, the Electoral College disenfranchises those voters in every state who cast their votes for the candidate receiving fewer votes in that state. And it also partly disenfranchises voters in larger states by reducing their proportional contribution to the final election result.

It is also worth pointing out that the Electoral College assumes that voters within states vote monolithically, when in fact this is not the case. Many states are often deeply divided over how to vote in a Presidential election. A key element of democracy is that voters disagree among themselves on what they consider their interests, and this happens within states as well as between states. Thus, for example, in the 2000 election, New Hampshire (a small state) gave 48% of its votes to Bush, and 47% to Gore. According to the pro-Electoral College model, as a small state, New Hampshire necessarily voted for its own local interests in supporting Bush. This in itself skews the campaign process, as candidates focus their efforts on states whose electoral votes are in question, rather than individual voters whose ballots are in play, and may contribute to broader sectional divisions.

Opponents also argue that the Electoral College tends to favor a two-party system. Even when a third-party candidate receives a significant number of popular votes, he may not receive a majority in any state and may not garner even a single electoral vote, as was the case of Ross Perot in the 1992 elections.

Yet another problem with the electoral college is what would result if no candidate won a majority of electoral votes, basically an election which fails to elect. In several elections of the Twentieth century, 1912, 1948, 1960, and 1968, third party candidates won electoral votes. It is certainly within the realm of possibility in a three-way race no candidate would reach the magic 270 number. If no candidate hit 270, the election would go to the House, where, under special election rules, each state delegation would have one vote, no matter its size. If the House election tied, or if enough delegations split evenly, there would be no winner at all.

Most electoral reform plans in the US include ways to abolish the College.

en.wikipedia.org...


Hope this Helps,

TUT

p.s.-i find it unusual that a genius should vote for a Dunce

You say Bush had 271 electoral votes but the election would have gone to the House of Representatives if on person would not have abstained. Yet later, you say that if no candidate reaches 270 votes, the election would go to the house. Even if Barbara Lett-Simmons had voted for Gore, Bush would still have received 271 electoral votes. That appears to be above the 270 vote threshold. One more electoral voter could have abstained and Bush still would have had the necessary 270 votes to become President. Bush won fair and square.