I'm curious who the Right/Bob Barr's think the Dems could have trotted out as a Prez candidate who would have been a "better" candidate for the Left and who might have a 8 pt lead in the polls now?

LOL, 5%..

What about the black people that vote for Obama because they hate white people? Don't try and act like they're a small number.

http://www.feanor.net/z0r/shock/whiteblack.swf

:mad:

I think you could hit the ALL button on this one.....

Count every American's vote (instead of just counting 50 American Micro Majorities.) Woops!! That would be horrible! OMG..Count up every American's vote, and see who has the most votes. Can't have that happen. The guy most Americans vote for would be assured of winning........How awful that system would be. Atleast 4100 more Americans would be still alive if we did it this way.

:confused: you mean let's have the popular vote decide?

Isn't that how you vote for your state's top leader? They add up the votes from people in the state. This is the leader of a country. How about the people in the country vote, and they add it up? It's a national office. It's not a state office. State totals should have zero to do with determining a national leader. The state you live in should have nothing to do with your vote for president....Nothing. Just like the city you live in should have nothing to do with your vote for the Governor of your state. When you vote for a member of congress, all the votes in that Congressional district are counted up. You don't count up areas won within that congressional district. Let's face it. The Electoral College is loved by the South because they don't want their minority "Buckwheat" votes to count, and they don't count.

My vote means absolutely zero. If I choose to vote for a democrat for president in any given election in the state I live, my vote is absolutely meaningless. Which makes sense...I am a meaningless person! It's this way in many states for both sides of the political spectrum. A popular vote would make them actually campaign cross country as random red and blue votes in random blue and red states would actually mean something. It's hard for me to think a popular vote wouldn't increase voter turnout as well.

It's very divisive. Even if you do some incredible gymnastics to come up with an argument to call it fair(somehow,) you can't deny it's one of the most divisive things we have in place.

scuds needs to go back to civics class. the electoral college was put in place so that each state would have a voice, and no state would be marginalized. you have to understand that back when all that was put in place, the federal govt was viewed as a necessary evil to keep a fairly loose conglomeration of states united under one 'leader'. but most didn't want states rights to lose out to a large federal govt-which is exactly what we have now. states won't try to break away from the feds now on anything, since everyone is hooked onto the govt teat financially...

AE Wingnut, you are joking?


The choice of Plalin by the Repubs shows a complete disregard for a presidential campaign being centered around issues


And let's not just talk about Palin's intellectual mediocrity(and McCain's), we can talk openly about Johnny's age as an issue. In case those of you who are unsupportive of Obama(I need to include Coachpants, who likes to claim some sort of independence, but seems hugely against Obama) have not noticed this week, McCain's behavior is causing a lot of worries among your side.

Pathetic.

And there's no better candidate available on the national scene that would be better than Obama as the candidate for the Democratic party.

I'm excited...talk dirty some more.

I wanted her to talk about NAFTA's sucking sound.

It's bullshit. It's got to go, and doesn't surprise me somebody living in the south likes it. FK THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. This is a national office.You can't figure that out.... can ya honey. It only has states involved because of a-holes back then, and their descendants today. You lower yourself to the people around you. We can't get rid of it, because our cancer(the south) loves to keep their buckwheat's votes from counting. The Electoral College was started to satisfy racists, and it's still in today, because racists won't sign on to get rid of it. This thread is about racism. Start with that E.C. Each state has 2 senators to represent their state. That's enough of that States rights racism. Anytime you hear "States Rights ," racism isn't far behind. Your living in the state that didn't want blacks going to school at Little Rock High School. They did that claiming states rights. Racists love states rights. It lets you fk over people in your own state. Which is exactly what happens in the E C. If you don't belong to the predominant party in the state, then your vote probably won't mean much in the Presidential Elections. States Rights = you got the right to fk over those with the least power in your state. My Dad saw a Black guy get beat to a pulp in Arkansas in the late 40's early 50's(BY A COP.) He refuses to go back. Back then, States Rights meant you got to do pretty much whatever you wanted to the Blacks in your state.

can you explain to me where in my post i said that it was a good idea, that i came up with it (i'm not THAT old) or that i agreed with it? it's what's in place, but i find it interesting that you think a southerner came up with the idea. again, you need to go look thru your history books....honey

"The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote."

from 'how stuff works':
History of the Electoral College
The Electoral College is a controversial mechanism of presidential elections that was created by the framers of the U.S. Constitution as a compromise for the presidential election process. At the time, some politicians believed a purely popular election was too reckless, while others objected to giving Congress the power to select the president. The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.

Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. senators (2 in each state) plus the number of its U.S. representatives, which varies according to the state's population. Currently, the Electoral College includes 538 electors, 535 for the total number of congressional members, and three who represent Washington, D.C., as allowed by the 23rd Amendment. On the Monday following the second Wednesday in December, the electors of each state meet in their respective state capitals to officially cast their votes for president and vice president. These votes are then sealed and sent to the president of the Senate, who on Jan. 6 opens and reads the votes in the presence of both houses of Congress. The winner is sworn into office at noon Jan. 20. Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, which is entirely legal.


http://history.howstuffworks.com/ame...al-college.htm

there's the link, several pages of info on the college, who is an elector, faithless electors, etc. -for those interested in learning about the EC, as some have no idea why we have it, how it works, how the votes are divided (by state population)...

The only reason we still have it is because racist states like yours won't vote to ammend. O.K.? Racism keeps this intact. They don't even try to get rid of it, because they know racist states in the south won't vote for it to go.

i didn't know it had ever been brought up in congress to amend. when did this occur?

You didn't say it was a bad idea. Why are you so quick to come to it's aid. You mention the word marginalize? That's what the E.C. does to each voting minority in a state. Beautiful isn't it? Great for you to come flying in to it's aid.

oh, and by the way...it would be states with smaller populations that would not want to get rid of the EC, not southern states with larger populations. states such as wyoming, north dakota, vermont, idaho....etc, etc

They won't. Takes too many votes, and there are too many Southern States. That's why I keep saying the only hope for the rest of the country is to give the South their own country.

you are so quick to jump on your high horse, and use ANY reason to go 'south bashing'. all i did was say that the EC is what it is-you're too quick to assume every and anything-and to automatically assume that it's the dreaded south who's responsible.
it doesn't need my aid, the house and senate can get rid of it with a 2/3rds majority, which hasn't happened. the senate voted on it fairly recently, 52-48 was the split. i'd imagine states like idaho, delaware, north and south dakota and hawaii voted it down-it's those states, and other relatively small states population-wise who want to keep the current system.
go read that link, you might learn something. or not.

I know who likes States Rights. Like I said it marginalizes any voting minority in a state. That can only be thought of as good thing by a-s-s holes. Atleast a 3rd of the States elect a-s-s holes, because they themselves are a-s-s holes. Look at your states best example...John Daly. I really gotta search hard for examples. It's so tough to find them. Yeah, Zig, I am so off base to notice that sea of red in the south, and note that not one Democrat's vote COUNTS IN THE SOUTH. Now just who do you think would vote against getting rid of the E.C.?

He wanted to know why Obama isn't blowing McCain away. I'm just saying the E.C. is a big part of it. Gore got about a half million more votes than Bush. That E.C. thing is the reason he wasn't the President. That lil E.C. thing.

quick questions: does the president get elected by a majority? if not, is there a runoff? how is that structured?

because no one got a majority in 2000. or 1992. or 1968.

or do we just choose a number like a plurality over 40%? in which case we're still putting in power someone that the majority didn't vote for.

what do we do when there are 300 candidates running for president? because that's what you'd have a few years after dumping the electoral college. it's a key underpinning to our (so far) stable 2 party system.

there are no successful 3rd parties in america because of the difficulty of winning enough individual states to be elected president. you're either ross perot with a broad but too shallow constituency (no electoral votes) or george wallace with a deep but too narrow voting bloc (too few electoral votes).

would you rather have an occasional george bush or be italy?

I guess I want the 300 candidates running for president. I hate the stable two party system we have right now

you're an ungrateful pup then.

you sit in the (still) richest most powerful country in history and complain.

i think things worked out okay. we got lucky the founders accidently put in place something that has worked over a few century's. we should be very careful about making fundamental changes in a system that produces relative stability in politics.

you don't like george bush? me either. but wait until you've sampled an ungovernable mob.

Again, we vote for Governor by adding up the votes in a state. We vote for senators by adding up the votes in the state. We vote for Congressman by voting up the votes in a congressional district. There is no good reason we can't simply add up the votes for President of the country by adding up the votes in the country(not the votes in the states.) This is a National office. It shouldn't have states involved at all. He doesn't represent states interests. He is supposed to represent every Americans interests....And I never want another George Bush again(SINCE YOU ASKED.) For whatever else you asked about look at elections for Governors. They seem to work just fine. I don't know why people don't want to just add up people's votes to determine the President. Probably because they think they have an inherent advantage in the E.C.

Ok then lets go back to the Civil War.
If the North's major source of income was agriculture do you
think the North would have played a role in freeing the slaves?
What was inherent in the genes or upbringing of the oh so moral North
that made them the abolitionists they were? Its not there. The North
was industrialized, they did not need slave labor, it was easy to be
against it.

The roles would have been completely reversed if you change the
geography that led to agriculture v. industrial. And what makes anyone
think if they lived in a society in which they were taught from birth that blacks needed this work and were not fully human that they would have been
immune to this... Anyone on this board could have been a fervent Nazi
under the correct conditions.

Get over the regionalism and try to understand the roots.

And dammit Scuds you just dont know Texas, at all. It is very diff. than the deep south. It was never a part of the deep south. East Texas, I will admit, is close... excluding Houston which is quite cosmopolitan. The Western parts are much more like Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, etc... Very independent minded. South-Central Texas could be mistaken for California with Austin being Berkely, and San Antonio being the part of LA that you hate because of Mexicans. The State is very diverse, and could be democratic in a few years if the Democrats are able to take hold of the Hispanic vote. That is all it would take.
I have been to Mississippi.
Whole diff ball game.
Make the Rednecks here look like Ted Kennedy clones.

wise words.....for once!

AIN'T READING IT..You're an irritant only.

We don't have the highest standard of living in the world. Our currency has poor value compared to the Euro, or the Pound. Why do you think we are richest? I think it's simply false, sir.

It didn't work well in 2000. God is so warped he is missing it. If we just added up the votes, then somebody would of won by a wide margin, and we wouldn't have been down in Florida recounting such a close decision. We deserved that mess, because we stupidly stay in this stupid E.C. If we simply counted all the Citizens votes up in the country, then we wouldn't probably ever get just a thousand vote difference. How many people on here think their vote will have any impact in November? Not me, not you, not PGRDN, not many of us. See? You want to stick to this crap. Again , it can only be because you see some inherent good in keeping down minority party voters in each state. I think it's soooo stupid, and incredibly divisive. For somebody who dislikes friction between parties, you are missing how divisive the E.C is.

Richest?

We are about to be 11 trillion dollars in debt and counting.

Wouldnt that make us about the poorest?

I'm a pup?:confused: :) :( :zz:


Not really complaining, am I? Just because I want this great country I'm so proud of, blessed by God as it is, to be tweaked here and there for improvement, doesn't mean you have to imply the ole' "America-Love it or Leave it" mantra

I think I need a hug

Ok then lets go back to the Civil War.
If the North's major source of income was agriculture do you
think the North would have played a role in freeing the slaves?
What was inherent in the genes or upbringing of the oh so moral North
that made them the abolitionists they were? Its not there. The North
was industrialized, they did not need slave labor, it was easy to be
against it.

The roles would have been completely reversed if you change the
geography that led to agriculture v. industrial. And what makes anyone
think if they lived in a society in which they were taught from birth that blacks needed this work and were not fully human that they would have been
immune to this... Anyone on this board could have been a fervent Nazi
under the correct conditions.






Signed,

Phil:D

and Ethel:p


Nincompoop.....we mean Garden