Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if ?

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What if ?

    ...
    Last edited by *o*; 02-21-2006, 06:03 AM.

  • #2
    Then Bush and his buddies will head the administration.
    Isn't that the way the system is designed?

    EDIT: or are you referring to further down the road?

    Comment


    • #3
      florida will be hit by an earthquake and cut off the rest of the US to be lost in the Sea along with Atlantis, cause we all know Atlanteans fucked up an election too.

      Comment


      • #4
        *o*'s question may be moot (let us hope--and not just because I happen to support Kerry). The 2000 election, no matter who one supported, was an awful thing to have happen.

        Though this site is unabashedly partisan, it is a thorough discussion of numerous polls as of noon-ish here in the U.S. Even Fox's own polling today shows Kerry ahead of Bush by a margin that exceeds its margin of error--and Fox has been unabashedly pro-Bush. It will at least be close, but it does indeed appear Kerry will win.

        But *o*'s question is well taken. Our decentralized voting system is vulnerable to challenge in close races--that's exactly what happened in Florida in 2000--and so a Kerry victory, even by a comfortable margin (or, for that matter, a Bush victory), will not fix the system. As is so often the case in my country, we tend not to deal with problems until/unless a Florida 2000 appears . . . and then, as then, we would rather tinker than really fix things.

        Comment


        • #5
          Perhaps another such fiasco will encourage more people to rethink the electoral college system. Or it'll start a Civil War.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by 1exist
            Perhaps another such fiasco will encourage more people to rethink the electoral college system. Or it'll start a Civil War.
            doubtful about the civil war thing, but the rethinking electoral college system, that's what would help. but it will never change, because states such as New York and California hold more 80 electoral votes, while states such as north dakota have...what? 4? it's the atom theory...north dakota is mostly bg and vast but mostly empty space...but the utter fact is, it doesn't matter how many people reside in a state, it depends on how many actually vote. That's the whole point of all this, it could happen that out of all the people in New York (*19,190,115 according to the 2003 census*), only, say 3 million vote...and in South carolina say 4 million vote (*don't ask how just listen...read...look...whatever*) New York still has its huge amount of votes and South Carolina still has its...

            i'm sure Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates weren't thinking of Aristocratic rule of electoral college like this. siiiigh.

            Comment


            • #7
              Also, since I'm from Florida this time around, my vote counts extra, maybe.

              Many of us are keeping a wary eye out for voting shenanigans, so hopefully there won't be any problems of the 2000 variety. Hopefully . . .

              Comment


              • #8
                The thing about the states with smaller populations getting more representation was, I think, more pertinent before the Civil War--and railroads--and mass communication--and the global economy. I actually think abolishing the system would be better for equally representing all the nation's people because the threat no longer comes from small states vs. large states, but highly partisan states where votes for the minority party count for nothing. Imagine being a Democrat in Texas, or a Republican in California--year after year of not having any incentive to drag yourself to the polls. All the action is in the swing states. Man, they must have great parties.

                Comment


                • #9
                  what will happen...
                  absolutely nothing, maybe a few peoople like like michael moore will bitch but nobody will actually do anything. i think it's safe to say that the majority of americans are whiny non-confrontational bitches (i know i am one). the poor people will just let the rich people push them around forever as long as there's the capitalist promise that one day they too might get lucky and become rich and then they can push poor people around too.
                  etc.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Most people truly don't understand what happened in Florida.

                    This may be hard to accept, but Gore was the villain there. He was trying to have a partial recount in only six counties where he was ahead. Pound for pound, he knew a recount in JUST those six counties would yield more votes for him. He was trying to steal the election, plain and simple.

                    At the same time, he was trying to suppress military absentee ballots which he knew tended to be Republican.

                    The Florida Supreme Court issued a shocking ruling supporting his efforts. The Supreme Court, including at least one Clinton appointee (Breyer), reversed his efforts. (Although they differed on what the appropriate remedy was. Five justices voted to end it right there; two others felt the Florida Supreme Court was wrong but wanted to re-send it to Florida for further analysis.)

                    I spoke after the election to one of the country's most preeminent voting rights experts. For example, he served as a special master in the redistricting of Florida after the 1990 census (in other words, he was the expert consultant for a federal judge, and essentially drew the district maps for the next 10 years in Florida). This guy was a sixties radical and total Democrat, but a fair-minded guy. I asked him, point blank, "I realize you might have reached a different result, but can you fault the legal reasoning behind the Supreme Court's ruling?"

                    After some thought, he said, "No, but I wish they'd pay more attention to equal protection in other cases."

                    That said, I echo John B. that I hope there is a decisive victory, either way, to spare us the debacle of another drawn out court battle.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Ghent Redux
                      Most people truly don't understand what happened in Florida.

                      This may be hard to accept, but Gore was the villain there. He was trying to have a partial recount in only six counties where he was ahead. Pound for pound, he knew a recount in JUST those six counties would yield more votes for him. He was trying to steal the election, plain and simple.
                      he was going to steal the election by proving that he really won?
                      he knew that the recount would show that he had more votes than what was originally claimed?
                      so you're saying bush really lost and by tring to prove it gore is a thief?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by voodoo dolphin
                        Originally posted by Ghent Redux
                        Most people truly don't understand what happened in Florida.

                        This may be hard to accept, but Gore was the villain there. He was trying to have a partial recount in only six counties where he was ahead. Pound for pound, he knew a recount in JUST those six counties would yield more votes for him. He was trying to steal the election, plain and simple.
                        he was going to steal the election by proving that he really won?
                        he knew that the recount would show that he had more votes than what was originally claimed?
                        so you're saying bush really lost and by tring to prove it gore is a thief?
                        No. Take your partisan hat off and try to analyze it dispassionately. By only recounting the six counties where he was overwhelmingly ahead, Gore would have gained additional votes by simple percentages, while Bush's uncounted votes remained uncounted.

                        Here is an example, simplified but not inaccurate.

                        Say in County A, 1000 people votes were counted, 900 for Gore and 100 for Bush. Then say a recount happened and found 100 extra votes. (Typically a recount finds "undervotes," i.e., votes that were mistakenly not counted). Assuming all uncounted votes were spread between the candidates in proportion to the counted votes, that would mean another 90 votes for Gore, 10 for Bush.

                        Meanwhile, County B is the opposite. 1000 votes, 900 for Bush, 100 for Gore. But there is no recount in that county, because it's not one of the six that Gore wanted a recount. So, that's 90 Bush votes, 10 Gore votes that AREN'T counted.

                        See the scam he was trying to pull? :) And he fooled a lot of people into thinking he just wanted a fair recount.

                        But for a recount to be fair, you need to count ALL counties, and ALL votes.

                        Gore was seeking to harvest another few thousand votes to beat Bush's razor-thin lead, meanwhile leaving Bush "undervotes" uncounted. In other words, he was openly seeking to steal the election.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I disagree. A recount is a recount is a recount, and if I was a presidential candidtate and I thought votes hadn't been counted accurately that I would have needed to win, I would have pushed for it too. Especially if I already had the popular vote and ESPECIALLY if large numbers of people who wanted to vote had been unfairly turned away from the polls. But that's just me.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 1exist
                            I disagree. A recount is a recount is a recount, and if I was a presidential candidtate and I thought votes hadn't been counted accurately that I would have needed to win, I would have pushed for it too. Especially if I already had the popular vote and ESPECIALLY if large numbers of people who wanted to vote had been unfairly turned away from the polls. But that's just me.
                            And under those hypothetical circumstances, if you had demanded a full statewide recount (all precincts, all absentee ballots), then you could even lay claim to the mantle of fairness.

                            That's not what happened in 2000, though. As the old saying goes, you are welcome to your opinion, but not your facts.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              ...
                              Last edited by *o*; 02-21-2006, 06:04 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X