[Skookum]

but Bush get's back in on the electoral?

Just wonderin.............

 

[lonewolfe]

He'll steal it again one way or the other. I guess we will have to talk about it after it happens.

:angry:

 

[BostonBullit]

Originally posted by lonewolfe
He'll steal it again one way or the other. I guess we will have to talk about it after it happens.

:angry:

definately....he'll steal it again just like he stoled it last time. oh wait, he didn't steal it last time.

Is loosing the popular vote but winning the electoral "stealing" the election? because last time I read the rules it's all on the up and up.

And to answer the question: if kerry takes the popular vote by a landslide but looses the electoral college then he looses the election...at least that's what the rules of the game say. Don't like it? write your congressman

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by BostonBullit
Ted Kennedys car has killed more people than my gun.

Ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaa! I like your sig quote. I'd bet Chares Schumer's breath has claimed more victims, too.

 

[sshappy]

What happens if George Bush wins the popular vote but loses the electoral?

On the surface it does look like the electoral system needs a re-think but there are probably too many vested interests on both sides for that to happen.

 

[Slugman]

Originally posted by BostonBullit
definately....he'll steal it again just like he stoled it last time. oh wait, he didn't steal it last time.

Is loosing the popular vote but winning the electoral "stealing" the election? because last time I read the rules it's all on the up and up.

And to answer the question: if kerry takes the popular vote by a landslide but looses the electoral college then he looses the election...at least that's what the rules of the game say. Don't like it? write your congressman

When you illegally block thousands of voters who you suspect would have voted for Gore (therefore giving Florida to Gore), yeah - it's called stealing.

The UN even published a report about how the election wasn't fair...

 

[Tweek]

Is it even possible for a candidate to win the Popular by a landslide and not get the Electoral?

 

[T-Dog]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
Ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaa! I like your sig quote. I'd bet Chares Schumer's breath has claimed more victims, too.

I liked that quote too......then I thought maybe he just needs to aim more carefully.

especially when shooting AT Kennedy.....

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Slugman
When you illegally block thousands of voters who you suspect would have voted for Gore (therefore giving Florida to Gore), yeah - it's called stealing.

The UN even published a report about how the election wasn't fair...

...and gore stopped thousands of military votes on absentee balots from being counted, which of course, would never go to a democrat, so what makes anyone any better?
I get tired of all this talk about how Bush "stole" the election. Its not stealing. They dont campaign for the popular vote even, they do it for electoral votes. Why else would somewhere like new hampshire be important?

 

[golgiaparatus]

I really dont know... bush is pretty well connected... he showed us that 4 years ago. My state is going to lean towards bush just because its a mainly republican community... all I can do is sit back and hope that Kerry can beat him. Feel pretty powerless about the whole thing because of how the system works. I really wish they'd just count all votes and call it good instead of complicating the whole process.

 

[BostonBullit]

Originally posted by T-Dog
I liked that quote too......then I thought maybe he just needs to aim more carefully.

especially when shooting AT Kennedy.....

aim? when shooting at Ted? have you seen the size of the guys head lately? but I digress...

please provide proof that thousands of voters were illegally blocked by either side.

The UN published a report that the election was unfair? oh my good lord not that?! the UN...really? amazing. and they are a completely fair and impartial body to be doing such a thing aren't they now? The UN is interested in pretty much one thing: making sure that UN countries (other than the US) interests are not meddled with by anyone, especially the US. They can't really do much of anything because whenever they try it pisses off some member country and everything just bogs down.

The UN is the Galactic Senate from Star Wars....

 

[Spud]

I’m googling this but coming up blank. What other elections were decided with the electoral college having a different result than the general vote tally? I had thought it was Bush/Gore in 2000 plus one other. Someone had told me Teddy Roosevelt, but that doesn’t sound right.

 

[BostonBullit]

Originally posted by Spud
I’m googling this but coming up blank. What other elections were decided with the electoral college having a different result than the general vote tally? I had thought it was Bush/Gore in 2000 plus one other. Someone had told me Teddy Roosevelt, but that doesn’t sound right.

I'm not sure on that one meself, but the fact remains that it doesn't matter if this is the first time or the 100th time it's happened; it's still perfectly legal under the law as it's been...well...pretty much forever.

I'm also not saying that I agree with the electoral college method. I'm sure it made sense 200yrs ago but we have the technology to do away with it now. BUT as long as it's the way we do things people need to either A)shut up and accept the results or B)do everything in their power to change the law.

 

[RhinofromWA]

How close was the "popular" vote again?

Seems to me the country didn't really want one or the other in.

Looks split pretty evenly this time also.....

Wish we would pick people we can get excited about.

Rhino

 

[N8 v2.0]

The purpose if the electorial college is to ensure that all states are represented equally reguardless of their population.

Otherwise we would all be rulled by the goofballs in NY and CA.

 

[T-Dog]

Originally posted by Spud
I’m googling this but coming up blank. What other elections were decided with the electoral college having a different result than the general vote tally? I had thought it was Bush/Gore in 2000 plus one other. Someone had told me Teddy Roosevelt, but that doesn’t sound right.

1888 Grover Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison.

Here's the site:http://www.multied.com/elections/

 

[BostonBullit]

Originally posted by N8
The purpose if the electorial college is to ensure that all states are represented equally reguardless of their population.

Otherwise we would all be rulled by the goofballs in NY and CA.

good point.

 

[RhinofromWA]

based on 2000 Consensus this is teh electoral college breakdown:

ALABAMA - 9 MONTANA - 3
ALASKA - 3 NEBRASKA - 5
ARIZONA - 10 NEVADA - 5
ARKANSAS - 6 NEW HAMPSHIRE - 4
CALIFORNIA - 55 NEW JERSEY - 15
COLORADO - 9 NEW MEXICO - 5
CONNECTICUT - 7 NEW YORK - 31
DELAWARE - 3 NORTH CAROLINA - 15
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA - 3 NORTH DAKOTA - 3
FLORIDA - 27 OHIO - 20
GEORGIA - 15 OKLAHOMA - 7
HAWAII - 4 OREGON - 7
IDAHO - 4 PENNSYLVANIA - 21
ILLINOIS - 21 RHODE ISLAND - 4
INDIANA - 11 SOUTH CAROLINA - 8
IOWA - 7 SOUTH DAKOTA - 3
KANSAS - 6 TENNESSEE - 11
KENTUCKY - 8 TEXAS - 34
LOUISIANA - 9 UTAH - 5
MAINE - 4 VERMONT - 3
MARYLAND - 10 VIRGINIA - 13
MASSACHUSETTS - 12 WASHINGTON - 11
MICHIGAN - 17 WEST VIRGINIA - 5
MINNESOTA - 10 WISCONSIN - 10
MISSISSIPPI - 6 WYOMING - 3
MISSOURI - 11



Sorry it didn't paste over so well.

CA = 55
NY = 31
FL = 27

Some others.....

WA = 17
ID = 4
RI = 4

(minimum a state can have is 3)

 

[RhinofromWA]

How do the 538 electoral votes get divided among the States?

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/faq.html

The number of electoral votes allotted to each State corresponds to the number of Representatives and Senators that each State sends to Congress. The distribution of electoral votes among the States can vary every 10 years depending on the results of the United States Census.

One of the primary functions of the Census is to reapportion the 435 members of the House of Representatives among the States, based on the current population. The reapportionment of the House determines the division of electoral votes among the States. In the Electoral College, each State gets one electoral vote for each of its Representatives in the House, and one electoral vote for each of its two Senators.

Thus, every state has at least 3 electoral votes, because the Constitution grants each State two Senators and at least one Representative. In addition to the 535 electoral votes divided among the States, the District of Columbia has three electoral votes because the 23rd Amendment granted it the same number of votes as the least populated State.

If a State gains or loses a Congressional district, it will also gain or lose an electoral vote. As a result of the Census conducted in 2000, the number of electoral votes allotted to certain States changed for the 2004 election.

 

[Spud]

Thanks T-Dog!

One flaw with the electoral college is this election will be determined solely by who wins the 13-18 contested states. Both campaigns recognize that 32 to 37 states are locks and are planning strategies to win the remaining states.

I’m not sure that is what our founding fathers imagined. Yes I recognize it is the constitutional method etc. etc. I’m not saying anyone is stealing any elections. What I’m saying you are fooling yourselves if you think your vote counts unless you are in one of the golden contested states.


Washington Post Story on the Golden 18

 

[911]

Originally posted by Spud
I’m not sure that is what our founding fathers imagined. Yes I recognize it is the constitutional method etc. etc. I’m not saying anyone is stealing any elections. What I’m saying you are fooling yourselves if you think your vote counts unless you are in one of the golden contested states.

That's exactly how I feel, and primary reason I think we could do better with a different system.

 

[Spud]

Originally posted by N8
The purpose if the electorial college is to ensure that all states are represented equally reguardless of their population.

Otherwise we would all be rulled by the goofballs in NY and CA.

As opposed to California and Florida – the two states whose electoral votes may essential determine the 2004 election?

Speaking of California – ever hear of a man named Ronald Reagan?

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Spud
...ever hear of a man named Ronald Reagan?

No and neither has he!

Oh yeah, I've got an express ticket to hell :devil: