West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Lincoln on October 20, 2004, 07:30:59 PM
-
but doesn't get 270 electoral college votes?? I read a poll in a newspaper that has Bush leading electoral votes, but less than 270.
Similarly, in Canada, if a party wins but the party's leader doesn't get a seat, what happens? (I doubt anyone would know this but it's worth a shot.)
-
Well, its currently less than 270. the remainder are a toss up as of right now. I think the electoral college is bullshit anyway. I think they should tally each individual vote, and compare it between the candidates. With the electoral college, it is possible that the person with the most individual votes in the country could lose the election. Say if you live in an extremely conservative part of the country - say kansas, the vast majority will vote conservative, and your individual vote (say liberal) is useless, because it is drowned out by the conservative vote. Not 1 million to 500,000, its actually 1 to 0. Each state has a different amount of electoral votes based on population of the state. So there is never the possibilty of not reaching 270. I'm sure i made that about as unclear as possible, but you see what i mean?
-
Well, its currently less than 270. the remainder are a toss up as of right now. I think the electoral college is bullshit anyway. I think they should tally each individual vote, and compare it between the candidates. With the electoral college, it is possible that the person with the most individual votes in the country could lose the election. Say if you live in an extremely conservative part of the country - say kansas, the vast majority will vote conservative, and your individual vote (say liberal) is useless, because it is drowned out by the conservative vote. Not 1 million to 500,000, its actually 1 to 0. Each state has a different amount of electoral votes based on population of the state. So there is never the possibilty of not reaching 270. I'm sure i made that about as unclear as possible, but you see what i mean?
7even the Hairbinger, you obviously have no idea how the electoral college works or why it was implemented. If it didn't exist, then the smaller states wouldn't count for shit. Candidates would just spend their time and money in states like California and New York. The electoral college creates a balance of power (large vs. small states). Either you have no knowledge about the U.S. political system, or you don't live here and shouldn't even talk about shit you have no clue about.
-
Well, its currently less than 270. the remainder are a toss up as of right now. I think the electoral college is bullshit anyway. I think they should tally each individual vote, and compare it between the candidates. With the electoral college, it is possible that the person with the most individual votes in the country could lose the election. Say if you live in an extremely conservative part of the country - say kansas, the vast majority will vote conservative, and your individual vote (say liberal) is useless, because it is drowned out by the conservative vote. Not 1 million to 500,000, its actually 1 to 0. Each state has a different amount of electoral votes based on population of the state. So there is never the possibilty of not reaching 270. I'm sure i made that about as unclear as possible, but you see what i mean?
7even the Hairbinger, you obviously have no idea how the electoral college works or why it was implemented. If it didn't exist, then the smaller states wouldn't count for shit. Candidates would just spend their time and money in states like California and New York. The electoral college creates a balance of power (large vs. small states). Either you have no knowledge about the U.S. political system, or you don't live here and shouldn't even talk about shit you have no clue about.
:)
-
It's possible though, that Ralph Nader could get like 250 electoral votes, thus fucking up the entire system, and nobody would get 270, lol.
-
It's possible though, that Ralph Nader could get like 250 electoral votes, thus fucking up the entire system, and nobody would get 270, lol.
lol
-
Similarly, in Canada, if a party wins but the party's leader doesn't get a seat, what happens? (I doubt anyone would know this but it's worth a shot.)
An MP in a 'safe' riding would step down, and then the party leader would run in that Riding in a bi-election. That's what happened to Stockwell Day in the Okanagan.
-
Well, its currently less than 270. the remainder are a toss up as of right now. I think the electoral college is bullshit anyway. I think they should tally each individual vote, and compare it between the candidates. With the electoral college, it is possible that the person with the most individual votes in the country could lose the election. Say if you live in an extremely conservative part of the country - say kansas, the vast majority will vote conservative, and your individual vote (say liberal) is useless, because it is drowned out by the conservative vote. Not 1 million to 500,000, its actually 1 to 0. Each state has a different amount of electoral votes based on population of the state. So there is never the possibilty of not reaching 270. I'm sure i made that about as unclear as possible, but you see what i mean?
It works both ways. It makes it to where a state like Rhode Island can have a voice against say Cali, but it disregards any votes that aren't in the majority in that particular region. Your telling me you don't see flaw in a system that can actually elect a president who didn't have the most votes in the country?
7even the Hairbinger, you obviously have no idea how the electoral college works or why it was implemented. If it didn't exist, then the smaller states wouldn't count for shit. Candidates would just spend their time and money in states like California and New York. The electoral college creates a balance of power (large vs. small states). Either you have no knowledge about the U.S. political system, or you don't live here and shouldn't even talk about shit you have no clue about.
:)
-
Well, its currently less than 270. the remainder are a toss up as of right now. I think the electoral college is bullshit anyway. I think they should tally each individual vote, and compare it between the candidates. With the electoral college, it is possible that the person with the most individual votes in the country could lose the election. Say if you live in an extremely conservative part of the country - say kansas, the vast majority will vote conservative, and your individual vote (say liberal) is useless, because it is drowned out by the conservative vote. Not 1 million to 500,000, its actually 1 to 0. Each state has a different amount of electoral votes based on population of the state. So there is never the possibilty of not reaching 270. I'm sure i made that about as unclear as possible, but you see what i mean?
7even the Hairbinger, you obviously have no idea how the electoral college works or why it was implemented. If it didn't exist, then the smaller states wouldn't count for shit. Candidates would just spend their time and money in states like California and New York. The electoral college creates a balance of power (large vs. small states). Either you have no knowledge about the U.S. political system, or you don't live here and shouldn't even talk about shit you have no clue about.
:)
i'll try this again, and post outside the quotes this time :)
It works both ways. It makes it to where a state like Rhode Island can have a voice against say Cali, but it disregards any votes that aren't in the majority in that particular region. Your telling me you don't see flaw in a system that can actually elect a president who didn't have the most votes in the country?
-
Similarly, in Canada, if a party wins but the party's leader doesn't get a seat, what happens? (I doubt anyone would know this but it's worth a shot.)
An MP in a 'safe' riding would step down, and then the party leader would run in that Riding in a bi-election. That's what happened to Stockwell Day in the Okanagan.
Aaah. Now I recall hearing about that, my Dad was a big Stockwell fan back in the day and used to keep me informed. Makes sense I guess.
-
Well, its currently less than 270. the remainder are a toss up as of right now. I think the electoral college is bullshit anyway. I think they should tally each individual vote, and compare it between the candidates. With the electoral college, it is possible that the person with the most individual votes in the country could lose the election. Say if you live in an extremely conservative part of the country - say kansas, the vast majority will vote conservative, and your individual vote (say liberal) is useless, because it is drowned out by the conservative vote. Not 1 million to 500,000, its actually 1 to 0. Each state has a different amount of electoral votes based on population of the state. So there is never the possibilty of not reaching 270. I'm sure i made that about as unclear as possible, but you see what i mean?
7even the Hairbinger, you obviously have no idea how the electoral college works or why it was implemented. If it didn't exist, then the smaller states wouldn't count for shit. Candidates would just spend their time and money in states like California and New York. The electoral college creates a balance of power (large vs. small states). Either you have no knowledge about the U.S. political system, or you don't live here and shouldn't even talk about shit you have no clue about.
:)
pointed out wrong in 2 sentences go figure
-
It works both ways. It makes it to where a state like Rhode Island can have a voice against say Cali, but it disregards any votes that aren't in the majority in that particular region. Your telling me you don't see flaw in a system that can actually elect a president who didn't have the most votes in the country?
So it's either the votes not in the majority being disregarded, or the entire state? LOL, just read that to yourself out loud a couple times, and then reply.
-
pointed out wrong in 2 sentences go figure
LOL, you can't prove me wrong yourself, so you cheer on those who might have a better chance than you. I hope there's something in it for you because if there isn't, then you're kinda pathetic... wait, scratch that, just the fact that you cheer him on makes you pathetic.
-
It works both ways. It makes it to where a state like Rhode Island can have a voice against say Cali, but it disregards any votes that aren't in the majority in that particular region. Your telling me you don't see flaw in a system that can actually elect a president who didn't have the most votes in the country?
So it's either the votes not in the majority being disregarded, or the entire state? LOL, just read that to yourself out loud a couple times, and then reply.
good god. the state is disregarded, because noone will do a serious campaign or anything there, cause everybody knows who they gon vote for no matter what. and how does it make the republicans in new york feel, when noone cares about them because there are more democrats in new york? also, how is it good to ignore everyone who voted democratic in florida, just cause there were 500 more ppl who voted republican. and what's the deal when you live in a state like kansas and KNOW your vote wont ever do a thing.
-
pointed out wrong in 2 sentences go figure
LOL, you can't prove me wrong yourself, so you cheer on those who might have a better chance than you. I hope there's something in it for you because if there isn't, then you're kinda pathetic... wait, scratch that, just the fact that you cheer him on makes you pathetic.
I referred to me in this thread. What Im doing right now. You know you're wrong in this discussion.
-
pointed out wrong in 2 sentences go figure
LOL, you can't prove me wrong yourself, so you cheer on those who might have a better chance than you. I hope there's something in it for you because if there isn't, then you're kinda pathetic... wait, scratch that, just the fact that you cheer him on makes you pathetic.
I referred to me in this thread. What Im doing right now. You know you're wrong in this discussion.
LOL. Wow, you're dumber than I thought. The first post you made in this thread was the one where you said "pointed out wrong in 2 sentences go figure" so how in the world were you referring to yourself? LMAO.
-
pointed out wrong in 2 sentences go figure
LOL, you can't prove me wrong yourself, so you cheer on those who might have a better chance than you. I hope there's something in it for you because if there isn't, then you're kinda pathetic... wait, scratch that, just the fact that you cheer him on makes you pathetic.
I referred to me in this thread. What Im doing right now. You know you're wrong in this discussion.
LOL. Wow, you're dumber than I thought. The first post you made in this thread was the one where you said "pointed out wrong in 2 sentences go figure" so how in the world were you referring to yourself? LMAO.
it was because whiteboy quoted you talking to me in this thread. and I answer the quoted post in the original thread. I thought youd be able to figure that out without further explanation, too bad you couldnt.
-
I referred to me in this thread. What Im doing right now. You know you're wrong in this discussion.
it was because whiteboy quoted you talking to me in this thread. and I answer the quoted post in the original thread. I thought youd be able to figure that out without further explanation, too bad you couldnt.
LMAO. Shut up already.
-
I referred to me in this thread. What Im doing right now. You know you're wrong in this discussion.
it was because whiteboy quoted you talking to me in this thread. and I answer the quoted post in the original thread. I thought youd be able to figure that out without further explanation, too bad you couldnt.
LMAO. Shut up already.
Dont try to twist things. When I previously posted "I referred to me in this thread" the post was in a different thread. Someone moved a few posts around.
-
I referred to me in this thread. What Im doing right now. You know you're wrong in this discussion.
it was because whiteboy quoted you talking to me in this thread. and I answer the quoted post in the original thread. I thought youd be able to figure that out without further explanation, too bad you couldnt.
LMAO. Shut up already.
Dont try to twist things. When I previously posted "I referred to me in this thread" the post was in a different thread. Someone moved a few posts around.
LMFAO. That has to be the weakest reply ever. Who are you blaming? Yourself, since you're a Mod? LOLLLL omg you're an idiot
-
So it was in another thread, and magically appeared in this thread? lol you Germans always find scapegoats for everything
-
lol it's true.. I am not the only one who can do this. Im pretty sure you know that it is indeed the case.
-
lol it's true.. I am not the only one who can do this. Im pretty sure you know that it is indeed the case.
Why would anyone move your post? Stop making excuses for being an idiot. Go read the other thread. Warning: Enter that thread at your own risk, there's some serious OWNAGE within.
-
lol it's true.. I am not the only one who can do this. Im pretty sure you know that it is indeed the case.
Why would anyone move your post? Stop making excuses for being an idiot. Go read the other thread. Warning: Enter that thread at your own risk, there's some serious OWNAGE within.
not only my post but also yours. because you quoted what I said in another thread or something I dont know. fact is that happened, why would I say "hm, wasnt there another post of mine ???" in the other thread.. I wrote this just when the moving happened.
there's no ownage of yours, you just base your "ownage" on a lie. which is, that all the posts in this thread were originally posted in this thread, since this is simply inaccurate.
-
The ownage occured when I said that you were an idiot for believing that all small states vote Republican, and your response was something along the lines of "of course i dont think this", and then I quoted you saying earlier that "all small states vote Republican anyways" LOL. That's the epitome of OWNAGE.
-
The ownage occured when I said that you were an idiot for believing that all small states vote Republican, and your response was something along the lines of "of course i dont think this", and then I quoted you saying earlier that "all small states vote Republican anyways" LOL. That's the epitome of OWNAGE.
I never meant that literally all small states vote republican, and I also never said that they do. That's a lie. Stop making stuff up. My elaborate post in the other thread owned you, and that's it, Im done with you. Have a nice stay Jamal.
-
I never meant that literally all small states vote republican, and I also never said that they do. That's a lie. Stop making stuff up. My elaborate post in the other thread owned you, and that's it, Im done with you. Have a nice stay Jamal.
No, I know exactly how it works. At least as good as you, probably even better. And it sucks. The small states arent considered either way cause they always vote for republicans. New York isnt considered cause they always vote for the democrats. I have the knowledge I need, so shut up.
Do you know how to read?
-
I would type "owned" in big fucked up childish letters, if I knew how yall do that.
-
I would type "owned" in big fucked up childish letters, if I knew how yall do that.
0wN3D
-
DaBoss - you're clearly not grasping the concept here. Who gives a flying fuck what the majority of a state votes? If there is no electoral college, individual votes would never be discarded. The populous would decide who wins the presidency. My vote means jack shit in the electoral college if i'm a minority (meaning voting in the minority) in my voting district. MY VOTE DOESN'T FACTOR INTO WHO GETS ELECTED. If it were the individuals voting, my vote would be tallied along with every other person's vote. It may be a raindrop in the ocean, but it still counts. The electoral college isn't a representation of individuals, its representative of a region. And to me, thats not fair.
Since you ducked my question earlier, i'll repeat it: DO YOU NOT SEE FLAW IN A SYSTEM THAT COULD POTENTIALLY ELECT A PRESIDENT THAT DID NOT HAVE THE HIGHEST AMOUNT OF INDIVIDUAL VOTES?
-
(http://www.newsmaxstore.com/nmstore/images/promoprods/BushCountry.jpg)
LOL!
-
DaBoss - you're clearly not grasping the concept here. Who gives a flying fuck what the majority of a state votes? If there is no electoral college, individual votes would never be discarded. The populous would decide who wins the presidency. My vote means jack shit in the electoral college if i'm a minority (meaning voting in the minority) in my voting district. MY VOTE DOESN'T FACTOR INTO WHO GETS ELECTED. If it were the individuals voting, my vote would be tallied along with every other person's vote. It may be a raindrop in the ocean, but it still counts. The electoral college isn't a representation of individuals, its representative of a region. And to me, thats not fair.
Since you ducked my question earlier, i'll repeat it: DO YOU NOT SEE FLAW IN A SYSTEM THAT COULD POTENTIALLY ELECT A PRESIDENT THAT DID NOT HAVE THE HIGHEST AMOUNT OF INDIVIDUAL VOTES?
It works fine for me. You and 7even are the ones getting your panties in a twist over it, and 7even is from Germany so I have no fuckin clue why he even cares.
-
because america is the shit thats why.
....you have posted 53 times in one day? You need some friends.
-
No one knows the answer to the question? For a mod, 7even sure goes off topic a lot in threads.
-
No one knows the answer to the question? For a mod, 7even sure goes off topic a lot in threads.
That's what people do when they know they're wrong and are lost for answers. LOL he went as far as saying "someone moved my posts"
-
because america is the shit thats why.
....you have posted 53 times in one day? You need some friends.
Shut your mouth, inferior one. Do you remember a thread named "rampant"? Go read it, and see how stupid you are.
-
And since you're such a homo and concerned with my life, I actually had a test today, so I was up all night studying. While I was studying, I used my posts making 7even look like an idiot to keep me awake. He saw the same fate you did a while back. Now go and talk about politics to elementary kids because they might actually think you're right about the shit you say.
-
If no candidate is able to achieve the 270 minimum, it goes to the 'House of Reps' for a decision.
-
If no candidate is able to achieve the 270 minimum, it goes to the 'House of Reps' for a decision.
Ok, that makes sense. Could you possibly elaborate a bit? How does that work? Thanks.
-
If no candidate is able to achieve the 270 minimum, it goes to the 'House of Reps' for a decision.
Ok, that makes sense. Could you possibly elaborate a bit? How does that work? Thanks.
No problem. It comes down to a simple vote. The candidate with the two thirds majority would be the new president elect. If the House can't come to a concensus it then moves on to the supreme court. The fact that the two party system is ingrained into American politics; the House may never have to vote. A thrid party would have to become popular enough to recieve electoral votes to prevent any candidate from reaching the 270 minimum.
-
If no candidate is able to achieve the 270 minimum, it goes to the 'House of Reps' for a decision.
Ok, that makes sense. Could you possibly elaborate a bit? How does that work? Thanks.
No problem. It comes down to a simple vote. The candidate with the two thirds majority would be the new president elect. If the House can't come to a concensus it then moves on to the supreme court. The fact that the two party system is ingrained into American politics; the House may never have to vote. A thrid party would have to become popular enough to recieve electoral votes to prevent any candidate from reaching the 270 minimum.
Interesting, thanks.
-
If no candidate is able to achieve the 270 minimum, it goes to the 'House of Reps' for a decision.
Ok, that makes sense. Could you possibly elaborate a bit? How does that work? Thanks.
No problem. It comes down to a simple vote. The candidate with the two thirds majority would be the new president elect. If the House can't come to a concensus it then moves on to the supreme court. The fact that the two party system is ingrained into American politics; the House may never have to vote. A thrid party would have to become popular enough to recieve electoral votes to prevent any candidate from reaching the 270 minimum.
Interesting, thanks.
Any more questions just ask. I would have expected more people would have known that tid bit of knowledge considering this is the train of thought section.
-
If no candidate is able to achieve the 270 minimum, it goes to the 'House of Reps' for a decision.
Ok, that makes sense. Could you possibly elaborate a bit? How does that work? Thanks.
No problem. It comes down to a simple vote. The candidate with the two thirds majority would be the new president elect. If the House can't come to a concensus it then moves on to the supreme court. The fact that the two party system is ingrained into American politics; the House may never have to vote. A thrid party would have to become popular enough to recieve electoral votes to prevent any candidate from reaching the 270 minimum.
Interesting, thanks.
Any more questions just ask. I would have expected more people would have known that tid bit of knowledge considering this is the train of thought section.
Well I don't live in the US, and we don't really get to into the specifics of every aspect of the US political structure here. Just the main parts like the electoral college and the main parties.
-
Lincoln, that's ok and actually respectable. It's better that you ask, rather than make dumb, ignorant remarks. (ex: 7even the Hairbinger, Rampant)
-
Lincoln, that's ok and actually respectable. It's better that you ask, rather than make dumb, ignorant remarks. (ex: 7even the Hairbinger, Rampant)
you couldnt prove me wrong, and I proved you wrong in the end... so? all that you could say (like 6 times) was hey!!!!11 but 7ev7en said, all small states vote republian, cand than he said they dont!!!1 LOL!!11 "
bitch please... bow down.DaBoss - you're clearly not grasping the concept here. Who gives a flying fuck what the majority of a state votes? If there is no electoral college, individual votes would never be discarded. The populous would decide who wins the presidency. My vote means jack shit in the electoral college if i'm a minority (meaning voting in the minority) in my voting district. MY VOTE DOESN'T FACTOR INTO WHO GETS ELECTED. If it were the individuals voting, my vote would be tallied along with every other person's vote. It may be a raindrop in the ocean, but it still counts. The electoral college isn't a representation of individuals, its representative of a region. And to me, thats not fair.
Since you ducked my question earlier, i'll repeat it: DO YOU NOT SEE FLAW IN A SYSTEM THAT COULD POTENTIALLY ELECT A PRESIDENT THAT DID NOT HAVE THE HIGHEST AMOUNT OF INDIVIDUAL VOTES?
It works fine for me. You and 7even are the ones getting your panties in a twist over it, and 7even is from Germany so I have no fuckin clue why he even cares.
The system works fine for you, Im ok with that. That's a matter of preferation. But claiming the popular vote system is worse than your system because some states dont get as much attention as others is rubbish. I just want you to realize that. That was what our discussion yesterday was all about, and if you was a little less stubborn you'd accept things the way they are.
I do care, I think that's mostly the case because we Europeans tend to take a look at things that are going on in the world and not just in our respective country.
Further I dont understand why you have to get so offensive, but then again that's not my business is it.
-
Lincoln, that's ok and actually respectable. It's better that you ask, rather than make dumb, ignorant remarks. (ex: 7even the Hairbinger, Rampant)
you couldnt prove me wrong, and I proved you wrong in the end... so? all that you could say (like 6 times) was hey!!!!11 but 7ev7en said, all small states vote republian, cand than he said they dont!!!1 LOL!!11 "
bitch please... bow down.DaBoss - you're clearly not grasping the concept here. Who gives a flying fuck what the majority of a state votes? If there is no electoral college, individual votes would never be discarded. The populous would decide who wins the presidency. My vote means jack shit in the electoral college if i'm a minority (meaning voting in the minority) in my voting district. MY VOTE DOESN'T FACTOR INTO WHO GETS ELECTED. If it were the individuals voting, my vote would be tallied along with every other person's vote. It may be a raindrop in the ocean, but it still counts. The electoral college isn't a representation of individuals, its representative of a region. And to me, thats not fair.
Since you ducked my question earlier, i'll repeat it: DO YOU NOT SEE FLAW IN A SYSTEM THAT COULD POTENTIALLY ELECT A PRESIDENT THAT DID NOT HAVE THE HIGHEST AMOUNT OF INDIVIDUAL VOTES?
It works fine for me. You and 7even are the ones getting your panties in a twist over it, and 7even is from Germany so I have no fuckin clue why he even cares.
The system works fine for you, Im ok with that. That's a matter of preferation. But claiming the popular vote system is worse than your system because some states dont get as much attention as others is rubbish. I just want you to realize that. That was what our discussion yesterday was all about, and if you was a little less stubborn you'd accept things the way they are.
I do care, I think that's mostly the case because we Europeans tend to take a look at things that are going on in the world and not just in our respective country.
Further I dont understand why you have to get so offensive, but then again that's not my business is it.
The electoral college is out-dated and un-needed. If we take a look at the flaws of the electoral college (beyond the fact that it discourages minority voters in their particular state to vote) we see that it has completely failed 4 times. Thats right 4 presidents have been elected that did not win the popular vote, including Goerge W.
-
and if you was a little less stubborn you'd accept things the way they are.
LOL, you have to remember who's arguing against it, and wants the change before you make dumb comments like that. Ironically, I AM the one who accepts things the way they are, YOU don't. Seriously, sometimes I wonder how people can lack something like common sense, but then I talk to people like you and I realize that you're just uninformed.
-
and if you was a little less stubborn you'd accept things the way they are.
LOL, you have to remember who's arguing against it, and wants the change before you make dumb comments like that. Ironically, I AM the one who accepts things the way they are, YOU don't. Seriously, sometimes I wonder how people can lack something like common sense, but then I talk to people like you and I realize that you're just uninformed.
LoL you still dont relate to the argument and you keep telling me Im uninformed while you cant say anything against it. that's funny.
I say youre stubborn cause you wont accept neither the flaws the system has nor that Im right. that just sucks. if you was right, I had no problem in admitting that..
Im cool with you still liking the system, really. I just tell you why I dont like it - I dont know how it's necessary to attack me all the time for pretty much anything, like me speaking the truth (about the voter turnout)..
-
Awww, poor 7even the Harbinger feels violated... :'(