03 Nov 04
Originally posted by GrayeyesofsorrowSo, you are what we call in the UK, a "bleeding heart lefty". Democracy is fine as long as they vote for the one you want. Time to grow up, and face up, 3.5 million more American want Bush than Kerry and that is the bottom line.
God, if they managed to vote bush in again.........retards. Its really amazing how stupid they can be. You might as well put a chimp in the Whitehouse. I just feel sorry for all the Americans who have the sense to see that Bush is a fat turd.
I'm not an American, but even I will not keep quiet if you insult the voting public who can vote in free and fair elections.
03 Nov 04
Originally posted by GrayeyesofsorrowWhy don't you now go and try to suck on a lemon. Then you will align your thoughts, words and feelings with something tangible.
Fundamental Christians are used to believe tosh anyway. Central American that bible bashing Bush stronghold really needs to wake up to the world. Im totally gob smacked that Bush has done so well and maybe won.
03 Nov 04
Originally posted by Varg1. Yes.
1. Am I right in thinking that if a candidate gets a majority in one state, he gets all the colloge votes?
2. Why not split the college votes based on the popular vote in that state?[/b]
2. Agreed. The principal of proportional representation is a very sensible one as far as I am concerned.
Gerrit
03 Nov 04
Originally posted by ReaperName-calling aside, it is true that this election is going to force the Democrats to confront one of their cherished beliefs, which is no longer true. It has been an article of faith among Democrats that they were the party of "the people" and that if they good just get a big turnout, winning would be automatic.
So, you are what we call in the UK, a "bleeding heart lefty". Democracy is fine as long as they vote for the one you want. Time to grow up, and face up, 3.5 million more American want Bush than Kerry and that is the bottom line.
I'm not an American, but even I will not keep quiet if you insult the voting public who can vote in free and fair elections.
Turnout yesterday was very strong, and the Dems lost the popular vote, probably the Electoral College, and some Senate seats to boot.
They also gave up much of their traditional strength among women and minorities - Bush got 47% of the female vote, 42% of the Latino vote, and 41% of the Asian vote:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
03 Nov 04
Originally posted by ReaperThis would be a horrible idea. As contentious as the election is with winner takes all, cann you imagine what would happen if say the number of electoral votes does not match the percentage of votes won. Example, say a candidate wins 51% of the popular vote , but there are 7 electoral votes. A 4-3 split is not 51%. And who is to say that may not want it to be 5-2? Let's just keep it simple and try to keep the lawyers .....doing something else.
1. Yes.
2. Agreed. The principal of proportional representation is a very sensible one as far as I am concerned.
Gerrit
03 Nov 04
Originally posted by lloydkHi
Name-calling aside, it is true that this election is going to force the Democrats to confront one of their cherished beliefs, which is no longer true. It has been an article of faith among Democrats that they were the party of "the people" and that if they good just get a big turnout, winning would be automatic.
Turnout yesterday was very strong, and th ...[text shortened]... of the Asian vote:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
Yes, the election has thown up a number of surprises. Personally I think it is good when there is a regular change in the party leading a country. That way you get a better average. In the UK we definitely benfit from this. It is so unfortunate that people seem to struggle these days to see politics more objectively - seeing that someone you do not like or voted for can actually do something beneficial. And then giving that recognition. One thing that annoys me is the constant "putting down" of opponents. It is almost like whatever that person does, is patetic/failure/unlogical etc. This is patently impossible.
03 Nov 04
Originally posted by kirksey957Preech brother preech!
Let's just keep it simple and try to keep the lawyers .....doing something else.
I agree, the last thing we need is lawyers involved - But then, they dominate the governement. They write the laws, many are politicions voting for the laws, many are candidates for the presidency, many are in the executive branch as well.
Proportional rep is certainly not simple. Youi have to work with it and be clever with it. But if you do, then I think it is better than "first past the post", especialy for minority groups. Say California has 55 seats. Candidate A gets 4.5M (53😵 votes and candidate B get 4M (47😵 votes. You can say that instead of A getting 55 seats and B getting nothing, A should get 29 seats and B should get 26 seats. In this way, the 4 million voters for B get some representation.
03 Nov 04
From what I can see on the exit polls, two things turned this election:
1. The upperclass scared to death that Kerry was going to take away their tax breaks, and
2. The church people somehow duped into thinking Bush has some sort of "moral values".
I guess it is really the fault of the Democrats to align themselves so vehemently opposed to what religious people hold dear. Clinton did not do this, and he ran away with the election in his time. Kerry, on the other hand, is pro-stem cell research, is pro-abortion, etc. Even I could not cast a vote for Kerry because of his (what I term-) "evil" stances. I couldn't vote for Bush in good conscience either, but there you go. I was really, really dissatisfied with the choices. If Clinton were somehow allowed to run for a third term, he would've won hands-down.
-f
03 Nov 04
Originally posted by ReaperWrong.
Yes, the election has thown up a number of surprises. Personally I think it is good when there is a regular change in the party leading a country. That way you get a better average. In the UK we definitely benfit from this. ...
I'm not sure the general forum is the place to have this argument, but essentially one of the main problems with the US presidency hinges on that very fact that you only get a limited time in office.
The basic problem with it is that sometimes an elected president doesn't get voted out...I'll leave it to the reader to figure out the implications of that.
MÅ¥HÅRM
03 Nov 04
if bush and kerry were both so awful, then why didn't XXX get vited in?...😛
and as for only really fundamentalists and rich people voting for bush, half the american's on my hall like bush and i don't think you could call any either of those too...although the majority of people in my hall like kerry-but hey! 😀