Originally posted by steerpikePretty darned good. We help them defeat socialists in every case. It is even better here in Utah where we help the Texans with five more anti-socialist votes.
How do Texans feel about having a smaller say in electing a President than other Americans?[/b]
You should have used California in your example. They are the ones trying to destroy the constitution. But then they always have been better than any other people on earth. They know it. Sad.
I should apologize to the millions of good anti-socialists in California. But then maybe just an expression of my heartfelt sadness for them. I feel for them. Stuck in the New Soviet Bloc! What a way to go. Poor buggers.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThere may be any number of reasons for the low turn out at american elections, any way it’s a disgrace. It’s a big finger to the concept of democracy. I know people who vote through the US embassy here, can’t understand why people can’t be bothered to cast their vote when at home.
This I know. I have made it a point to find out.
Business. Money.
Of the couple of hundred people who use my software to make a living selling Windows and Doors... Not more than ten will vote. And when I ask them why, the answer is "Look, man. All I want is for a couple of sales every day and the week-end on the lake."
This is the secret that ...[text shortened]... one rat is as good as the next.
I view this as most admirable. Truly a tribute to our genes.
I hope that any American who is capable of posting in these forums, are intelligent enough to realize the importance of voting and will do so in November.
Originally posted by ScheelYou really think that voting is important? I guess it depends. As I have mentioned before, I think that voting is just a big demonstration of Statistical Analysis. I guess that the bigger sample, the better. But in a lot of small ways, It doesn't matter so much.
There may be any number of reasons for the low turn out at american elections, any way it’s a disgrace. It’s a big finger to the concept of democracy. I know people who vote through the US embassy here, can’t understand why people can’t be bothered to cast their vote when at home.
I hope that any American who is capable of posting in these forums, are intelligent enough to realize the importance of voting and will do so in November.
If there were fear of actually becoming a dictatorship or a socialist state... I would have some passion. But there is not.
So -- Ho Hum.
Originally posted by steerpikeThis post gives me another idea of why people are apathetic about voting: the almighty and all-evil electoral college. If in any given state 51% of the voters vote republican and 48% democrat, then 100% of the states electoral votes would likely go Republican. Talk about wasted votes! You go to the trouble of voting one way, and then your vote is magically twisted around for the final count! Come on people! If we're going to have a democracy, let's at least have a fair one.
Now Wyoming has three electoral college votes for half a million people. Texas has 20 million people and 32 votes in the electoral college for the President. If every half million Texans got three votes for the President, Texas would have 120 electoral college votes. In other words, four Texas votes equal one vote in Wyoming.
How do Texans feel about having a smaller say in electing a President than other Americans?[/b]
And for the record, I am totally for election reform. We need a tiered election system where a variety of voters can vote for a variety of candidates. And I am going to vote Green in this election. I know they won't come close to winning, but I want to make my point, and if I didn't vote Green I wouldn't vote at all, so don't lecture my about taking a vote away from the democruds. (Imagine all the people that don't vote rising up and voting for third parties! That would be a revolution, indeed!)
Originally posted by thesonofsaulYea, well get over it.
This post gives me another idea of why people are apathetic about voting: the almighty and all-evil electoral college. If in any given state 51% of the voters vote republican and 48% democrat, then 100% of the states electoral votes would likely go Republican. Talk about wasted votes! You go to the trouble of voting one way, and then your vote is mag ...[text shortened]... e that don't vote rising up and voting for third parties! That would be a revolution, indeed!)
We have the oldest and best tested democracy on earth. So get over it.
It was the method designed to keep criminals from stealing elections. And as you saw in 2000 when Gore and his mindless minions tried it... the system worked.
Nyad a nyada yaaa da!
Nyuck Nyuck!
Feels good to be on the winning side of history, logic, goodness and right all in one paragraph!
Originally posted by StarValleyWyGet over it?! You should feel good that the Founding Fathers didn't take that exact same advice from the British. Who have, by the way, an older democrocy than we have.
Yea, well get over it.
We have the oldest and best tested democracy on earth. So get over it.
It was the method designed to keep criminals from stealing elections. And as you saw in 2000 when Gore and his mindless minions tried it... the system worked.
Nyad a nyada yaaa da!
Nyuck Nyuck!
Feels good to be on the winning side of history, logic, goodness and right all in one paragraph!
And how are you on the winning side of logic? I admit that all the other things you mention are subjective and a complete matter of opinion and therefore unarguable (minus the history part--see above paragraph). But since you did not supply even one iota of logic in your statements, you cannot be on the winning, losing, or any side of logic.
Maybe all voters and past non-voters need a reminder of all the factors that they should consider. For example ...
Those for suicide bombing in defence of Islam
Indonesia 27%
Pakistan 33%
Jordon 43%
Nigeria 47%
Lebanon 73%
This example also shows that there's more to be done than eliminating small fanatical groups. At this turning point, which presidential candidate is better for the longer term viability of the world ?
(Sources: http://people-press.org/ and http://www.victorynewsmagazine.com/AmericaInEyesOfTheWorld.htm)
Originally posted by steerpikePerhaps the answer is a little more prosaic. I believe (and I may be wrong) that a lot of European countries fine people who are eligible to vote, but choose not to (like e.g. Australia). The UK does not have this principle, and voting levels are similar to the USA...
Out of 140 countries with elections, the US voter turnout rates at 114. Between 1945 and 1998, the average turnout in Italy was 92% and nearly 30 countries average over 80% turnout - mainly European countries.However, the US rate is 48%, well behind any other Western country.
Why is it over half of all Americans do not vote?
Originally posted by StarValleyWy"Oldest"? Wrong.
Yea, well get over it.
We have the oldest and best tested democracy on earth. So get over it.
It was the method designed to keep criminals from stealing elections. And as you saw in 2000 when Gore and his mindless minions tried it... the system worked.
Nyad a nyada yaaa da!
Nyuck Nyuck!
Feels good to be on the winning side of history, logic, goodness and right all in one paragraph!
"Tested"? When? How?? 150 years is small fry dude, nowhere near long enough for you to start crowing. Give it another couple of centuries and then maybe you can start to feel confident you've got a winner...
As for keeping criminals from stealing the election, are you claiming that not a single one of the presidents got in by stealing the election? Forget gore/bush, what makes you think that criminal activities cannot accomplish a win in the election?
MÅ¥HÅRM
PS. though I'm not really intrested in arguing it with you, I would be amused to hear how gore was a "criminal trying to steal the election" when the only thing he did was use due process...
Originally posted by ivangriceI don't think compulsory voting makes a lot of difference. About 15% of Australians don't vote - that must be close to a million people. Australia does not stand out as having more voters participating in the election.
Perhaps the answer is a little more prosaic. I believe (and I may be wrong) that a lot of European countries fine people who are eligible to vote, but choose not to (like e.g. Australia). The UK does not have this principle, and voting levels are similar to the USA...
One factor appears to be dissatisfaction with the choices offered. Worst voter turnout is in Mali, Guatemala, and Egypt.
Originally posted by thesonofsaulNo you don't. In case you missed it... After Your civil war was won, you reverted to a monarchy. Still exists, I believe. But more to the point... at the time we won our independence and became a democracy... who was in charge of England? Our enemy?
Who have, by the way, an older democrocy than we have.
Study history. I think you will find it was Georgy Porgy Pud'nin' Pie.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYou should cut back on your medications, boy. Big time. England was still a monarchy, but it had a partial democracy in the house of commons. Too many people get confused in thinking that "democracy" and "republic" are synonymous.
No you don't. In case you missed it... After Your civil war was won, you reverted to a monarchy. Still exists, I believe. But more to the point... at the time we won our independence and became a democracy... who was in charge of England? Our enemy?
Study history. I think you will find it was Georgy Porgy Pud'nin' Pie.
Your little crack induced sayings and style add nothing to your argument, but they do help me picture who you are: and angry, lonely little man who tries to intimidate on the internet when he can't in real life.
Originally posted by thesonofsauli HAVE NEWS FOR YOU. As long as you are a Caste system... you will never be a democracy.
You should cut back on your medications, boy. Big time. England was still a monarchy, but it had a partial democracy in the house of commons. Too many people get confused in thinking that "democracy" and "republic" are synonymous.
Your little crack induced sayings and style add nothing to your argument, but they do help me picture who you are: ...[text shortened]... angry, lonely little man who tries to intimidate on the internet when he can't in real life.
Or did I miss a requirement to belong to the house of Lords?
Originally posted by thesonofsaulIn case you missed it... 'Rednecks' never use drugs. Just that inbread terrible southern and western cowboyness...
Your little crack induced sayings and style add nothing to your argument, but they do help me picture who you are: and angry, lonely little man who tries to intimidate on the internet when he can't in real life. [/b]
As to being that terrible little man. Yea. That is me. Inside. Always has been so. So?
Get out and get a life. If you dare. I did.