1 edit
Originally posted by GrayeyesofsorrowIt's unfathomable...as I look at the giant sea of red sprawled across the map of the continental United States on my computer screen, I cannot imagaine how so many otherwise-intelligent and rational citizens could be duped into believing we should reward Bush's glaring failures as President with another four years of "hard work".
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 disappointed. The facts are all out there. But the fundamental Christians are taken in by his "values", and everyone else picks him because they think that it'll somehow decrease the alread-minute likelyhood that they will be killed by a terrorist
Originally posted by no1marauderIf you had seen the few posts I've made today, it'd be clear that I wanted Kerry to win. (Or, more specifically, wanted Bush to lose.) I use "steal" in the same sense that I would use to describe what the Boston Red Sox did to the Yankees. I'm using the word "steal" to denote a tremendous comeback against seemingly insurmountable odds.
Yes, it would certainly be "stealing" the election to count all the votes! Where do you come up with such inane ideas?
Originally posted by Natural ScienceKerry and the Democrats got what they deserved; you can't ape the Republicans on the most important issues and expect to win just because you throw $300 million of campaign bribes from rich guys into advertising. If they ever want to return to majority status they have to go back to the type of party they used to be back in the old FDR days; but since they're brought and paid for by the rich that ain't gonna happen. Bush's lead in Ohio has held constant from 120,000 - 140,000; even 200,000 provisional ballots won't change the result in Ohio.
If you had seen the few posts I've made today, it'd be clear that I wanted Kerry to win. (Or, more specifically, wanted Bush to lose.) I use "steal" in the same sense that I would use to describe what the Boston Red Sox did to the Yankees. I'm using the word "steal" to denote a tremendous comeback against seemingly insurmountable odds.
Originally posted by RagnorakAm I right in thinking that if a candidate gets a majority in one state, he gets all the colloge votes?
This sucks!!!!
At least we know for a fact that the american people are to blame now, and ye can't pass it off as not knowing what the simian was like.
D
So if, for example, Kerry gets 50.001% in California and Bush gets 49.999 %, then Kerry gets a whopping 55 college votes?
This seems a bit unfair, as from what I've seen, most states seem to be coming down to just a couple of percentage points.
Also, it makes states with small number of colleges hardly worth campaigning in - just go for the big ones!
Why not split the college votes based on the popular vote in that state?
Originally posted by VargThere are a few states which split the electoral college votes. I am not sure which ones they are, but I believe Maine (with it's whopping 4 votes) is one of them. Considerable logic in considering a straight popular vote, since the electoral college was put in place primarily because of technical limitations of the day. Would also solve the problem of a small majority of votes winning the entire state's voting power. But that would make those particular states less appealing for candidates, as the prize would be smaller.
Am I right in thinking that if a candidate gets a majority in one state, he gets all the colloge votes?
So if, for example, Kerry gets 50.001% in California and Bush gets 49.999 %, then Kerry gets a whopping 55 college votes?
This seems a bit unfair, as from what I've seen, most states seem to be coming down to just a couple of percentage points.
Also, it m ...[text shortened]... t go for the big ones!
Why not split the college votes based on the popular vote in that state?
Just some random thoughts.
BLR
What's all this about declaring victory in the election?
Is this just a term used to say all the votes have been counted and it is clear who the winner is or does one of them actually declare victory and the other one has to accept that declaration of victory?
The reason I ask is that I read this: "President Bush is convinced he has won re-election but will hold off a formal victory declaration to give Democrat John Kerry 'time to reflect' on the results"
When the votes are counted, it ends, I thought.
Originally posted by VargSame thing happens in Britain - it's called the First Past the Post system. The country is divided up into constituencies, and each one has its own mini-race - winner takes the constituency. There are various methods of proportional representation that are designed to deal with this problem, if problem it is - but they are so crashingly dull to explain i've already lost interest in what i'm typi
Am I right in thinking that if a candidate gets a majority in one state, he gets all the colloge votes?
So if, for example, Kerry gets 50.001% in California and Bush gets 49.999 %, then Kerry gets a whopping 55 college votes?*snip*
Originally posted by kw72ukwell-i dunno about in america, but in britain the prime minister has -technically- nothing to do with the voting. the people do not elect him-it is the queen on the basis of him being "the best suited for the job". which is pretty much the leader of the majority party...but hey!
What's all this about declaring victory in the election?
Is this just a term used to say all the votes have been counted and it is clear who the winner is or does one of them actually declare victory and the other one has to accept that declaration of victory?
The reason I ask is that I read this: "President Bush is convinced he has won re-election ...[text shortened]... hn Kerry 'time to reflect' on the results"
When the votes are counted, it ends, I thought.
also, wasn't the electoral college system pput in place as if someone from new york or texas or somewhere equally big was to stand, they would get in as the people from their state would vote for them. or something along those lines...it was explained to me at 2 am this morning, so i didn't take it all in...😛
Originally posted by EdwardipovYes but in the 1st past the post system you get one MP only.
Same thing happens in Britain - it's called the First Past the Post system. The country is divided up into constituencies, and each one has its own mini-race - winner takes the constituency. There are various methods of proportional representation that are designed to deal with this problem, if problem it is - but they are so crashingly dull to explain i've already lost interest in what i'm typi
Sure, if one constituency gets 51% Labour 49% Conservative then Labour gets the MP (I think). But they don't get 55 of them!!
Ok, something has got to change! This is really tearing the USA apart. The electoral college needs to be done away with, and the popular vote needs to be the true measure. The elction should not be limited to one day. Perhaps it should take place for a week or so in order to allow all Americans a chance tro vote. The early voting and the absentee voting should be counted and added to the total whan all votes are counted. Too many people 's votes are being cast off as nothing. no wonder there is such a lack of voter confidence.
And again, America is polarized by this election as it was 4 years ago. This time, however, if Bush wins, hopefully he will not have anohther 9-11 to unite the country and draw attention away from his stolen election.