Author Topic: Bush’s lead in poll has evaporated. (Read 2488 times)

Toad · « **Reply #75 on:** October 04, 2004, 11:24:51 PM »

Here, don't curse the darkness.. turn on a light.

Quote

Legally, the electors may vote for someone other than the candidate for whom they were pledged to vote. This phenomenon is known as the "unfaithful" or "faithless" elector.

And:

Quote

Since the founding of the Electoral College, there have been 156 faithless Electors. 71 of these votes were changed because the original candidate died before the day on which the Electoral College cast their votes. Three of the votes were not cast at all as three Electors chose to abstain from casting their Electoral vote for any candidate. The other 82 Electoral votes were changed on the personal initiative of the Elector.

Elfie · « **Reply #76 on:** October 04, 2004, 11:25:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
You're saying that *nobody* should bother voting. You know that, right?

For the office of President, yes.

Sandman · « **Reply #77 on:** October 04, 2004, 11:26:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Elfie

I believe it is determined on a Federal level since its a Federal election. (Could be wrong on that though)

They're called "faithless electors" and it's a state issue.

Nash · « **Reply #78 on:** October 04, 2004, 11:28:10 PM »

Has anyone said differently Toad? I don't want to say "duh".... but...

Thanks for the light, anyways....

Using *this* for a reason not to vote, however, is a bit nuts...

Just sayin'.....

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #79 on:** October 04, 2004, 11:39:41 PM »

BTW a word on those Newsweek polls.
turns out that last two polls.
The first had Bush ahead
The last one had Kerry ahead.

Well in the first one the majority of people who took the poll were Rep.

and the Second one the majority that took the poll were Dem

Hmmm wonder why each poll had the results it did lmao

Elfie · « **Reply #80 on:** October 05, 2004, 01:06:54 AM »

Quote

Using *this* for a reason not to vote, however, is a bit nuts...

I just dont believe that my vote has meaning Nash. At least not when it can get overridden. If it were to become mandatory for the Electoral College to vote with the popular vote, then my vote would have meaning, and I would exercise my right to vote.

Until then......maybe I am a bit nuts

straffo · « **Reply #81 on:** October 05, 2004, 05:23:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
You're saying that *nobody* should bother voting. You know that, right?

I think he just want to get ride of the EC.

Frankly ,why isn't the popular vote wich count ?

Eagler · « **Reply #82 on:** October 05, 2004, 05:33:21 AM »

CO has gone R since 88 cept for 92 and as of early Sept is 50% Bush 38% skerry

so yes, if you planned on voting for herman, save your gas

lazs2 · « **Reply #83 on:** October 05, 2004, 07:56:35 AM »

There are usually plenty of local thyings to vote on anyway so you might as well vote for Bush while you are in the booth in California or new york or mass or washington..

nash... you won't get to vote no matter what.

support for kerrie in the electorial college seems worse by far than it was for gore even. the states that are "barely kerrie" are more important to him than the states that are "barely Bush" is to Bush.

If held today Bush would win by about 290-300 electorial votes.. if all the states that were tossups were divided Bush would win... if Bush lost most of the swing states he would still win. If kerrie doesn't gain some states fast he will lose.

convincing more voters in California and new york and mass and seatle to get out and vote for kerrie isn't going to do it. Putting kerrie edwards bumper stickers on every bus and taxi isn't going to do it.

lazs

Gixer · « **Reply #84 on:** October 05, 2004, 01:23:27 PM »

Maybe it will all be resolved in the courts, just like last time?

~~...-Gixer~~

lazs2 · « **Reply #85 on:** October 05, 2004, 02:35:17 PM »

at this point there would be no need to resolve it in the courts as Bush's electorial lead is so large that 3 or 4 states would have to be contested in the courts to change his victory. even the democrats aren't that bold.

I don't really think the democrats want to bring up gores pouty and dishonest grab at the election.

lazs

type_char · « **Reply #86 on:** October 05, 2004, 03:15:06 PM »

[size=20]LANDSLIDE BUSH!!![/size]

slimm50 · « **Reply #87 on:** October 05, 2004, 03:48:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Elfie
I won't even bother to vote for Bush or Kerry. The popular vote means absolutely nothing. The Electoral College will decide who is president, not us.

I wont worry about who is in office as President ever because I have absolutely NO control over who gets there.

Let me pile on here, Elfie.....WRONG!

slimm50 · « **Reply #88 on:** October 05, 2004, 03:50:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by type_char

[size=20]LANDSLIDE BUSH!!![/size]

Cod I hope you're right. The DNC would just implode if that happened.

Elfie · « **Reply #89 on:** October 05, 2004, 04:18:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
I think he just want to get ride of the EC.

Frankly ,why isn't the popular vote wich count ?

You can't get rid of the EC Straffo. The EC makes sure that a few states, like California and NY with their high populations don't decide the entire vote. With the EC in place it ensures that each state has a say in the election.

My problem with the EC is that it is NOT required by law to vote the same way the popular vote goes.