Global Views of America

[Montezuma]

Originally posted by cpxxx
I broadly agree but while I have met arrogant Americans they were the exception. One or two who post on this bulletin board  fit the description only too well!!!!

No, can't be!

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Rude
Oh...you must mean these tiny little sections indicated in red?

It's an election, not a war.  Votes, as in people and population, matter far more than geography.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Udie]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
It's an election, not a war. Votes, as in people and population, matter far more than geography.

-- Todd/Leviathn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Not according to our constitution......

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Udie
Not according to our constitution......

Perhaps you didn't read my statement.  Votes matter more than geography.  I'm curious for your rebuttal to this.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Perhaps you didn't read my statement.  Votes matter more than geography.  I'm curious for your rebuttal to this.

-- Todd/Leviathn

Ahh, the snobbish fence-sitter politician-wanna-be reply...

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Ahh, the snobbish fence-sitter politician-wanna-be reply...

err... huh?

-- Todd/Leviathn

[john9001]

DMF
the States are aportioned electorial votes by population,it is up to the States how to award the votes after the general election,(most states use "winner take all", but some split up the vote)
the canadate with the most electorial votes wins.

[Udie]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Perhaps you didn't read my statement.  Votes matter more than geography.  I'm curious for your rebuttal to this.

-- Todd/Leviathn

 Yes I did misread you're post. But it was due to the fact that you were replying to Rude's picture of how the country fell along geographical lines in the last election.  I took you're post as saying that the votes in the larger population centers mattered more than the less populated areas. Sorry for the missunderstanding.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by john9001
DMF
the States are aportioned electorial votes by population,it is up to the States how to award the votes after the general election,(most states use "winner take all", but some split up the vote)
the canadate with the most electorial votes wins.

Thanks, john, I'm pretty familiar with the process.    Let me punctuate my point about population vs. geography with an example.  Let's say that in the next election, California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida, New York, and Ohio all vote for the Democratic candidate (far-fetched, I know, but bear with me).  Every remaining state votes for George W. Bush.  The end result:  the Democratic nominee wins while Bush, despite garnerning a vast majority of the square acreage of the country, loses.  Just imagine the acreage he'd acquire with Alaska alone, and yet still he'd lose.

Why?  Because those states supporting the Democratic candidate in this example constitute a majority or a near-majority of the country's population regardless of geographic area.  The rules grant electoral votes based on population, after all, and the winner-takes-all system further empowers the high population states.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[funkedup]

Based on my personal observations in travel around the country, there is an inverse relationship between population density and intelligence.  So maybe we would be better off weighting votes by acreage rather than population.  

[Udie]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Thanks, john, I'm pretty familiar with the process.    Let me punctuate my point about population vs. geography with an example.  Let's say that in the next election, California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida, New York, and Ohio all vote for the Democratic candidate (far-fetched, I know, but bear with me).  Every remaining state votes for George W. Bush.  The end result:  the Democratic nominee wins while Bush, despite garnerning a vast majority of the square acreage of the country, loses.  Just imagine the acreage he'd acquire with Alaska alone, and yet still he'd lose.

Why?  Because those states supporting the Democratic candidate in this example constitute a majority or a near-majority of the country's population regardless of geographic area.  The rules grant electoral votes based on population, after all, and the winner-takes-all system further empowers the high population states.

-- Todd/Leviathn

 I'd say that the 2000 election worked the exact opposite way of your example.  Still a good example though.

[lazs2]

I think what a lot of guys are missing is that....

What is the intent of these polls?   Have you ever seen an American poll that polls a bunch of countries about how they feel about england?   what if we did and then anounced that the world felt that england was prissy and aloof but law abiding.   would the brits on this BB focus on the law abiding or the prissy and aloof?   What if some of the ones most disgruntled were british 'artists'?

Wouldn't the brits wonder why we had bothered to single them out for evaluation and wouldn't they suspect our results, especialy, the negative ones?

You ask us to not be arrogant and yet.... most of you focus a great deal of attention on us...  We seem to occupy a good deal of your thoughts.  

go figure.

lazs

[krazyhorse]

exactly which part defines REDNECK country slo??? annd exactly what is your definition of redneck? someone who does not speak french? or someone who had to much sex with there mum?, btw look left this moons for you:D

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Udie
I'd say that the 2000 election worked the exact opposite way of your example.  Still a good example though.

True, but the 2000 election can hardly be called ordinary.  No presidential election in American history required Supreme Court intervention, and it was only the second one where the winner of the popular vote failed to win the general election.  I'd call it an outlier and move on.  

-- Todd/Leviathn

[beet1e]

LOL - Lazs hates England!  Well, he doesn't hate it else he wouldn't come here. But I think it's got under his skin a little bit. Funny that a little pissant country can do that to Lazs.