Author Topic: Bush...... (Read 1443 times)

Zippatuh · « **Reply #45 on:** September 25, 2003, 08:56:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
With the current configuration of the Electoral College, what other choice is there? There are only two parties. The rest don't count WRT the presidency.

That is incorrect. If a state happens to have a third party candidate take the vote then it is their list of designated individuals that gets sent to the “real” vote.

If the Green party wins a state then they win the “set of electors” that they, the Green party, chooses to send.

So by saying that “the current configuration of the Electoral College” prevents a third party from being represented is false. It is the average citizen with blinders on to only two parties that continue to keep the two party system going.

Although I don’t care for the Green party I was disappointed to see that they didn’t get enough votes to get federal campaign money. More advertising to the average Joe would help get a third party off its feet.

It has nothing to do with the setup of the Electoral College.

LoneStarBuckeye · « **Reply #46 on:** September 25, 2003, 09:24:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Zippatuh
Poor people and minorities in urban areas vote democratic.

In Missouri, all the democrats live in counties surrounding Kansas City and St. Louis. If you look at statistics for the state, the rural “poor” communities tend to vote republican.

So… poor, living in cities = looking for hand outs from democrats, poor, living in rural communities = not looking for handouts and vote republican.

Actually if you look at the country county vote between Bush and Gore the republicans appear to live in the rural counties. If you want to tell me that they are the rich, then try driving through Shannon county Missouri where the work consists of a saw mill, Wal-Mart, and a hat factory.

As to whether he will win or not, judging on the alternatives I’ll probably vote for him again. But it’s too soon to tell.

I don't doubt what you write. I'm sure it's true in some areas. That's why I characterized my statement as a generalization. Although my generalization, like every other, will admit exceptions, I still believe it to be accurate.

Regarding your stated exception, I'm sure that there are many pockets of "poor" folks throughout the country that vote Republican. Nonetheless, I believe that they are in the monirotiy. (For example, I suspect that considerably more poor and minorities live in urban areas than in rural areas.)

Zippatuh · « **Reply #47 on:** September 25, 2003, 02:11:33 PM »

I agree that taken the number of poor per square mile in an urban area compared to a rural one, there are more in cities no doubt.

Taking all rural counties in a state combined though, I would say it’s almost even with the amount of poor in the urban counties.

I say that because of the concealed carry law that failed here a few years back. All the rural counties voted for it, the urban counties didn’t. I don’t remember the exact number but it ended up being 6-10 counties in the state swayed the vote enough to stop it. St. Louis County to be exact put the final nail in the coffin. I went to bed thinking it passed and woke up hearing it was defeated.

The law failed from literally a handful of votes. Side note, the legislature just passed it a few weeks ago

.

Sandman · « **Reply #48 on:** September 25, 2003, 02:23:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Zippatuh
That is incorrect. If a state happens to have a third party candidate take the vote then it is their list of designated individuals that gets sent to the “real” vote.

If the Green party wins a state then they win the “set of electors” that they, the Green party, chooses to send.

So by saying that “the current configuration of the Electoral College” prevents a third party from being represented is false. It is the average citizen with blinders on to only two parties that continue to keep the two party system going.

It has nothing to do with the setup of the Electoral College.

In 1992, Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote and not a single Electoral vote. Sounds rather advantageous to the GOP and DNC if you ask me.

Zippatuh · « **Reply #49 on:** September 25, 2003, 03:18:26 PM »

Yes but that’s misleading to just say “he won 19% of the popular vote”. Did he win any states? If he indeed won a whole state then his “party” would have been asked to designate a set of electors to represent their vote.

Statistically by saying “you won the popular vote but lost the election” is also misleading. If you won the election, you won the popular vote as well. The way in which the Electoral College works is based off of the popular vote. Except for Vermont and New Hampshire, I’m pretty sure Vermont does it a little differently and I think New Hampshire as well but on that I’m not so sure.

If a candidate wins the popular vote in a state then their parties set of electors is sent to cast their vote for the state. Where it looks odd is when a state such as California is entered into the mix. The popular vote goes for candidate A, so their electors are sent for A. However, there was a “popular vote” for candidates B, C, D, etc that get tallied in with the whole country.

The majority vote for the state wins for that candidate. When the votes for the rest of California get added to the mix it looks as if the “populous” vote didn’t get counted right but it did.

Cali has 10 million people of which 6 million voted for A leaving 4 million for B. Missouri has 5 million people of which 2 million voted for A. In Iowa who has 3 million people of which 1 million vote for A. Idaho has 3 million of which 1 million also vote for A. Candidate A has a country populous vote of 10 million. Candidate B has a country populous vote of 11 million.

Who wins the election? A does because there are more electoral votes granted to California because it has more people. B had more “votes” but not in densely populated areas thus loosing the election.

That’s why it’s so important to fill out your census cards when they come around. That’s the only way they draw new districts and gain electoral votes. The number of electoral votes is directly proportional to the number of legislators from that state.

Sandman · « **Reply #50 on:** September 25, 2003, 03:50:19 PM »

I believe it's Maine that doesn't go with the "all or nothing" approach.

FWIW, I'm not surprised that you approve of the current method... Your vote weighs more than mine.

Zippatuh · « **Reply #51 on:** September 25, 2003, 04:17:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM

FWIW, I'm not surprised that you approve of the current method... Your vote weighs more than mine.

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by that…

If you’re on the west coast, California?, your vote weighs more than mine. Missouri doesn’t have near the electoral votes that California has.

I’m not sure that I approve of the current method but not because of your “populous vote” argument. It works because it is a direct representation of the population for a specific region based on their beliefs and ideals.

The problem with that is it essentially gives urban areas the right to dictate to rural areas who the countries leaders are based on pockets of dense population. It’s an “us versus them”. City slicker versus farmer.

I know I got a little complicated there at the end so I can understand it may have been a little hard to follow.

Sandman · « **Reply #52 on:** September 25, 2003, 04:36:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Zippatuh
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by that…

One electoral vote in Missouri represents 523,937 people.

One electoral vote in California represents 638,473 people.

Zippatuh · « **Reply #53 on:** September 26, 2003, 08:31:53 AM »

So you like throwing numbers that suit you.

California has 54 electoral votes.
Missouri has 11 electoral votes.

I was just trying to educate you on your obvious ignorance of the Electoral College. With only about 70% of registered voters casting ballots, and that’s registered not actual population, if only one person shows up in each state to vote, whose vote counts more?

Pointless discussion, you can lead a horse…

Frogm4n · « **Reply #54 on:** September 26, 2003, 09:40:59 AM »

scared white men are a minority in this country so no. Plus he has the worst record as president since Hoover at pretty much every issue.

Rude · « **Reply #55 on:** September 26, 2003, 03:03:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Frogm4n
scared white men are a minority in this country so no. Plus he has the worst record as president since Hoover at pretty much every issue.

What will you do if he's re-elected???

Sandman · « **Reply #56 on:** September 26, 2003, 07:53:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Zippatuh
So you like throwing numbers that suit you.

California has 54 electoral votes.
Missouri has 11 electoral votes.

I was just trying to educate you on your obvious ignorance of the Electoral College. With only about 70% of registered voters casting ballots, and that’s registered not actual population, if only one person shows up in each state to vote, whose vote counts more?

Pointless discussion, you can lead a horse…

I know how the Electoral college works. If all you can offer is a personal attack, you are correct. It is a pointless discussion.