Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Udie on November 13, 2000, 12:51:00 PM
-
(http://a802.g.akamai.net/7/802/2068/974137668/www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.ParTop.0001.ImageFile.gif)
here's a map of the USA, it breaks down the counties that went for either Bush or Gore, county by county. Blue is Gore, Red is Bush...... I think it speaks for itself.
Udie
-
LOL, now we're basing our presidency on who won the most real estate?
I guess Montana should change their slogan to "Big Vote" country. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
lol! Great way to run a democracy - who has the most area wins!
Do those calculations use exact area data? Those mountainous areas are going to be key in the election. Perhaps if Bush built a huge mountain in every state and filled it with his supporters, it would be even more clear cut? He could completely flatten Gore counties and use the soil for more Bush Mountains! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Please tell me you aren't serious Udie? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 11-13-2000).]
-
What Udie is talking about is the fact we are as designed a nation of states, and each state has a voice in the election of the President.
The danger forseen by our founders was for states with completely different needs and wants to be held to the whim of the few larger states. Dowding has an excuse, you should know this banana.
-
Look a little closer, gents. Notice that the Democrats are wanting recounts not for the whole state, just the Democratic strongholds. Still think they want a "fair and accurate count, so the will of the people will be known"?
The point is valid that eliminating the electoral nullifies the vast majority of the country's votes. Only population centers will matter, and they will always be Democratic strongholds. Voila! Elections are now rendered as mere formalities, the results will be known. The only real election will be during the primary.
-
Interesting map. Shows just where 99% of the protected class lives!!!
-
Dowding,
House of Lords...need I say less. The Peerage Acts of 1958 and 1963 speak for themselves.
In other words, any government that allows one house of its legislative branch to be awarded their seat by virtue of heredity cannot be entirely representative of the people. And these two acts granted (1958) baronies for life without limit on numbers and (1963) allowed for all heredity peeresses to be members of the House.
I am confused on the House of Lords actual role these days, but as best as I can determine they still have the ability to act as a veto type of body on any legislation passed by the House of Commons. I do know that legislation was passed by the Liberal Party to curtail this power in 1911 and further in 1949.
Now I understand the the House of Lords Act of 1999 is trying to reform this "representative" body, so maybe their is hope for the Brits yet!
I guess my point is this....all of our backyards need a little cleaning.
Cobra
-
Kieren,
If your argument was valid, then how could any of the popular Republican presidents of the past have been elected? Where was the "Liberal Conspiracy" when Reagan was President? Or Bush(the elder), or the Trickster?
If you guys don't agree with the right of every individual to one vote, no matter where they live, then just come out and say so.
Does John Q Public that lives in New York City have the right to have his vote count the same as his brother Paul H Public, who lives in a small farming community in Nebraska? I believe they should be equal.
I live in a state that has only 10 electoral votes. My state is almost never talked about during a presidential election, because our electoral votes mean next to nothing, compared to big states like Texas or California. But I go and vote every four years, because I believe in the process.
[This message has been edited by banana (edited 11-13-2000).]
-
banana, if the New York race is closer than the Nebraska race, the New York vote counts more. If Nebraska is closer, then the vote cast in Nebraska is "more valuable" as it would be.
There were approximately 648,000 total for president in Nebraksa, for the 5 electoral votes.
There were over 6 million in New York, for the 33 electoral votes there.
Without an electoral college are you telling me any politician will ever care about what Nebraska needs again? As it is now they care little, if the election was on popular vote only it would be a waste of resources to even advertise in Nebraska, yet I think most will agree regardless of policy the needs of Nebraska are quite different from New York.
-
banana, you remind me of a lot of the kids who live in the inner city and don't really know where milk comes from. (the grocery store?) Please don't take that the wrong way. The electoral colllege has been there all along, doing its work in the background even though many of us were kind of unaware of it's importance.
The states have a right to exist, and a right to maintain their identity separate from the Federal Government. The electoral vote helps insure that the needs of your state won't be overlooked or drowned out by the needs of the people in major cities, who are so alike and so populous that they become, in effect, the people that the politicians will try to please and serve.
Without it, your federal government will become more and more unlike you, will have different values, different priorities. The governor of your state will have little influence on the President. Is that what you want?
Gunthr
-
Gunthr, as a person who grew up on a farm as a kid, I'll ignore that cheap shot. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Btw, I now live in a city of 72,000 people.
I must be stating my position poorly. Let me try again...I do see the logic in why the electoral college is needed. I agree with you guys. On the other hand, I'm not one of these "states rights" fanatics. I consider myself an American first, and a Minnesotan second. That's why I don't have a problem with considering the popular vote a viable way to decide a presidential election. I look at myself as one of 250 million Americans, not as just one of 4 million Minnesotans.
I don't see how, in this day and age of advanced communications, that even if all the presidential candidates ignored me and my state, that I would not know what their stands are on each issue. There's TV, the newspaper, the internet, the radio. I've been voting since 1984 and not once have I not known the issues, even though I've never been to a live presidential pep rally.
Look, I'm not a flaming liberal. I'm a thinking person that ponders every issue. I don't just cowtow to the party line. For the record, I am:
-Pro-Life
-in favor of the death penalty
-a tree hugger and whale saver
-for gun control
A supporter of our public schools
-disgusted with the way Clinton abused his power, and at the fact that he lied about it to our face.
Maybe this question needs to be asked: Should we each be considered as individuals in a country, or should we just be considered members of a state? Personally, I consider myself an American, and to this American, it looks like more Americans wanted Gore to be president.
-
I think middle-of-the-road solution would work well. Do away with the "winner take all" electoral votes in each state. Divide the votes between Congressional districts, or something like that. Someway to delineate the wishes of a major population center from the rest of the state. For instance, I'm pretty sure that the ideals and needs of L.A. are not indicative of the whole of California, but they end up being represented that way. It would still have to be weighted according to population, but instead of L.A. deciding the outcome of all 55 Cali votes, maybe it would only decide 25. Just an idea.
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
Its the United States of America banana, we are made up of states, thats what we were founded upon.
Being an American first is right, but America is made up of a union of states. In my opinion your state doesnt have enough sway in the country's direction, I believe they should all equally count the same. Its a core principal.
------------------
Dnil---Skyhawk until I get Dnil back :)
Maj. 900th Bloody Jaguars
Part time aircraft restorer. www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer (http://www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer)
-
banana,
Since every state gets electoral votes proportionately to it's population, plus two votes, the small states are overrepresented.
You get 2 free electors per 8 and we in NY get 2 per 31!
LJK Raubvogel:
If you do not like "winner take all" approach, make it different in Hawaii. It is none of your business how we assign our electors in NY!
You can suggest abandoning the electoral college altogether in the federal presidential election, but as long as you are a resident of of Hawaii, you cannot demand to change the state laws in 49 other states.
For you information, some states have different scheme of allocating their electors.
miko
-
Cobra - my post was not a judgement of the American electoral system. I simply took Udie's post to mean that Bush should win because most of the map is 'red'.
I didn't really read the topic heading and misunderstood what he was getting at (I understand now).
As for the House of Lords - you won't get any argument from me on its continued existence. Clear in the understanding of the need for a democracy to have two 'Houses', I'm in favour of the creation of an elected body where 'accidents of birth' are not part of the requirement. But the debate is how to replace it with something that would actually function in a similar capacity to the Lords.
You conservatives would approve of their latest action though - they just threw out legislation that would lower the age of consent for homosexual sex from 18 y/o to 16. On its third attempt to get passed.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 11-13-2000).]
-
You can take that one to the bank Dowding, we approve, and I'm pretty sure I speak for the others when I say that we are against boys smoking the pink panatella under the age of 18. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) geez.
banana, sorry for the way I expressed my view of your position. It struck me that you may not have known how the Electoral College came to be.
I guess we disagree, but I still am not sure that you understand what I mean.
For instance, you said:
I don't see how, in this day and age of advanced communications, that even if all the presidential candidates ignored me and my state, that I would not know what their stands are on each issue. There's TV, the newspaper, the internet, the radio. I've been voting since 1984 and not once have I not known the issues, even though I've never been to a live presidential pep rally.
The question is not whether you know the candidate's stands on issues.
The questions that you need to be concerned about are, when Minnesota gets 2.5 feet of snow in one day, how quick will the president send federal dollars to help out the snow plows?
Or, if Minnesota's highways and bridges are rotting from the salt, how many federal dollars will come your way?
Human beings have always formed groups to get what they need. People in the large population centers form very large groups, and their chorus of voices is very loud.
Who do you think is going to get taken care of first, without an Electoral College?
These are only my thoughts and intuition. I've been ignorant on this topic up until this current election mess. So I'm interested in other ideas on this. It is certainly going to be a hot issue when the smoke (and mirrors) of this election clears...
<S> banana
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Gunthr
.
.
.
.
[This message has been edited by Gunthr (edited 11-13-2000).]
-
I think these Statistics are more important than the colors of that map:
Total Number of Counties Won:
Bush: 2,434
Gore: 677
Population(1999)Of Counties Won:
Bush: 143 Million
Gore: 127 Million
Per Cent Growth Of Counties Won:
Bush: 14%
Gore: 5%
The arm-pits(Big Cities) of the USA are responsible for Gore even having a chance (albeit an illegal one) in winning this election.
And the growth statistic is very revealing: Americans are fleeing the Big Cities in droves. Why? Because they perceive that the Cities are decadent, crime-ridden, dangerous rat-holes, and want a better place to raise a family with values that reflect their own.
The Electoral College gives ALL Americans in ALL the States a voice in their government. Not just the welfare recipients, white-wine sipping ultra-rich Liberals(these folks have 2nd and 3rd homes in the "country" and never mix with the "lower-classes")and other groups who inhabit the Big Cities, where(surprise) the "Media" also happens to be based.
Cabby
[This message has been edited by cabby (edited 11-13-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Gunthr:
The questions that you need to be concerned about are, when Minnesota gets 2.5 feet of snow in one day, how quick will the president send federal dollars to help out the snow plows?
<S> banana
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Gunthr
.
.
.
.
[This message has been edited by Gunthr (edited 11-13-2000).]
Gunthr,
If its Gore, he won't send any dollars, but he will claim to have visited that area himself with the head of the relief agency (when in reality he did not, but its not lying, its just "exaggerating")
Cobra
-
Originally posted by miko2d:
LJK Raubvogel:
If you do not like "winner take all" approach, make it different in Hawaii. It is none of your business how we assign our electors in NY!
You can suggest abandoning the electoral college altogether in the federal presidential election, but as long as you are a resident of of Hawaii, you cannot demand to change the state laws in 49 other states.
For you information, some states have different scheme of allocating their electors.
miko
Damn dude, put the gun down lmao. I was just suggesting a possible alternative. Personally I don't think that large population centers should be able to represent an entire state. Btw, I am not a resident of Hawaii, I vote absentee for Pennsylvania. And I know that although the votes of Filthydelphia and Pittsburgh decide the state, they do not represent the views of the entire state.
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
- Pro-Life
- in favor of the death penalty
[/b]
GOD !
It's something my little brain cannot understand ...
[This message has been edited by straffo (edited 11-14-2000).]
-
Straffo,
It may sound like a contradiction, but I'm all for cleaning out our death-row cells and saving the tax payers a lot of money. I know it currently costs more to execute someone than it does to keep them incarcerated, but my plan would reduce the costs dramatically: One death-row inmate, one bullet.
Now, since I'm also Pro-life, let me explain...
I don't believe abortion should be used as birth control. Abortion should only be used(IMHO) in the case of rape, or the mother's life is in jeopardy.
How do I explain the seeming contradiction? Simple. You kill someone, you die. I'm usually a bleeding-heart kind of liberal, but when it comes to murderers....let'em fry!
No problem, Gunthr, mate. We simply disagree, and I'm happy to continue to debate. I've given up on Cabby, though. No use in debating a brick wall.
Dnil, ya I know. But some of our states are so frigging out there, that maybe we should[/] have let them cecede in 1861. To some Southerners, the Civil War never ended. Whereas up here in the north country, you never, ever hear discussion about it anymore.
And speaking of state representation...isn't that what we have senators and representatives for? Have y'all forgot that we have three branches of the Federal Government?
-
It has better sense now (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
But I cannot agree with you (see Voltaire citation)
I'm against aborption but I'm against limiting the freedom of others (that's not my body) and I know the case of a friend of mine who get no choice other than aborption (for medical reason) it was a decision hard to do ...
And yes I agree aborption is not proper the way to do birth control but has I understand the discution it's often a 0/1 choice : pro or against.
We all know that life is neither White nor Black it's something in the middle sometime more White sometime more Black ...
About death penalty, in France we have stopped using this ultimate act in the 70s (even if it was not as often used as in Texas for exemple) ,I've heard of a men who as spend 22 year in jail in QHS (High Security Prison) for 2 murder he didn't commit he could have been killed by the society for nothing (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif).
Frankly if for 1000 guy in jail for murder in prison there is ONE innocent I won't take the risk to kill any of them.
That's what I thing ...
-
Quote:
"No use in debating a brick wall."
Thanks, banana. I rather like that description (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Cabby
-
Originally posted by LJK Raubvogel:
Damn dude, put the gun down lmao. I was just suggesting a possible alternative.
LJK Raubvogel:
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
I like your solution myself very much - I am a republican and have no chance to affect the electors from NY - they all end up voting for the democrat candidate.
I would support any federal initiative to do away with the electoral college. I would support any initiative to change the election process in NY to split the electoral votes.
But I would be wrong to demang a change in voting procedure in any other state or country.
It is of course your right to comment or laugh at the procedure anywhere, just be carefull with your wording. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
straffo
Here is an explanation foy your little brain.
"Pro-life" is not a policy description, it is a label.
Ford Mustang is a car, not a horse, Shevy Corvette is another car, not a ship.
The movement would be better called "Anti-Abortion". Some of it's members condone and accomplish murders of people.
The death-penalty proponents's goal is not to just kill people but to prevent murders of innocents. They may be called "Pro-Life" as well.
If you care to discuss virtues of various movements, you should first learn some more about them than just their slogans or nick-names...
miko
-
If you care to discuss virtues of various movements, you should first learn some more about them than just their slogans or nick-names...
I try to understand from what I read, not the suposed sense of a label (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)!
That's why I've asked him to explain me.
Btw don't forget that some people like me try to understand you american people and need to write in a language wich is not their native one .
En l'occurence nous pourrions argumenter de faįon peut ętre plus agréable si nous pouvions nous exprimer tout les deux en Franįais.Mais ce babillard ayant une audience internationale je suis limité ā une langue que je ne maitrise pas (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Understood ? hehe (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
At 1st you need to know that the idea you get through my message is perhaps not clear because I think first in French and write in Anglais/English (and it can be completly distorted by an less than skilled French writer like me) but if you want to learn French I will gadly help you (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
-
WTG Straffo - great response!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Could you teach me some more French? I learnt some at school, but that was a few years ago now. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 11-14-2000).]
-
No problem Dowding (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
But you already now that's french is not an easy language (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Feel free to contact me by BBS/Mail/online or if you go in vaction in Normandie (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by miko2d:
The death-penalty proponents's goal is not to just kill people but to prevent murders of innocents. They may be called "Pro-Life" as well.
miko
I've yet to see any indication, statistical or other, that the death penalty is actually working as a way to reduce homicide rates. To be absolutely sure to save innocent lives you have to enforce this penalty preemptive, ie execute the person before he actually kill anyone.
No to me death penalty seem more of a "revenge" enforced by the state upon it's citizens, when the state actually should care for the lives of it's citizens instead of taking it.
I can also be seen as fixing leaks with chewing gum and band-aids instead of constructing a proper hull to begin with.
And also there is a whole wide range of greys, not just black and white, as someone posted before me.
As for the pro-life or anti-abortion issue, I belive it's only extremists and fanatics who belive the should be NO ABORTION RIGHTS at all, while most will agree it should be used mindlessly or like contraceptive (sp?) either. But it think were few women (or men) who go through an abortion do so light heartedly, or merely shrugging it off. On the contrary it often comes out of misery and suffering and is a very traumatic experience.
Oh, btw I'm all "Pro-Life" as well. You can interprete that in so many ways, depending on your ideology. I'm also pro-death, ie the right to decide when to end your own life in case of deciese (sp?) or old age, when you no longer can live a worthy life.
My .0002 kronor (the swedish monetary unit) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Cheers,
-
Heh, I'm not real big on this debate, but I have to reply to this one...
I've yet to see any indication, statistical or other, that the death penalty is actually working as a way to reduce homicide rates.
Studies indicate, though at this point it is too early to tell definately, that no dead person has yet been found to commit murder.
-
Studies indicate, though at this point it is too early to tell definately, that no dead
person has yet been found to commit murder.
Roflmao (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
Originally posted by Jammer:
I've yet to see any indication, statistical or other, that the death penalty is actually working as a way to reduce homicide rates. To be absolutely sure to save innocent lives you have to enforce this penalty preemptive, ie execute the person before he actually kill anyone.
My .0002 kronor (the swedish monetary unit) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Cheers,
Well, take a look at some of the middle eastern Countries, ie.. Saudi Arabia, Iran.
They are a REAL good exaple of how well Capital punishment can be very effective.
-
Originally posted by -ammo-:
Well, take a look at some of the middle eastern Countries, ie.. Saudi Arabia, Iran.
They are a REAL good exaple of how well Capital punishment can be very effective.
Is that tha kind of country you want to live in? Summarial trials, no jury, decapitation on the town square. Confessions under torture, dictatorship rule and very harsch religious control. The list can go on.
I don't think that your statement was serious, no? If it was, I suggest that you find out some more fact before you make assumptions like that.
for example look at
www.amnesty.com (http://www.amnesty.com)
Cheers,
-
Adding to Jammer's list:
In Saudi, an elderly British couple were recently sentenced to be publicly flogged for alledgedly making their own alcohol in their own home (a crime by Shariah law, although a blind eye is usually turned to Westerners). They are in prison at the moment, and the women needs constant medical attention and drugs for a bad back - reckon she'll survive a flogging?
How about living under a government that actively surpresses dissent through torture (including rape)?
And Kuwait is just as bad (don't believe the crap we were fed about the time of the Gulf War, portraying Kuwait as a bastion of democracy and civilisation).
But it doesn't matter as long as they buy our planes, tanks and ships does it?
I hope ammo was being sarcastic...
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 11-18-2000).]