Mindia and other GOP people

[vonkaar]

I voted for Bush because I really enjoy his charm and wit. I also think that he's really cute in Hugo Boss.

[Tossica]

penetration

*snicker*

[Gidan]

Fair enough.

1. What has Bush done over the past 5 years that gives you cause to support him fully?

He was democratically elected to the white house. Due to this, I support him as our President, and voice my opposition to things he proposes which I do not agree with in a positive manner

Did you support him when he was in the white house even though he Gore was democratically elected?

Again for possible penetration. We are NOT a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. We are run by the Rule of Law not mob rule.

I support Bush because I think he's probably one of the more forward thinking Presidents we've had. He takes the long view of things.

In the last 5 years he has helped the economy slowly turn around after dual disasters of Sept 11 and the dot com burst. He has caused a domino effect in the Middle East and my children will reap the benefit from that. Since he has been in office our personal income has doubled and our quality of life has drastically improved.

So you think Lyions statement should have read more like

He was elected by the republic to the white house. Due to this, I support him as our President

and not that he was democraticly elected.

So the US is not a democracy, yet we claim to be spreading democracy to the world. Why do we bother calling it a democracy, the people dont have a say. Why do we claim that this is a govn't for the people by the people when the people dont have an equal say in that gov't.

What harm would be caused if we actually let the people elect the leader of the Nation?

[Martrae]

Each state really picks the President. The electoral college is there to cast their votes the way the people in their state decide.

Democracy is mob rule. It's 5 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for supper. The Rule of Law sets forth standards and rules for decision making. It allows for checks and balances.

[Gidan]

So basicly if you want more of a say in who becomes president, you need to pick what state you choose to live in much more carefully. For example its beter to live in Alaska then Florida if you want some sort of say.

[Lyion]

So what you are saying Gidan is we should have no states, no bill of rights, no constitution and simply let the majority vote for what they want all the time.

Again, what Mart is saying and you are ignoring is that is MOB rule, not democracy.

Yes, W was DEMOCRATICALLY elected. Just as other Presidents have been DEMOCRATICALLY elected but not won the popular vote.

Stop hitting Arlos sites and start using common sense, man.

[Gidan]

How can somone be deomcratically elected and not be elected by the people?

There shoudl be states, there should be a bill of rights, there should be a constitution. However when electing a president I beleive that the people's vote should be meaningful. My vote in the state of TX mean nothing, it would make do difference if I voted or not.

I would not associate mob rule with somehting like 55% vs 45% of the people. I associate mob rule with somehting like 80% vs 20% and the electoral college would not pravent that from happening.

My vote for president should be just as important as the person who lives next door and who lives across the country. My vote shouldn't be less important becaue I live in TX then it would be if I lived in Alaska.

[xaoshaen]

and not that he was democraticly elected.

Actually, you can still say that the United States chooses its President democratically.

So the US is not a democracy, yet we claim to be spreading democracy to the world. Why do we bother calling it a democracy, the people dont have a say. Why do we claim that this is a govn't for the people by the people when the people dont have an equal say in that gov't.

It makes a snappier soundbyte than saying "we're spreading constitutional republicanism". In some cases, we actually do wind up bringing democracy to other nations.

This is a government for, by, and of the people. People do have a relatively equal say in government.

What harm would be caused if we actually let the people elect the leader of the Nation?

We do, in fact, allow the people elect the leader of the nation. We just don't do it directly.

[xaoshaen]

So basicly if you want more of a say in who becomes president, you need to pick what state you choose to live in much more carefully. For example its beter to live in Alaska then Florida if you want some sort of say.

No. There are more people voting in California than in Alaska, but there are more electoral college votes at stake in California. It's a matter of proportionality.

[xaoshaen]

How can somone be deomcratically elected and not be elected by the people?

There shoudl be states, there should be a bill of rights, there should be a constitution. However when electing a president I beleive that the people's vote should be meaningful. My vote in the state of TX mean nothing, it would make do difference if I voted or not.

Your vote in the state of Texas would mean nothing regardless of whether we elect a President directly by popular acclaim or not.

My vote for president should be just as important as the person who lives next door and who lives across the country. My vote shouldn't be less important becaue I live in TX then it would be if I lived in Alaska.

Again, proportionality. You haven't lessened the impact of your vote by living in Texas.

[Gidan]

How can somone be deomcratically elected and not be elected by the people?

There shoudl be states, there should be a bill of rights, there should be a constitution. However when electing a president I beleive that the people's vote should be meaningful. My vote in the state of TX mean nothing, it would make do difference if I voted or not.

Your vote in the state of Texas would mean nothing regardless of whether we elect a President directly by popular acclaim or not.

My vote for president should be just as important as the person who lives next door and who lives across the country. My vote shouldn't be less important becaue I live in TX then it would be if I lived in Alaska.

Again, proportionality. You haven't lessened the impact of your vote by living in Texas.

Actually if the president were elected through pupular vote, my vote would go toward the person I choose to vote for and be counted in the finally tally. In TX a VERY republican state, my vote for a democrat is lost because it will not overturn the state and not be counted in a tally across all states.

And proportionaly my vote would mean more in the state of Alaska then it would in Florida, TX or Cal. Alaska has a much better ratio of voters to electoral votes then the large states listed.

[Gidan]

and not that he was democraticly elected.

Actually, you can still say that the United States chooses its President democratically.

So you can actually claim that 2 different people were democratically elected?

[Lyion]

Nope, you can't. One person is democratically elected per election.

You never answered my question. Should we abolish the constitution and the bill of rights and rule solely based on majority? Should we eliminate the states and just have one big State? That is essentially what you are proposing.

if your answer to the above is no, then I'm afraid you have to admit W was democratically elected, or claim hypocrisy

[Gidan]

No we shouldn't get rid of all those things. I beleive that the system we have is very important. However I think that the leaders should be elected by the people. The Senate and House reps should be elected by popular votes in their respective states to represent them.

The president should be elected by the popular vote of the nation to represent everyone.

The only other thing that isn't voted on by the people that I think should be is impeachment. I think that a national election should take place on whether the people beleive the house should impeach the president. If the people think he should, then send it to the senate.

[xaoshaen]

and not that he was democraticly elected.

Actually, you can still say that the United States chooses its President democratically.

So you can actually claim that 2 different people were democratically elected?

No.

[xaoshaen]

The only other thing that isn't voted on by the people that I think should be is impeachment. I think that a national election should take place on whether the people beleive the house should impeach the president. If the people think he should, then send it to the senate.

Oh yes, by all means let's allow ill-informed individuals, the vast majority of whom rely entirely on the media to present any evidence involved decide the fate of the nation's leadership. I don't see anything wrong with that plan.

[xaoshaen]

Actually if the president were elected through pupular vote, my vote would go toward the person I choose to vote for and be counted in the finally tally. In TX a VERY republican state, my vote for a democrat is lost because it will not overturn the state and not be counted in a tally across all states.

The electoral college hasn't rendered your vote any more meaningless than would a majority voting against you on a referendum. It's just occuring at a different level within the process. I'm not really a big fan of the electoral college myself, but it doesn't somehow negate the vote of the American people.

And proportionaly my vote would mean more in the state of Alaska then it would in Florida, TX or Cal. Alaska has a much better ratio of voters to electoral votes then the large states listed.

A bit, but not enough to be statistically significant issue, particularly since Alaska has a grand total of three electoral votes. When was the last time you heard a campaign talking about the need to swing Alaska?

[Gidan]

and not that he was democraticly elected.

Actually, you can still say that the United States chooses its President democratically.

So you can actually claim that 2 different people were democratically elected?

No.

So what is a democratic election then? I was always under the impression that people voted, the votes were counted. The person with the most votes won.

[Martrae]

No we shouldn't get rid of all those things. I beleive that the system we have is very important. However I think that the leaders should be elected by the people. The Senate and House reps should be elected by popular votes in their respective states to represent them.

Actually, the states are supposed to pick the Senators and the people are supposed to pick the Representatives to, you know, represent them. This balances things between states interests and individual ones and keeps that checks and balances thing going. Unfortunately, many states bickered so much internally about who to pick as Senator many Senate seats were left vacant. The 17th amendment changed the rules for electing Senators to popular vote.

[Gidan]

Actually if the president were elected through pupular vote, my vote would go toward the person I choose to vote for and be counted in the finally tally. In TX a VERY republican state, my vote for a democrat is lost because it will not overturn the state and not be counted in a tally across all states.

The electoral college hasn't rendered your vote any more meaningless than would a majority voting against you on a referendum. It's just occuring at a different level within the process. I'm not really a big fan of the electoral college myself, but it doesn't somehow negate the vote of the American people.

And proportionaly my vote would mean more in the state of Alaska then it would in Florida, TX or Cal. Alaska has a much better ratio of voters to electoral votes then the large states listed.

A bit, but not enough to be statistically significant issue, particularly since Alaska has a grand total of three electoral votes. When was the last time you heard a campaign talking about the need to swing Alaska?

First, my vote in TX is meaningless. If the country were 50/50 on an election yes extremely unlikely to be eactly 50/50 but not unlikely that we would actually be split roughly 50/50. TX doesn't even come close to 50/50, its mroe like 70/30. When your part of the 30 in TX your vote doesn't mean anything while if the nation as a whole was 50/50 your vote could very well be meaningful. So my useless vote is being ignored because it doesn't matter outside of the state of TX.

Secondly, they dont need to swing alaska because the power of alaska to them is nothing, its 3 votes. They need to swing the masses in large states that matter to them. Doesn't that say something, they dont care about the people in alaska becasue their state is meanignless to them because it only represents 3 votes. However it doesn't change the fact that the individual has more of an effect on the votes of Alaska then they would in Cal.

Any system that makes an idividuals vote mean more or less based upon what state they live in is flawed.

[Tikker]

You're not making a lot of sense Gidan

[Harrison]

I live in MA so I am on the opposite spectrum than you Gidan almost perfectly. I still voted for Bush. It wasn't "meaningless", I still put in a vote for who I wanted president. Which is the entire point of voting.

[Gidan]

Let me try and rephrase it them.

Lets look at this being generous with the democrat numbers. TX votes about 60/40 republican.

The Nation as a whole votes about 50/50 going back and forth between democrats and republicans as far as who is in the majority.

Dem's havn't won a TX presidential election since 1976 and the gap is getting wider not smaller.

Where the country as a whole will go back and forth between Dem and Rep, TX will not. As long as TX as a whole is going to vote Republican, the votes for the dem canidate in this state become meaningless. What that means is that those Dem votes are lost, they dont have any effect on the election, the only votes that mattered were the votes for the rep candidate.

If you look at the nation as a whole though and included the votes of all the people as spererate people you will see that the results of the election will at times be different that that of the states. With our current system, 1 candidate could conceivable win by a landslide over the other while still losing the actual election. Does that seem right?

[Gidan]

I live in MA so I am on the opposite spectrum than you Gidan almost perfectly. I still voted for Bush. It wasn't "meaningless", I still put in a vote for who I wanted president. Which is the entire point of voting.

Whats point is that? That you know your vote isn't important but your are willing to do it anyway so you can say you voted?

I thought the entire point of voting on something was you were putting in your vote toward a specific cadidate and that you expected your vote to be just as important as everyone elses vote.

[Lyion]

Let me try and rephrase it them.

Lets look at this being generous with the democrat numbers. TX votes about 60/40 republican.

The Nation as a whole votes about 50/50 going back and forth between democrats and republicans as far as who is in the majority.

Dem's havn't won a TX presidential election since 1976 and the gap is getting wider not smaller.

Where the country as a whole will go back and forth between Dem and Rep, TX will not. As long as TX as a whole is going to vote Republican, the votes for the dem canidate in this state become meaningless. What that means is that those Dem votes are lost, they dont have any effect on the election, the only votes that mattered were the votes for the rep candidate.

If you look at the nation as a whole though and included the votes of all the people as spererate people you will see that the results of the election will at times be different that that of the states. With our current system, 1 candidate could conceivable win by a landslide over the other while still losing the actual election. Does that seem right?

First, it's not very probable to win by a 'landslide' and lose the election. However, its possible to not have a popular vote and lose. Why? Because we judge each state individually and the result of the election is the cumulation of each state being INDIVIDUALLY represented.

California has more people than Texas, and votes with Democratic Presidential Candidates often. So the situation is reversed. The 45% or so their could feel even more disenfranchised since their vote rarely goes GOP.

The basis of ou r UNION, which is what you are not understanding, is our states are supposed to be their own entities. They can decide how to allocate their electoral votes. This is Federalism. Each state has its election for President, and the winner gets the EVs.

Your method of election would ensure any non 'large' state would become worthless in Presidential Elections. Is that fair for those people? Should Presidential Elections solely be decided by four states? That seems much more 'unfair' to me.

We make it 'more' fair by allowing larger populated states to have more EVs. If you look at the 'states' GW won, and the amount of EVs he won by, you can see the process is good, if not perfect. The only people who don't think it is are those who haven't taken the time to understand the system.

As I said, W 'democratically' won the election. He captured the most states. This is how it should be.