namelesstavern.net

Ouchyfish wrote:

KILL wrote:

Ouchyfish wrote:How much is having the wrong person going to cost this country, let alone the world?

The last 7 years should be a pretty good indication.

Unfortuneately, your jab missed the mark. See my stat about the 2004 election's electoral representation accuracy. The last 3 years was decided by majority. Whether he was right or wrong the majority voted him in, so we have to deal with it. My point was, they shouldn't be allowed in unless they have 50.1% of all votes received. So, while he was not entitled to winning in 2000 (IMHO), the last 3 was unavoidable by any fair means. (Unless you consider the first term enabling the second which is just silly because if he was THAT bad he wouldn't have received MORE votes the second time around.)

wasn't a jab at you, man. just pointing out we already know what having the wrong person can cost.

fwiw, i agree with runoff elections.

Ouchyfish wrote:

10sun wrote:44.9m+39.1m+19.7m = 103.7m
Clinton did not have a majority, Clinton simply had more votes than anybody else about 43% of the popular vote, that 43% got him 68.8% of the Electoral votes.

Whereas Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote and received 0% of the electoral vote.

Thank you. Look, I am mature and adult enough to hate a fucked up system even if the guy I want to win wins. Bottom line, in 1992, just like in 2000, more people voted for someone OTHER than who became president. In 2004, it seemed to be more accurate.

Bush received about 51 percent of the votes cast (62 million votes), making him the first presidential candidate to win a majority of the popular vote since his father George H. W. Bush in the presidential election of 1988. The 62 million votes cast for Bush were the most individual votes cast for anyone in history, though John Kerry's 59 million votes ranked second in that category as well.

The system is HIGHLY flawed. At least give us a friggin run-off election. I don't care how much it costs. How much is having the wrong person going to cost this country, let alone the world?

LOL just saw this: 1868 Democrat Presidential campaign slogan:
"This Is a White Man's Country, Let White Men Rule."

I guess I'm missing the logic that connects:

1) Bush loses popular vote in 2000, but wins due to electoral system.
2) Clinton WINS popular vote in 2000, and WINS due to electoral system.

... As being categorically the same injustice. If there were no electoral college, Clinton still would have won. Explain??

Yamori you missed that he is advocating a runoff style election, which can mean several different methods, but essentially change the election in such a way that opens up for more then two candidates, but that the winner in the end has the majority of votes.

Yamori wrote:
I guess I'm missing the logic that connects:

1) Bush loses popular vote in 2000, but wins due to electoral system.
2) Clinton WINS popular vote in 2000, and WINS due to electoral system.

... As being categorically the same injustice. If there were no electoral college, Clinton still would have won. Explain??

i think the point was that clinton didn't win the majority of the vote (50% +1)

I don't know how else to break this down for you. My view is, if you didn't get the majority of the vote, the MAJORITY of the voters didn't want you there, therefore you do NOT belong there. Unless they had a run-off to determine who honestly had the majority.

Clinton in 1992 got the most votes but the MAJORITY of American voters did NOT vote for him.

In 2000 the electoral college at least -seemed- fair:

Nominee George W. Bush Al Gore
Electoral Vote 271 266
States Carried 30 20+DC
Popular Vote 50,460,110 51,003,926
Percentage 47.87% 48.38%


However, like I said, neither got 50.1% so we need a runoff-and then the whole world will be happy!

Clinton on the other hand was a mess--both times!...look at those percentages versus this:

In 1992:

Clinton 43.0%
Bush Sr. 37.4%
Perot 18.9%

That's 56.3% of voting Americans didn't vote for Clinton! What's worse, Clinton got 370 electoral votes, compared with Bush Sr's 168 and Perot's NONE!!!!!

In 1996,

Clinton 49.2%
Dole 40.7%
Perot 8.4%

Still no 50.1 majority. At least Clinton got .1 more than the other 2 combined. Electoral college gave Clinton 379 to Dole's 159 and Perot--guess how many he got??? Zero!

Trash it-go off of popular vote, have run offs, and then let the people scream about voter fraud and voting ballot fraud for months after every election.

that's pretty much the big beef I have with our system

we have 3 or 4 viable political parties at any one time, and you can end up with a massive majority of seats in the legislature/parliament while getting less than 50% of the vote

3 or 4 viable parties give you more options and choices. I don't like the Brit system, but I would love for ours to have 4-6 good, valid political parties that would enforce real compromise for legislation.

We have two parties that are 80% identical, sans political posturing. The Senate Majority leader is <supposedly> Pro Life, The House DNC leader is <supposedly> Catholic, and the lead GOP candidate for president is for Gay Marriage and Pro Choice. It certainly isn't about the flash point issues, but merely about political pandering and appealing to The Base.

Even with a lot of political parties, we still have a large looming issue of the excess powers wielded by the Judicial branch, often in a non constitutional legislative manner. Hopefully we'll be able to find a way to reign in their power and make them 'umpires' instead of tyrannical types abusing their offices.

lyion wrote:3 or 4 viable parties give you more options and choices.

you'd think so, wouldn't you?

To be fair it depends on the political system.

Canada's isn't the same, and the multi party system doesn't seem to be as effective in the parliamentary type setups, versus in our legislative branch, where so much depends on getting 2/3 majority.

No offense meant towards Canada, but with such a small population compared to ours I would think their election/political process would be insanely simple.

Ouchyfish wrote:No offense meant towards Canada, but with such a small population compared to ours I would think their election/political process would be insanely simple.

not really

nationally, if you win ontario, you've got a 95% chance of forming the next government. we have a lot of issues with essentially everything being centred on toronto

there's a pretty big division between the western provinces and the eastern

Canada's government is nothing like ours, Ouchy. They are a parliamentary democracy without the separation of powers inherent in our government. It works mainly because Canada is much, much smaller than the US and still claims older Brit traditions.

Still it seems like the problems that overwhelm us would be more manageable with their elections. Unless the method they use is flawed worse than ours. Like...10 times worse..?

Thing of it is...our founding fathers had a much better education than most of us today. They studied history in great depth and really delved into the laws and daily lives of the great civilizations of the past. This is why they set up our constitution the way they did. They learned from the past and took those lessons to heart. They knew while a person can be smart, people as a whole are stupid and easily led.

Majority rule has no place in our country. We are not a democracy but a constitutional republic.