Only racism explains close polls

[SCUDSBROTHER]

He wanted to know why Obama isn't blowing McCain away. I'm just saying the E.C. is a big part of it. Gore got about a half million more votes than Bush. That E.C. thing is the reason he wasn't the President. That lil E.C. thing.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

He wanted to know why Obama isn't blowing McCain away. I'm just saying the E.C. is a big part of it. Gore got about a half million more votes than Bush. That E.C. thing is the reason he wasn't the President. That lil E.C. thing.

quick questions: does the president get elected by a majority? if not, is there a runoff? how is that structured?

because no one got a majority in 2000. or 1992. or 1968.

or do we just choose a number like a plurality over 40%? in which case we're still putting in power someone that the majority didn't vote for.

what do we do when there are 300 candidates running for president? because that's what you'd have a few years after dumping the electoral college. it's a key underpinning to our (so far) stable 2 party system.

there are no successful 3rd parties in america because of the difficulty of winning enough individual states to be elected president. you're either ross perot with a broad but too shallow constituency (no electoral votes) or george wallace with a deep but too narrow voting bloc (too few electoral votes).

would you rather have an occasional george bush or be italy?

[Mike]

I guess I want the 300 candidates running for president. I hate the stable two party system we have right now

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Mike

I guess I want the 300 candidates running for president. I hate the stable two party system we have right now

you're an ungrateful pup then.

you sit in the (still) richest most powerful country in history and complain.

i think things worked out okay. we got lucky the founders accidently put in place something that has worked over a few century's. we should be very careful about making fundamental changes in a system that produces relative stability in politics.

you don't like george bush? me either. but wait until you've sampled an ungovernable mob.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

quick questions: does the president get elected by a majority? if not, is there a runoff? how is that structured?

because no one got a majority in 2000. or 1992. or 1968.

or do we just choose a number like a plurality over 40%? in which case we're still putting in power someone that the majority didn't vote for.

what do we do when there are 300 candidates running for president? because that's what you'd have a few years after dumping the electoral college. it's a key underpinning to our (so far) stable 2 party system.

there are no successful 3rd parties in america because of the difficulty of winning enough individual states to be elected president. you're either ross perot with a broad but too shallow constituency (no electoral votes) or george wallace with a deep but too narrow voting bloc (too few electoral votes).

would you rather have an occasional george bush or be italy?

Again, we vote for Governor by adding up the votes in a state. We vote for senators by adding up the votes in the state. We vote for Congressman by voting up the votes in a congressional district. There is no good reason we can't simply add up the votes for President of the country by adding up the votes in the country(not the votes in the states.) This is a National office. It shouldn't have states involved at all. He doesn't represent states interests. He is supposed to represent every Americans interests....And I never want another George Bush again(SINCE YOU ASKED.) For whatever else you asked about look at elections for Governors. They seem to work just fine. I don't know why people don't want to just add up people's votes to determine the President. Probably because they think they have an inherent advantage in the E.C.

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

They won't. Takes too many votes, and there are too many Southern States. That's why I keep saying the only hope for the rest of the country is to give the South their own country.

Ok then lets go back to the Civil War.
If the North's major source of income was agriculture do you
think the North would have played a role in freeing the slaves?
What was inherent in the genes or upbringing of the oh so moral North
that made them the abolitionists they were? Its not there. The North
was industrialized, they did not need slave labor, it was easy to be
against it.

The roles would have been completely reversed if you change the
geography that led to agriculture v. industrial. And what makes anyone
think if they lived in a society in which they were taught from birth that blacks needed this work and were not fully human that they would have been
immune to this... Anyone on this board could have been a fervent Nazi
under the correct conditions.

Get over the regionalism and try to understand the roots.

And dammit Scuds you just dont know Texas, at all. It is very diff. than the deep south. It was never a part of the deep south. East Texas, I will admit, is close... excluding Houston which is quite cosmopolitan. The Western parts are much more like Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, etc... Very independent minded. South-Central Texas could be mistaken for California with Austin being Berkely, and San Antonio being the part of LA that you hate because of Mexicans. The State is very diverse, and could be democratic in a few years if the Democrats are able to take hold of the Hispanic vote. That is all it would take.
I have been to Mississippi.
Whole diff ball game.
Make the Rednecks here look like Ted Kennedy clones.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

you're an ungrateful pup then.

you sit in the (still) richest most powerful country in history and complain.

i think things worked out okay. we got lucky the founders accidently put in place something that has worked over a few century's. we should be very careful about making fundamental changes in a system that produces relative stability in politics.

you don't like george bush? me either. but wait until you've sampled an ungovernable mob.

wise words.....for once!

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Ok then lets go back to the Civil War.
If the North's major source of income was agriculture do you
think the North would have played a role in freeing the slaves?
What was inherent in the genes or upbringing of the oh so moral North
that made them the abolitionists they were? Its not there. The North
was industrialized, they did not need slave labor, it was easy to be
against it.

The roles would have been completely reversed if you change the
geography that led to agriculture v. industrial. And what makes anyone
think if they lived in a society in which they were taught from birth that blacks needed this work and were not fully human that they would have been
immune to this... Anyone on this board could have been a fervent Nazi
under the correct conditions.

Get over the regionalism and try to understand the roots.

And dammit Scuds you just dont know Texas, at all. It is very diff. than the deep south. It was never a part of the deep south. East Texas, I will admit, is close... excluding Houston which is quite cosmopolitan. The Western parts are much more like Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, etc... Very independent minded. South-Central Texas could be mistaken for California with Austin being Berkely, and San Antonio being the part of LA that you hate because of Mexicans. The State is very diverse, and could be democratic in a few years if the Democrats are able to take hold of the Hispanic vote. That is all it would take.
I have been to Mississippi.
Whole diff ball game.
Make the Rednecks here look like Ted Kennedy clones.

AIN'T READING IT..You're an irritant only.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

you're an ungrateful pup then.

you sit in the (still) richest most powerful country in history and complain.

i think things worked out okay. we got lucky the founders accidently put in place something that has worked over a few century's. we should be very careful about making fundamental changes in a system that produces relative stability in politics.

you don't like george bush? me either. but wait until you've sampled an ungovernable mob.

We don't have the highest standard of living in the world. Our currency has poor value compared to the Euro, or the Pound. Why do you think we are richest? I think it's simply false, sir.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

you're an ungrateful pup then.

you sit in the (still) richest most powerful country in history and complain.

i think things worked out okay. we got lucky the founders accidently put in place something that has worked over a few century's. we should be very careful about making fundamental changes in a system that produces relative stability in politics.

you don't like george bush? me either. but wait until you've sampled an ungovernable mob.

It didn't work well in 2000. God is so warped he is missing it. If we just added up the votes, then somebody would of won by a wide margin, and we wouldn't have been down in Florida recounting such a close decision. We deserved that mess, because we stupidly stay in this stupid E.C. If we simply counted all the Citizens votes up in the country, then we wouldn't probably ever get just a thousand vote difference. How many people on here think their vote will have any impact in November? Not me, not you, not PGRDN, not many of us. See? You want to stick to this crap. Again , it can only be because you see some inherent good in keeping down minority party voters in each state. I think it's soooo stupid, and incredibly divisive. For somebody who dislikes friction between parties, you are missing how divisive the E.C is.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

you're an ungrateful pup then.

you sit in the (still) richest most powerful country in history and complain.

i think things worked out okay. we got lucky the founders accidently put in place something that has worked over a few century's. we should be very careful about making fundamental changes in a system that produces relative stability in politics.

you don't like george bush? me either. but wait until you've sampled an ungovernable mob.

Richest?

We are about to be 11 trillion dollars in debt and counting.

Wouldnt that make us about the poorest?

[Mike]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

you're an ungrateful pup then.

you sit in the (still) richest most powerful country in history and complain.

i think things worked out okay. we got lucky the founders accidently put in place something that has worked over a few century's. we should be very careful about making fundamental changes in a system that produces relative stability in politics.

you don't like george bush? me either. but wait until you've sampled an ungovernable mob.

I'm a pup?


Not really complaining, am I? Just because I want this great country I'm so proud of, blessed by God as it is, to be tweaked here and there for improvement, doesn't mean you have to imply the ole' "America-Love it or Leave it" mantra

I think I need a hug

[Mortimer]

Ok then lets go back to the Civil War.
If the North's major source of income was agriculture do you
think the North would have played a role in freeing the slaves?
What was inherent in the genes or upbringing of the oh so moral North
that made them the abolitionists they were? Its not there. The North
was industrialized, they did not need slave labor, it was easy to be
against it.

The roles would have been completely reversed if you change the
geography that led to agriculture v. industrial. And what makes anyone
think if they lived in a society in which they were taught from birth that blacks needed this work and were not fully human that they would have been
immune to this... Anyone on this board could have been a fervent Nazi
under the correct conditions.






Signed,

Phil

and Ethel


Nincompoop.....we mean Garden

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Still waiting for your first...thankfully, you still have time.

Still playing games,your Eminence?

[Mortimer]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Still playing games,your Eminence?

Well if you played your cards right you would still be in them,too.