Question for Lefties

[Raider Bill]

Question guys: If Bush wins the popular vote but looses in the electoral college (which I think may very well happen) can us guys on the right bitch and moan for the next 4 years and call Kerry the unelected poodle? Just curious. That is all.

[alkemical]

can the lefties run a company that supplies electronic voting machines?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Question guys: If Bush wins the popular vote but looses in the electoral college (which I think may very well happen) can us guys on the right bitch and moan for the next 4 years and call Kerry the unelected poodle? Just curious. That is all.

Us "lefties" have always defended your right to "bitch and moan" whenever you feel like it.

When wingers don't like what we have to say about bush and the GOP, they band together and try to get us booted from the discussion.

Us "lefties" don't do this kind of thing.

That's the difference between our side and yours.

BTW, I think Smirk is going to lose big in both the electoral and the popular columns.

[OrangeDoofus]

Question guys: If Bush wins the popular vote but looses in the electoral college (which I think may very well happen) can us guys on the right bitch and moan for the next 4 years and call Kerry the unelected poodle?

Sure. Fair's fair.

Since we're on the electoral-vs-popular vote subject, what's everyone's take on the referendum in Colorado, which would amend the state constitution to distribute Colorado's electoral votes in proportion to its popular vote?

I've got my own opinion, but since I asked the question I'll wait to hear everyone else's take on it.

[Blueflame]

If that hypothetical situation actually happened, of course the conservatives can... and will whine. I mean, wasn't there an almost-constant whine throughout the eight years of Clinton's presidency? :P ;D :P

[enjolras]

Since we're on the electoral-vs-popular vote subject, what's everyone's take on the referendum in Colorado, which would amend the state constitution to distribute Colorado's electoral votes in proportion to its popular vote?

I've got my own opinion, but since I asked the question I'll wait to hear everyone else's take on it.

I don't live in Colorado anymore (but I'm trying to get my wife hooked on the idea!).. but I think this is a great idea. It would definitely encourage me to vote... right now I'm more or less disenfranchised. My vote not only means nothing in the state of texas, all of the like-minded voters in this state (primarily the more urban voters) basically have no say in how we vote in the electoral college. The winner-takes-all approach does nothing but trample on the voice of the minority in large states. If EVERY state went to a district voting or distribution scheme like Colorado is proposing I beleive our government would much more accurately reflect the actual will of the people..

[Raider Bill]

It would help in a state like PA where all the demo's have to do is promise handouts to philly and pittsburgh and neglect the rest of the state which is pretty heavily republican. Living in the Peoples Republic of New Jersey, I'm in the same boat as enjolras, my vote isn't going to make a bit of difference. A "weighted average" approach would more accurately reflect the will of the people so to speak.


http://images.usatoday.com/news/electmap.jpg

[watermock]

No. Your setting yourself up. Bush will win the popular election and the electoral vote.

If by some reason a terrorist manages to infulence the election, Kerry can deal with them.

Ha!

[Raider Bill]

No. Your setting yourself up. Bush will win the popular election and the electoral vote.

If by some reason a terrorist manages to infulence the election, Kerry can deal with them.

Ha!


If Bush wins, this place is going to be entertaining as hell, I'm going to laugh my ass off watching LABF go beserk. :D

If Kerry wins, I won't really care that much. He's going to be hamstrung by a Republican legislature. Nyah!

When you get right down to it this forum is a lot of arguing for arguing's sake. Noone is ever going to change anyone else's mind so what the hell is the point? It's just an academic excercise. :bash:

[cbs1177]

I am not sure about the district Electoral College scheme; where would the district lines be drawn and if it is the same lines as the Districts of the Representatives then we would have a whole lot more fights over redistricting the lines that happen every four years when the census is taken. I think the Electoral College works there has only been two times the candiate that doesn't win the popular vote won the Electoral College. If we went strictly to popular votes then candiates would spend a lot more time gathering votes in Texas, Florida, CA, and NY therefore every small state based on population would be ignored. Like say ND,SD, and Idaho.

[OrangeDoofus]

Basically, I like the idea of what's being done in Colorado, but I think if it's going to be done it needs to be implemented nationally. If either Texas or California were to do this unilaterally it would pretty much kill the chances of one side or the other.

[Rausch]

Question guys: If Bush wins the popular vote but looses in the electoral college (which I think may very well happen) can us guys on the right bitch and moan for the next 4 years and call Kerry the unelected poodle? Just curious. That is all.

If you are an uneducated crybaby pu$$ie, then yes....

Otherwise you realize that's how our electoral system works and deal with it.

[watermock]

You know how mock is shy.

Look at your illegal alien, union vote is blue.

Why isn't the south blue?http://images.usatoday.com/news/electmap.jpg

[watermock]

Gee wiz!

Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and Miami.

The total epithany of democracy embraces the facist party.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

When you get right down to it this forum is a lot of arguing for arguing's sake. Noone is ever going to change anyone else's mind so what the hell is the point? It's just an academic excercise.

For a guy who professes to believe all of the above you sure seem to spend a lot of time here copying and pasting the latest smear boat vets news and pimping for the GOP and the chimp.

Just an observation.

Question guys: If Bush wins the popular vote but looses in the electoral college (which I think may very well happen) can us guys on the right bitch and moan for the next 4 years and call Kerry the unelected poodle?

I meant to make this point earlier:

The foregone conclusion in your question is that bush won the electoral college four years ago.

He didn't.

He seized power in a judicial coup before we were able to determine who actually won Florida.

Just a little refresher for you.

[kappys]

The problem with this idea is that while it might be smart nationally, if CO is the only state to have it then they will get no respect. Afterall, what is the point of campaigning or even considering CO issues if it will only swing a handful of votes in your direction. That's why the boom or bust system was created, so that small states still have a say. It would also put an end to the measely pork barrel money that CO gets.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Question guys: If Bush wins the popular vote but looses in the electoral college (which I think may very well happen) can us guys on the right bitch and moan for the next 4 years and call Kerry the unelected poodle? Just curious. That is all.
You're asking for permission? Didn't think so. If your scenario happens I imagine Bush would have to be removed forcibly from the oval office as he's kicking and screaming *but I'm the president, I'm the president*

[rosco]

California alone will give kerry the popular vote.

[rosco]

If Bush wins, this place is going to be entertaining as hell, I'm going to laugh my ass off watching LABF go beserk. :D

If Kerry wins, I won't really care that much. He's going to be hamstrung by a Republican legislature. Nyah!
When you get right down to it this forum is a lot of arguing for arguing's sake. Noone is ever going to change anyone else's mind so what the hell is the point? It's just an academic excercise. :bash:
Dream on!

[RaiderH8r]

When you get right down to it this forum is a lot of arguing for arguing's sake. Noone is ever going to change anyone else's mind so what the hell is the point? It's just an academic excercise.

For a guy who professes to believe all of the above you sure seem to spend a lot of time here copying and pasting the latest smear boat vets news and pimping for the GOP and the chimp.

Just an observation.

Question guys: If Bush wins the popular vote but looses in the electoral college (which I think may very well happen) can us guys on the right bitch and moan for the next 4 years and call Kerry the unelected poodle?

I meant to make this point earlier:

The foregone conclusion in your question is that bush won the electoral college four years ago.

He didn't.

He seized power in a judicial coup before we were able to determine who actually won Florida.

Just a little refresher for you.

:vermeil: !Booya!

[BroncoInferno]

Question guys: If Bush wins the popular vote but looses in the electoral college (which I think may very well happen) can us guys on the right bitch and moan for the next 4 years and call Kerry the unelected poodle? Just curious. That is all.

The electoral college is an interesting beast. On the one hand, it seems absurd for the candidate who loses the popular vote to still win the presidency. Seems to kind of violate the democratic principle. Also, people who vote for the losing candidate in a state basically don't count. I mean, I'm voting for Kerry, but my vote basically won't matter because South Carolina is a solid Bush state. Same thing goes for Bush voters in California.
On the other hand, without the electoral college heavily populated areas would control the elections.

I think a plurality might be something to look into. By my understanding, the way it would work is if in say South Carolina, Bush got 60% of the popular vote, he would recieve 60% of SCs electoral votes, and the other candidates would get corresponding electoral votes based on their percentages. This would give people in the decided states who wish to vote for the other candidate a chance to have their vote counted, while still preventing heavily populated areas from controling election outcomes. It would also encourage people to vote for third party candidates, because now that vote could mean something other than "Nader taking votes from Gore" or "Perot taking votes from HW Bush". I'm not an expert on this, I'm sure their are some drawbacks, but it seems like something to consider.

[OrangeDoofus]

The electoral college is an interesting beast. On the one hand, it seems absurd for the candidate who loses the popular vote to still win the presidency. Seems to kind of violate the democratic principle. Also, people who vote for the losing candidate in a state basically don't count. I mean, I'm voting for Kerry, but my vote basically won't matter because South Carolina is a solid Bush state. Same thing goes for Bush voters in California.

It's actually worse than that. People who vote for the winning candidate in a state don't really count either. I live in Massachussetts and I'm going to vote for Kerry, but what does it matter? He's not going to get more electoral votes from the state if he wins by 30% instead of 10%.

If we had some kind of electoral-vote splitting scheme, it would get everyone more involved. Everyone in every state would have a reason to vote in order to swing their state as far as possible toward their candidate.

[alkemical]

i think term limits & cap how much a public servant makes