 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Oct 04 - 01:13 PM Why should people vote for one candidate rather than another just because they come from their state? And why should it be seen as surprising when they don't? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: DougR Date: 24 Oct 04 - 01:23 PM If Kerry wins more electorial votes than Bush, he is president. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Oct 04 - 01:37 PM But if that happened, and at the same time Bush got a sizeable number more popular votes, the way Gore did, would your reaction, Doug be "this means something is wrong and the electoral system needs changing", or "win some ,lose some, it worked our way last time, it's their turn now"? I rather assume that your response would be the latter, since you didn't see Bush's victory as a reason to change the electoral college system. One interesting scenario would be if, faced with a situation where it was neck and neck in the electoral college, but where the candidate trailing had won more popular votes, enough electors were to refuse to stick with the candidate who had won in their state, and vote for the one who won the popular voted across the country. Would people see this as justifiable? And would this judgement be affected by which candidate won as a result? I do get the impression that, for a lot of people posting in these threads, the notion of being even-handed about these things is a pretty alien concept. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: Pauline L Date: 24 Oct 04 - 02:04 PM This discussion leads me to suggest the following: The electoral college should be abolished and the elected President should be whoever wins the majority of the popular vote. This is not what democracy meant to our founding fathers, but a lot of people would agree that this is what we should do now. I'm surprised that I haven't heard this discussed much, inside or outside of this thread. Slightly off topic, but it has me very upset: The Republicans are gearing up, with lots of lawyers and money, for a precinct-by-precinct campaign in the swing states to go to the polls and take action to ensure that voter registration laws are enforced. They aim to challenge (read "disenfranchise") voters in swing states. Of course, people of color and other marginalized people will be the hardest hit. Some will simply be intimidated into not voting. I wish there was something I could about this as a volunteer and a non-lawyer. I naively thought that we had taken care of all this back in the 60s. Did Medgar Evers and many others die in vain? The cost of liberty is constant vigilance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: GUEST Date: 24 Oct 04 - 02:15 PM Amos, there was an uproar in 2000 when Bush was annointed. Are you suggesting that there wasn't, when you say there will be an uproar this time if it were to happen again (which I find incredibly implausible)? Of course there would be an uproar, that goes without saying. But uproars often don't change the course of events. 2000 showed us that quite clearly too. BTW Amos, I would suggest your personal vehemence towards Bush is blinding you to an awful lot of things that are happening, and going uncommented upon. If you don't see/hear any hysteria eminating from spin alley and the media echo chamber from the Democrats, that is only because your personal vehemence towards Bush has made you both blind and deaf towards the histrionics on YOUR side. As to the "what if" scenario of Bush winning the popular vote, and Kerry winning the electoral college vote, I find that scenario even more remote than the scenario of a repeat of 2000, where Kerry wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college. What people don't seem to be able to get their head around is the fact that the US electoral system ALLOWS one candidate to win the popular vote, but to lose the electoral college vote and the election. That scenario was not only anticipated by the founders, they thought they had actually set up the presidential and vice presidential electoral system so that ties would occur often, and the House of Representatives would choose the winner, not the electoral college. Ignorance of those historic facts doesn't justify all this Democratic fear mongering and anxiety, IMO. What happened in Florida in 2000 isn't repeatable, anymore than a repeat of the 1888 election is possible, because the circumstances between 2000 and 2004 are already so different. We didn't even experience a constitutional crisis in 2000. There was no crisis in the transition of power from one president and party to another. So why all this Democrat hand-wringing, anxiety over the elections, and hysterical fear mongering on spin alley and in the media echo chamber? Simple: the Democrats are using it as A TACTIC AS PART OF THEIR ELECTION STRATEGY so their guy will win this time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: CarolC Date: 24 Oct 04 - 02:16 PM I find myself wondering if beardedbruce just started this thread to set people up so he can call them hypocrites after the election. Any chance I'm right about that beardedbruce? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: Old Guy Date: 24 Oct 04 - 02:23 PM I think the best scenario is if Bush looses Florida but wins enough other states to be re elected. Maybe that will avoid this pre-conceived battle that the Democrats are setting up. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: beardedbruce Date: 24 Oct 04 - 03:59 PM McGrath: "I do get the impression that, for a lot of people posting in these threads, the notion of being even-handed about these things is a pretty alien concept. " CarolC, If someone is a hypocrite, I do not need to have a thread to call them that. I was wondering if ANY of the people on here would be able to have a civil conversations about a possible situation that might occur. I have been happily surprised that there are people on who at least try to think about what they are syaing, and how it relates to the future. IMO, there is a real possibility that in the Electorial College there will be electors who do not vote as they were sent to- in law, there is no way to stop them. If there is an agreed-upon way to deal with it, BEFORE it happens, that both sides agree to, perhaps we can avoid some of the rancor that the Bigots ON BOTH SIDES insist on putting into all discussions here. Faint hope, I know, but ... Thank you for that statement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: beardedbruce Date: 24 Oct 04 - 04:10 PM sorry, the last line of previous post refers to McGrath's statement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: Jack the Sailor Date: 24 Oct 04 - 05:07 PM "Try using my full quote, or is that simple fairness beyound you? "or do the Liberal Bigots ( because the Conservative Bigots have not yet shown up) insist on being assholes? "" How do you think calling conservatives names excuses calling Liberals names? You obviously have no idea what being civil is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: beardedbruce Date: 24 Oct 04 - 06:36 PM Jack, I am using liberal and conservative to differentiate between two groups of bigots. I have never stated that ALL liberals, or ALL conservatives, ARE bigots: Just that I expected the ones who WERE to jump in and insist on being assholes. "Is it possible to have a reasonable conversation about this, or do the Liberal Bigots ( because the Conservative Bigots have not yet shown up) insist on being assholes? " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: Amos Date: 24 Oct 04 - 06:48 PM BTW Amos, I would suggest your personal vehemence towards Bush is blinding you to an awful lot of things that are happening, and going uncommented upon. My protest against Bush my be occupying my attention, but it is based on a very clear set of facts. Knowingly committing murder of innocents is anathema to civilized hearts and minds and no man who will commit such an atrocity deserves to lead anyone, let alone a nation. There is no room for "reasonable liberalism" about issues as fundamental as this: the man sent soldiers into battle to kill other human beings by persuading them they were defending their country. In doing so he committed them under false premises, argyuabl;y doing so in full cognizance that his data was bad, and committed murder through the use of these proxy, using taxpayers' weapons and vehicles of war. In addition to being a knowing killer, he has falsified information in every possible way, and pretended not to. He has the moral fiber of a sewer rat, no matter how much he looks like an old boy. He's not an old boy -- he is a carpet bagger and a money-grubber. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Oct 04 - 07:02 PM Once again, as a break from the name-calling which threatens to overwhelm discussions such as this: One interesting scenario would be if, faced with a situation where it was neck and neck in the electoral college, but where the candidate trailing had won more popular votes, enough electors were to refuse to stick with the candidate who had won in their state, and vote for the one who won the popular voted across the country. Would people see this as justifiable? And would this judgement be affected by which candidate won as a result? Anyone care to answer, before maybe it happens? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: beardedbruce Date: 24 Oct 04 - 07:17 PM McGrath, I beleive, but stand willing to be corrected, that the vote of the electorial college Electors is actually determined by the states- several split the vote proportionatly, most are winner take all. I do not think that this can be changed before THIS election: However, I am not sure what happens if the electors choose not to vote for the candidate that they represent... Perhaps they can ALL vote for someone else, regardless of the vote. Perhaps someone with legal knowledge can address this issue. btw, thank you for trying to continue this discussion in a reasonable fashion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: pdq Date: 24 Oct 04 - 07:41 PM beardedbruce - Nebraska and Maine split their electoral college votes now. This seems to be an option for all states but not in this election cycle. Whatever Democrats say about the 2000 election and how outdated the electoral college is, they wiil not move to change it. All they need to do is picture California's 55 electors, now guaranteed to be Democrat, being divided 28-27 with Republicans! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Oct 04 - 08:06 PM I wasn't asked about the legality of it. I was asking people, if that were to happen, and it meant that Kerry was President, how would you reat? And if it happened and it meant that Bush was President, how would you react? And would you react differently in one case than the other? Would you argue that it should be accepted in the one case and opposed in the other? ............................... I gather, through a US Goerment website, that there is a legal obligation on electors to vote for the candidate who gets most votes in their state, in about half the states. Whether that means their votes would be invalidated if they went the "wrong" way, or just that they could be charged with some kind of offence is an interesting point. In the remainder of the state there is no formal legal obligation about which way to vote. Perhaps unduly cynically, I suspect, in the light of how things went last time, that the decison of the Supreme Court on such matters might be coloured by the impact of their decision on the outcome of the election. I think there would be a lot to be said for sorting out these matters outside of the context of real elections elections, to avoid the suspicion of distortion. For example why couldn't decisions about when to carry on counting votes and so forth have been considered and determined in a situation where noone could know which side would be helped by a particular ruling? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: Jack the Sailor Date: 24 Oct 04 - 08:09 PM BeardedBruce Exactly what is civil about calling for a civil conversation athen calling people bigots? Its a simple concept. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: beardedbruce Date: 24 Oct 04 - 08:15 PM Jack, A person who judges facts differently, depending on whose side the facts support, IS a bigot. I was stating that those who refused to consider facts that conflict with their preconcieved views would probably jump in and be assholes. Sorry if the label offends you- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Oct 04 - 08:32 PM Bigot isn't the right term really. - "obstinate and intolerant adherent of a creed or view". What's involved is not bigotry as such - it is a choice to see winning as more important than protecting the rule of law. There can be circumstances when that is justifiable, but in essence it means consenting to overthrowing the existing constitutional settlement. It is analogous to a coup d'etat. Which is essentially what happened when the Suoprme Court stopped the count last time. (And that applies just as much if in fact it could be demonstrated that completing the count would have resulted in a Bush victory.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: beardedbruce Date: 24 Oct 04 - 08:49 PM bigot: A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: GUEST Date: 24 Oct 04 - 09:03 PM "Knowingly committing murder of innocents is anathema to civilized hearts and minds and no man who will commit such an atrocity deserves to lead anyone, let alone a nation." So then how can you justify voting for Kerry, Amos? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Oct 04 - 09:05 PM But it is quite possible to be totally committed to a political ideology, and to the party that represents it, to a level that could well be called "bigoted" - and still be ready to subordinate that to a commitment to the democratic process. And anyone who is not willing to so subordinate their political views is fundamentally hostile to the democratic process, regardless of their politics. It seemed pretty evident in November 2000, by the way that people lined up, on what should have been the purely technical matter of vote counting, according to political preference and the result they wished to see, that many Americans are, in that sense, hostile to the democratic process. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: Amos Date: 24 Oct 04 - 09:46 PM Guest: What on your sweet little tush are you talking about? Are you comparing Kerry's action as a soldier in a declared, albeit unnecessary war, as a 19-year old, to Mister Bush's action in starting an unnecessary war? You must be joking. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: GUEST Date: 24 Oct 04 - 10:15 PM No, I'm not joking, and I'm talking about Kerry's position on the war on terrorism, the Iraq war, and his foreign policy positions on Latin America, the Caribbean, the Palestinian territories, and a whole lot more. The guy is as hawkish a militarist as they come. So how can you support him, when you make the claim I quoted? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: Amos Date: 24 Oct 04 - 10:23 PM Hmmm....I'm a-gonna chew on this for a bit, Guest. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: DougR Date: 24 Oct 04 - 10:26 PM Kevin: I would see Kerry's victory as just that. He wins the electorial college, he wins the election. Nothing complicated about it, that's the way our system works. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Oct 04 - 06:23 AM And that would apply if the electoral college win was only possible because a number of electors had voted "the wrong way"? I suspect that in such a case it would actually become quite complicated, and that it would end up getting determined by the Supreme Court. It would make a lot of sense for those kind of questions to be determined outside an election context, in a situation where there could be no suggestion that a decision one way or another had a partisan motive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: Amos Date: 25 Oct 04 - 04:13 PM Guest: I've chewed this over. I saw what he did to stop war under Nixon. I don't think I buy your summation. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: Nerd Date: 25 Oct 04 - 06:26 PM I think it is a very farfetched proposition that so-called "faithless electors" could have any effect on the final outcome. It has never happened before, and these days it is even less likely to happen. Electors nowadays are screened very rigorously so that only people extremely committed to their candidate are sent. Because of this, to become a faithless elector a person would have to essentially infiltrate a group of hardcore supporters months ahead of time on the guess that the election will be close enough that his or her defection will mean anything. The idea that, on ideological grounds, electors who originally supported their candidate will switch to supporting the popular candidate is just not credible, especially in numbers great enough to affect the election. However, if it DID happen, in those states whose electors are not legally obligated to stick to their candidate, it would briefly appear to be a done deal. By then every media outlet, every political office, etc., will have operated on the assumption that the other person won. It will be interesting to see if the meeting of the electoral college actually can change the built-up inertia of the assumption about who won. I also believe in such a case there will be a legal challenge, which will go to the Supreme Court, which will find in favor of the Republicans no matter which side of the issue they are on. In other words, the SC will invalidate the faithless electors if that will help Bush, and it will uphold them, if THAT will help Bush. And I further predict that there will be four dissenting opinions. You heard it here first! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: GUEST Date: 25 Oct 04 - 08:24 PM Amos, are you actually going to deny that Kerry is pro-Iraq war? Pro war on terror? Where are you getting your information from Amos? Pinocchio? You sure are one duplicitous, talk out of two sides of yer yap trap hypocrite. You are against Bush because he is a war mongerer, but for Kerry even though he is every bit the hawk that Bush is? Here is Reuters summation of Kerry's position Or maybe we should have a look at the way the major peace and anti-war organizations are summing up Kerry's positions on war and militarism, shall we? Here is what the Buddhist Peace Fellowship has to say about your man Kerry: "Supported decision to go to war...On Middle East: Sees the Bush Administration's road map as an acceptable approach for reinvigorating the peace process" How about the War Resisters League? They're throwing a little anti-war rally on November 3rd, and here is what they have to say about your war boy toy Amos: "All the promises, rhetoric and window dressing aside, the real story of the Bush/Kerry race is that neither candidate has listened to the millions of Americans who say: Bring the Troops Home Now End the War in Iraq and Afghanistan The terror of missiles, bombs and occupation will only create more terrorists. " Or how about the anti-war organizations? Here is a little excerpt from anti-war.com (a group involved in organizing against the Iraq war): "John Kerry will make his adoring anti-war groupies look like fools Of course many people support John Kerry for the next president of the United States for a variety of reasons - he is credible when he promises to cut the Federal deficit, for example. But to support him in the hope that he would make American military policy more doveish is absurd. All the evidence is that he will do the exact opposite. He has declared that he wants to increase the US Army by two divisions, more than the total of Continental Europe's intervention troops. That too is a credible promise, in part because Iraq has exposed an acute shortage of ground forces and an excess of navy and air force personnel. But beyond any specific policy positions, there is Kerry, the very combative man." Sorry Amos, but your 60s warrior turned peacenik has reverted to warrior mode, BIG TIME. But then, you were only being disingenuous when you said you couldn't vote for a hawk, right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: Amos Date: 25 Oct 04 - 09:00 PM Guest: I have seen what I have seen, and you have not. I think I see the nature of the man more clearly than you do. Your statement that "all the evidence is that he will do the opposite" is over-inflated and inaccurate. Don't waste your breath trying to frighten me, bull;y me, or overwhelm me with generalities. I don't work that way. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: Amos Date: 25 Oct 04 - 09:49 PM Guest: Your citation of the Buddhist site offers the following -- Kerry Supported decision to go to war but now says he did so based on faulty U.S. intelligence. • Opposed $87 billion package for Iraq and Afghanistan. • Believes greater international involvement is necessary in Iraq. • Supported legislation providing American expertise and funding to the nations of the former Soviet Union to help secure nuclear stockpiles, a program that he now supports extending to other countries. • Fought against withdrawal from the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. • Voted to enlarge NATO to include Eastern Europe. • Brought issue of investigations of U.S. involvement in Latin America, especially with the Nicaraguan Contras, to the forefront. • On Middle East: Sees the Bush Administration's road map as an acceptable approach for reinvigorating the peace process, but says there must be verifiable security benchmarks that the Palestinian Authority can reasonably achieve. Bush • Following Sept. 11 attacks on U.S., instituted policy of pre-emptive strikes against suspected threats to the nation's security, where U.S. would act alone or with others to protect the nation. • Prosecuted successful war against Taliban forces in Afghanistan and is currently working to create a stable, democratic government there. • Invaded Iraq, calling it a threat to nation's security. • Swift military victory in Iraq was followed by violent aftermath, halting efforts at stabilizing new government. • Won congressional approval of $87 billion for continued military operations and aid in Iraq and Afghanistan. • Calls for a Palestinian state as part of yetto-be-adopted "road map for peace" plan. • Administration has had a deep rift with some traditional allies in Europe over war in Iraq. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: GUEST Date: 26 Oct 04 - 11:26 AM Yes it does, which doesn't change the exact wording I quoted above one iota. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: Amos Date: 26 Oct 04 - 11:50 AM YEs it does. It adds the reasonable qualification that he now says he felt the decision was based on false data from Bush. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: GUEST Date: 26 Oct 04 - 12:15 PM No it doesn't, because it doesn't change what the anti-war movement has been saying about Kerry all along, and continues to say today. Kerry is just as much a hawk as Bush, and stridently maintains he will stay the course AND increase the troop the levels (thereby escalating the war in the region, not just Iraq), to "win." Kerry saying he was given bum information hasn't resulted in him saying he would begin an immediate withdrawal from Iraq within six months of Inauguration Day. His position is the same as it was, he is just trying to wiggle out of having to give an inch to the anti-war movement by saying he was duped by the Bush administration. Hell, the whole fucking world knew the Bush administration was lying about their justifications for pre-emptively invading another country. The whole fucking world, Amos. So how come your smarty pants senator couldn't figure that out? Reason? He is just as much a part of the US oligarchy as Bush, and is defending the reach of the US empire into the oil rich nations. Just because you have deluded yourself into believing he isn't, doesn't mean he isn't. It just means you are experiencing tremendous cognitive dissonance in justifying your vote for Kerry. Just like that all white jury did in California about the Rodney King police brutality case. Despite the truth and facts of the evidence, which the entire world saw with their very own eyes thanks to the videotape, they found the cops not guilty. Why? Because of their deeply held beliefs that a black man must be asking for it, and the police aren't in any way wrong for beating a black man. It was their racism that made them find those cops not guilty, even though they were guilty as hell. You are doing the same thing Amos. You are lying to yourself about Kerry and his actual stated positions. Kerry is going to escalate the war in Iraq, not end it. The reason he is going to do that is because he is of the oligarchy, not fighting against it, which is what he wants voters to believe, so he'll win, and his side get the spoils of war. Too bad. I used to think you were not only smarter, but also a much more balanced person than we've seen you be here of late. You and some other Kerry supporters are just foaming at the mouth. That is our first clue that you are disturbed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: Amos Date: 26 Oct 04 - 12:25 PM Well, Guest, thanks for the slap in the face with a cold mackerel, I am sure. I believe that 9-11 really did change the balance of things. It brought the terror home to the "homeland" (not the Rodnia, the good ole US of A). I believe that it made it clear that we (the US or perhaps even the Wesern Civilization it is associated with) were under attack. I mean you don't just slaughter 3,000 people if you don't mean to attack them. Bush's response to that attack was immature, misguided and ineffective. But it too changed the situation. Now, the ground in Iraq has become a sparking platform for a confluence of (a) patriotic Iraqis wanting to throw occupiers out of their country and (b) Iraqi, Syrian, and every-where-elsian fighters who just want to dramatize attacking the Evil West. The war that was not necessary has evolved into a major firefight that, I think, needs to be won one way or another. How do you think it should be won? What do you foresee would happen if we just pulled out and came home? For one thing, the Baathists would probably reassert their control over Iraq. God knows what would happen to anyone who had tried to befriend the US in the interim. Other terror factions would probably continue to use Iraq as a staging ground. Those are my guesses and speculations. What optimum scenario can you envision for the current mess in Iraq? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: GUEST Date: 26 Oct 04 - 12:54 PM I don't believe it can be won, Amos, and that is where we differ I guess. I also don't foresee the current or future Kerry administrations pulling out. What happened when we unilaterally pulled out of Vietnam, Amos? Answer: the Viet Cong won, and the communists took over the country. So what? They haven't been any more brutal and oppresive than their colonial predecessors were, and I don't believe that will be any different in Iraq. If we pull out, someone we didn't hand pick and prop up in a puppet government will take over, and they likely won't be any worse than our government, or Saddam Hussein. Maybe they will be a little worse in terms of repressing women Taliban style, but that is already happening, even with us there. Nothing can make this situation any worse than it already is. If we pull the troops out tomorrown, some faction will rise to the top and take power of the Iraqi oil fields. The military wing of the oil oligarchy will then start the whole destabilization process all over again. Or haven't you noticed what has been happening in Nigeria and Venezuela since the late 1990s, when it was Clinton at the helm, not Bush? Bush/Cheney will just finish the job of raping, pillaging, and looting faster than the Democrats, but it is the job both will do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: Amos Date: 26 Oct 04 - 01:00 PM Nothing can make this situation any worse than it already is. Au contraire, many of the possible choices will result in worsening. There is something to be said for the notion of promoting the principle of individual rights and freedoms, defending them and trying to promote them as the basis for future transactions internationally. THere are a LOT of tough ethical quandaries involved, and Iraq is the Gordion Knot of such quandaries right now. Bush's intervention has made it worse. But it at least started change in a bad situation, and with change all things are possible. You conceive, then, that the notion of forwarding democratic processes in Iraq is futile, short-sighted and Pollyana-esque, I guess. I don't feel that way about that goal. I am just heartsore about the means. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: Pauline L Date: 26 Oct 04 - 03:15 PM Guest, I agree with you completely. History repeats itself, even if we don't learn its lessons (Iraq and Vietnam). There is a good article on the Electoral College on today's CNN web page. Some interesting points: 1) In 26 states and Washington D.C., laws require electors to follow the popular vote. Some states threaten penalties for "faithless electors" (those who don't follow the popular vote). No one has ever been prosecuted. The occurrence is unlikely because both parties take great care in selecting Electors. 2) Alexander Hamilton, writing in the Federalist Papers, explained the rationale for having the Electoral College, rather than tnan a plebiscite, determine the outcome of the Presidential election, as follows. "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations." The investigations are no less complicated today. Another interesting aspect of our democracy, as envisioned by our Founding Fathers, was that only white, male landowners could vote. This was not even closely remedied until about 80 years ago, when women got the right to vote, and that was a hard fought battle. Since then, voter registration laws have had the effect of disenfranchising many (African American) citizens. Pauline |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: Pauline L Date: 27 Oct 04 - 11:48 AM The possibility that one or the other candidate will win the popular vote but lose the Electoral vote is quite real, according to the Washington Post |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: GUEST Date: 27 Oct 04 - 12:11 PM I think the conjecturing and crystal ball gazing about the election is just that, and the ruminating is largely hype. I too bemusedly read the Washington Post article this morning with my coffee, and wryly smiled as I read: "None of these scenarios is likely to occur next week, but neither is any of them far-fetched." I think people have a naturally human apprehension about the upcoming election because of the way the last one went, and because we have all been led to believe by pollsters and pundits that this will be a very close presidential race. Not being a fearful sort of person though, I've never believed we would see anything even remotely as bizarre as the 2000 election repeated in my life time, much less see it repeated in 2004. In fact, one of the most entertaining aspects about 2000 was watching the level of anxiety and hysteria among so many of the much too grimly serious political junkies. They have, of course, resurfaced and are currently screaming invectives in our faces, spewing their venom on all who don't take this election to be The Most Important Thing In the World, that sort of thing. Difference for me from post-Election Day entertainment value of Indecision 2000 to The Most Important Election of All Time 2004, is that the hysteria mongering, the self-important breast beaters, and especially the candidates themselves, are enough to turn anyone but the most dedicated political junkies away from electoral politics forever. All I can think of these days is how lucky the younger generation is to be able to see through all this hype and crap, and have cell phones where they can't be polled, pegged, and dropped into a voter demographic group. I've been politically active all my life, but I can tell you, I'm seriously thinking of getting out of it all together this year for the first time ever. Why? Because of the way the people I know have become utter flaming assholes over this election. It makes me want to move to another city and change my identity, just to get away from their hysteria mongering. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: GUEST,Larry K Date: 27 Oct 04 - 01:22 PM Whoever gets more electoral votes is president. Period. The insanity has already begun in Florida with lawsuits already being filed by DEMOCRATS. Part of the preemptive strategy as published on the Druge Report to file lawsuits and claim equal protection EVEN WHEN THERE IS NONE. It is my opinion that most of you feel the ends justify the means and support this kind of action. It doesn't matter. Dick Morris reported yesterday that Kerry has already given up on Florida and pulled all his commercials. If you don't believe this, check the Kerry schedule and notice no trips to Florida this week. A few facts on Florida. For those of you who don't like to face the truth please skip the next paragraph. (This was your public service warning) Most major media including the NY Times recounted and recounted the votes and chads. The finding from the combined media was as follows. 1. If the court had let Gore follow ANY of the legal actions he persued, he would have lost the election in any way of counting votes. That means the Supreme Court had NO EFFECT on the ultimate outcome of the election. If they had voted in Gore's favor, they would have counted the votes and came to the same conclusion of a Bush victory. Sorry for all of you "selected not elected" assholes out there. The facts do not back up your contention, but feel free to live in your fantasy. 2. The media concluded that there were 6 ways to count chads. If they used any of the 4 most common methods, Bush would have won. If they used the two least common methods, Gore would have won. Those are the facts. Spin them as you will. If you are brain dead partisan you can continue to claim that Gore should have won using the two least common methods. That is your perogative. 3. The claim of 1 million african americans not being able to vote was investigated and totally debunked as fantasy. (kind of like reading most of the other postings) The suit claimed that there was an empty police car three blocks from the voting site and that intimidated African American voters from voting. I guess a Duncan Donut shop accross the street would have the same effect. Compare that to Gore trying to prevent Florida military people from having their votes counted, or the Govenor of Pennsylvania preventing his military votes from counting in this election. You should be ashamed of this hypocrysy, except you believe that any way of defeating Bush is justified. And you wonder why the country is so divided. With Florida, I have the count at 261 for Bush and 228 for Kerry. States that are toss ups are Ohio, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. (Hawaii might even be in play) If Bush wins either Ohio, or Minnesota, or Wisconsin, or New Hampshire + New Mexico he will be president. Of course, we still have 6 days to go and anything can happen. Wouldn't it be a blash if the vote hinged on Hawaii. (it could) which is 5 hours behind EST. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: Amos Date: 27 Oct 04 - 02:04 PM Larry: Why is it significant to you who files a lawsuit to remedy a perceived violation of a fair and representative voting process? ANd by the way, which of these various methods were being ordered by the Florida Supreme Court before Bush's friends on the SUpreme court stepped in? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: GUEST,drowning by the liberal whinners Date: 27 Oct 04 - 02:24 PM I think Maine will split its electoral votes, which is not much, but, in a tight race every vote counts. There are some sane people in the great north-east. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: Stilly River Sage Date: 27 Oct 04 - 04:49 PM Okay, I've read the first bit of this thread pretty closely and skimmed through many of the middle posts, and have stuff to add but no time to finish reading now. My material may have been touched on in the most recent posts, but with beardedbruce hovering over this thread like a hen with one chick, I doubt it. This responds to remarks early in the thread. The electoral problem doesn't need to be the problem that people perceive. Old Guy claimed earlier that someone offshore is trying to convince Coloradans to split their electoral vote. Wherever the money to support the referrendum is coming from, it is in answer to a passionate concern of many Americans. This is a big deal, but it isn't precedent-setting. Nebraska and Maine have been doing it for years. They're just not big enough so any of you or the rest of hte U.S. would notice, apparently.
To many of us there is enduring wisdom in the Founding Fathers' concept of federalism and national union. For the moment we'll leave the subject of the Electoral College and its role to lawyers, political scientists and others who write about it -- e.g., in the past several years alone, the Cumberland, Harvard, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Nova, Oregon, Vanderbilt and William & Mary Law Reviews have published on the subject. Maine and Nebraska laws, Maine Revised Statutes Annotated, Title 21-A, § 9-805.2; Nebraska Statutes, Art 7, § 32-714, provide that their electoral vote does not go winner-take-all but rather is apportioned. Thus, Maine with four votes, Nebraska with five, as a matter of law could divide their electoral votes. Two from each would be cast for the candidate receiving a plurality of popular vote statewide. The other two (Maine) or three (Nebraska) would be cast for the candidate receiving a plurality within a congressional district. So the Maine electoral vote could be 4-0 or 3-1, the Nebraska 5-0, 4-1 or 3-2. What's brewing in the Rockies? Colorado, apparently with considerably more than the required 67,000 or so signatures, likely will have a referendum proposal on the November 2, 2004 ballot, to apportion electoral votes a la Maine and Nebraska -- and to do it retroactively! Any such Colorado change in law almost surely would divide the Colorado electoral vote because, unlike Maine (two Democrats) and Nebraska (three Republicans), Colorado's Representatives in Congress are not of one party (two Democrats, five Republicans), so the congressional-district majorities almost surely would differ. Interesting approach to something that would affect the fairness of the electoral college without involving ammending the U.S. Constitution. The wheels are beginning to turn, as people realize that not only does the Constitutiion allow states the right to distribute their electoral college votes as they wish, it can be done state by state much more easily than ammending the constitution. The topic has come up about those few renegade electoral college folks who vote their conscience, even if it means not voting with the block come time of the electoral convention. Visit this site for more information:
Since the founding of the Electoral College, there have been 156 faithless Electors. 71 of these votes were changed because the original candidate died before the day on which the Electoral College cast their votes. Three of the votes were not cast at all as three Electors chose to abstain from casting their Electoral vote for any candidate. The other 82 Electoral votes were changed on the personal initiative of the Elector. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: beardedbruce Date: 27 Oct 04 - 07:07 PM Amos, Shouldn't that be "ANd by the way, which of these various methods were being ordered by " GORE'S FRIENDS ON "the Florida Supreme Court before Bush's friends on the SUpreme court stepped in?" Just to be fair.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: Stilly River Sage Date: 27 Oct 04 - 07:41 PM You, fair, BB? Naw. . . don't waste your time with the pretense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pre-Election Post-election thoughts From: Amos Date: 27 Oct 04 - 07:42 PM No, it shouldn't, Bruce, and stop torquing my words. MAke up your own darned sentences if you have something you wish to say. A |
