Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 163
  1. #121  
    Originally posted by yardie
    My understanding is that some states in all or nothing, while in other states the amount of electors that you get depends on the percentage of vote. Not to mention the fact that voting methods vary from state to state.

    Just because it isn't uniform, doesn't mean that it's not just. Each state is allotted the number of electors for which it is responsible. They can elect those electors in any way they want (subject to Constitutional oversight). This is yet one more way our union allows freedom beyond that of other country. The over-riding concern in this country is "if the feds don't have to do it, they shouldn't." You wouldn't want the federal Candadian gov't appointing your mayor, so why would you want them telling you how to vote for them? I personally respect our system because it allows individual regions to express their interests.
  2. #122  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    the faulty logic of "if you candidate doesn't win your vote was wasted."
    ...Well, that logic is only partially faulty. A vote for Al Gore was about as useful as a vote for Al Bundy, in the long run. If we had proportional representation in the House in a system similiar to the parlimentary system (but still state-by-state), a vote for a "losing" candidate wouldn't be wasted, as that candidate's party (even if she/he is a party of one) would get the same percentage of seats as she/he won.

    Admittedly, that has little to do with presidential politics..
  3. #123  
    Originally posted by septimus
    ...Well, that logic is only partially faulty. A vote for Al Gore was about as useful as a vote for Al Bundy, in the long run. If we had proportional representation in the House in a system similiar to the parlimentary system (but still state-by-state), a vote for a "losing" candidate wouldn't be wasted, as that candidate's party (even if she/he is a party of one) would get the same percentage of seats as she/he won.

    Admittedly, that has little to do with presidential politics..
    If you really like the parlimentary system that much, there are two solutions which are open to you, but only one has much likelihood of success.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  4. #124  
    OK He move to another country.. What is the other option?


    I think Proportional Representation is the best system there is. It is the closest to true Democracy. But try getting the politicians to change a system that got them in power.


    Originally posted by Toby
    If you really like the parlimentary system that much, there are two solutions which are open to you, but only one has much likelihood of success.
  5. #125  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer

    You said half a million, or roughly # who voted for Gore - # voted for Bush. What I was just referring to is the faulty logic of "if you candidate doesn't win your vote was wasted."
    Agreed. The popular vote shows the support a vote-winner may have for his proposed programs. Whether the person actually follows that mandate is debatable and they do so at their own peril.

    For example: Clinton realized after the 1992 elections that he did not have the support he would have needed to pursue liberal issues. When he tried to establish a national health-care system, the beating he took as a result all but guaranteed the 1994 elections would fall into Republican hands.

    I think Bush lucked out big time. He lost the popular vote, won the electoral college, pushed a VERY conservative program and a huge tax break through congress as if he had a clear mandate to do so. If 9/11 never happened and Enron/WorldCom/Global Crossing/etc. happened, the republicans and Bush in particular would be roasting over a huge fire of public discontent.

    I'm not saying that Al Gore would've been a better president (everyone knows, he has his own problems re: fundraising and his choice of friends...(buddihst monks and clinton)) but I think this just goes to show the perils of the 2 party system we have in this country where you're forced to pick the lesser of two evils.
  6. #126  
    I'm not saying that Al Gore would've been a better president (everyone knows, he has his own problems re: fundraising and his choice of friends...(buddihst monks and clinton)) but I think this just goes to show the perils of the 2 party system we have in this country where you're forced to pick the lesser of two evils.
    Is it better than the lesser of 5 evils?

    I kinda like never having to have a "coalition" gov't.
  7. #127  
    Originally posted by yardie
    OK He move to another country.. What is the other option?
    Trying to get the Constitution rewritten to support an entirely different form of government. As I said, only one is likely to bring success.
    I think Proportional Representation is the best system there is. It is the closest to true Democracy.
    'True Democracy' has its own potential pitfalls. For the most part, I don't see a big enough problem with our current system to justify a change.
    But try getting the politicians to change a system that got them in power.
    That's the 'beauty' of our system. We don't need the politicians permission to change it. We can tell them to change it.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. #128  
    Originally posted by Toby
    ...That's the 'beauty' of our system. We don't need the politicians permission to change it. We can tell them to change it.
    Just like the Republicans in D.C. - advocates for strong local gov't - have been told by the citizens of CA that medical marijuana is desired. Look at 'em listen.

    At this point, we do need the politician's permission to do damn near anything, simply because Democrats and Republicans are playing the same game and the average American seems too unintelligent to vote for someone different.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  9. #129  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    Just like the Republicans in D.C. - advocates for strong local gov't - have been told by the citizens of CA that medical marijuana is desired. Look at 'em listen.

    At this point, we do need the politician's permission to do damn near anything, simply because Democrats and Republicans are playing the same game and the average American seems too unintelligent to vote for someone different.
    You're confusing local initiatives which contradict federal law with broad-based desire for change. Think Prohibition (and its repeal) more than NORML.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  10. #130  
    Good cartoon on the current situation:
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  11. #131  
    Why not? It worked for Clinton. "Got caught talking to Senators while getting your knob slobbed? Bomb Iraq." "Got caught making Yassir wait while 'smoking a cigar'? Bomb Iraq."
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  12. #132  
    Originally posted by Toby
    You're confusing local initiatives which contradict federal law with broad-based desire for change. Think Prohibition (and its repeal) more than NORML.
    Allow me to double-check, but I thought the repeal of prohibition was due to its un-enforceable-ness, rather than electing leaders who voted per their constituent's wishes. I realize that, at some point, the line between the two becomes non-existent, but the question is one of motive. Look at the legal flurry behind insanely popular p2p software. We may have another prohibition on our hands.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  13. #133  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    Allow me to double-check, but I thought the repeal of prohibition was due to its un-enforceable-ness,
    And why exactly was it unenforceable?
    rather than electing leaders who voted per their constituent's wishes.
    Elected leaders rarely give a damn about their constituents' wishes. AAMOF, according to our system of government, they're not _supposed_ to just pay attention to their constituents.
    I realize that, at some point, the line between the two becomes non-existent, but the question is one of motive.
    The motive was 'we did something stupid. we need to undo it.'
    Look at the legal flurry behind insanely popular p2p software. We may have another prohibition on our hands.
    As far as I know, there aren't any constitutional amendments being discussed yet.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  14. #134  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Why not? It worked for Clinton. "Got caught talking to Senators while getting your knob slobbed? Bomb Iraq." "Got caught making Yassir wait while 'smoking a cigar'? Bomb Iraq."
    Funny, seems that people paid more attention to the knob slobbing to me.

    Can anyone explain why Clinton is so hated by the right? Don't tell me it was just the sexual scandals, because that was an effect, not a cause, which deepend it...
  15. #135  
    Originally posted by septimus
    Funny, seems that people paid more attention to the knob slobbing to me.
    I think it was the lying under oath whilst President of the United States about the knob-slobbin' that was the main focus.
  16. #136  
    Ha Ha.

    Cartoon is hilarious. I think there are ulterior motives behind the Bomb Iraq campaign... Black gold anyone?


    Originally posted by ToolkiT
    Good cartoon on the current situation:
  17. #137  
    Originally posted by septimus
    Funny, seems that people paid more attention to the knob slobbing to me.
    Yep, odd that nobody noticed how whenever there was some sort of controversy, Clinton let fly the bombs or cruise missles. Of course, that may just be coincidental, because there were lots of them.
    Can anyone explain why Clinton is so hated by the right?
    *shrug* I never understood the left calling things the Reagan-Bush era. I think history will view the Clinton Bush-bookend combo as having far more in common than Reagan and elder Bush did.
    Don't tell me it was just the sexual scandals, because that was an effect, not a cause, which deepend it...
    Maybe it was his Wizard of Oz tendency to bomb things when the heat got on him. "Pay no attention to that Chinese fundraising and missing nuclear stuff. Look, let's bomb Serbia. Oops, we hit the Chinese embassy. That was an 'accident.'" "Pay no attention to those other things. We're cruise bombing Osama."
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18. #138  
    Originally posted by Toby
    And why exactly was it unenforceable?
    that's what I meant by the line between being unenforeceable and voting per constituents desires becoming nonexistent.
    Elected leaders rarely give a damn about their constituents' wishes. AAMOF, according to our system of government, they're not _supposed_ to just pay attention to their constituents.
    Granted, to a limited extent. Given a petulant population and elected officials who feel that populace needs to be coddled, the system doesn't quite run as intended. E.g.: the attitude I have toward letting my 3 y/o son run around with a loaded .357 seems to be the same attitude the gov't has regarding the average American citizen.
    The motive was 'we did something stupid. we need to undo it.'
    Rather, the motive could've been, 'we did something stupid. we need to undo it.' It may have been, "we can't enforce this. before the american public decides to look too closely at our other legislation and decide we're too restrictive, we should let the petulant bastards have their Bud Light.'
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  19. #139  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    that's what I meant by the line between being unenforeceable and voting per constituents desires becoming nonexistent.
    Not quite the same, but not worth quibbling.
    Granted, to a limited extent. Given a petulant population and elected officials who feel that populace needs to be coddled, the system doesn't quite run as intended. E.g.: the attitude I have toward letting my 3 y/o son run around with a loaded .357 seems to be the same attitude the gov't has regarding the average American citizen.
    Non sequitur from the case at hand.
    Rather, the motive could've been, 'we did something stupid. we need to undo it.' It may have been, "we can't enforce this. before the american public decides to look too closely at our other legislation and decide we're too restrictive, we should let the petulant bastards have their Bud Light.'
    I'm sure you know Bud Light didn't exist at the time, but keep in mind that Prohibition and its repeal were not instigated at the Federal level. They started as local initiatives, and gained wide support in enough states to force the issue. The Federal government cannot pass Consitutional amendments without involving the States. Also, at the time, the GovCo wasn't even a shadow of its current self, and had quite limited powers.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  20. #140  
    Originally posted by septimus
    Can anyone explain why Clinton is so hated by the right? Don't tell me it was just the sexual scandals, because that was an effect, not a cause, which deepend it...
    Well I cant speak for "the right", but I will tell you what I disliked about him. He was immoral. He had no repspect for his wife (although, this one I can see his motivation) and his convenant of marriage. He was a rock star, more interested in face time in fromt of the TV than the issue that had the cameras there in the first place. He pointed hi sfinger at me and lied to me about his affair with Big Monica.

    He committed perjury and is in my opinion a criminal for that. The Supreme Court disbarred him from practicing at their court. What does that tell you?
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast

Posting Permissions