Stephen Joseph 0 Report post Posted April 12, 2005 (edited) Firstly, RobotJerk, I never said what you quoted me as saying...Not cool. Secondly, why can't we present some valid form of identification to vote. Hell, a driver's license or an ID card? That could help a bit. Thirdly, you must recognize the geopolitical nature of a campaign. You can't just run in those 11 states and win, because not all 11 of those states can be won by a Republican or Democratic platform. There are issues intrinsic to the region that appeal to either side. Thus, it can't happen, and you cannot win unless you go out to mid-major states and get those votes. If you don't believe in regional issues in politics affecting national outcomes, or think its entirely possible that a candidate can win all 11 of those states (excluding Reagan, for obvious reasons as that was just a landslide), then back it up. Most argument against the e.c. is rhetoric at best. Feel free to correct my logic here in naming the states, but you'll clearly see that there's states THAT one side cannot win by their platform http://electoral-vote.com/ California (BLUE - STRONG) Florida (TOSSUP) Georgia (RED - STRONG) llinois (BLUE - BARELY) Michigan (BLUE - BARELY) New Jersey (BLUE - MEDIUM) New York (BLUE - STRONG) North Carolina (RED - STRONG) Ohio (RED - BARELY) Pennsylvania (BLUE - MEDIUM) Texas (RED - STRONG) Under a popular vote system, a candidate COULD go and campaign very heavily in these states and secure enough votes to win the popular election regardless (just based on state party strength). Under the electoral college, neither party can. Nice theory, bad in reality. Edited April 12, 2005 by Stephen Joseph Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ISportsFan 0 Report post Posted April 12, 2005 llinois (BLUE - BARELY) Actually, Illinois is probably medium blue. The whole state is very red except for Cook County (where Chicago is), which is dark dark blue. But, Chicago has enough people to make it probably safely blue for quite a while for presidential candidates. Jason Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 12, 2005 llinois (BLUE - BARELY) Actually, Illinois is probably medium blue. The whole state is very red except for Cook County (where Chicago is), which is dark dark blue. But, Chicago has enough people to make it probably safely blue for quite a while for presidential candidates. Jason And the Dems run Cook County well enough to make damned sure the Dems win enough votes to win the state. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stephen Joseph 0 Report post Posted April 12, 2005 llinois (BLUE - BARELY) Actually, Illinois is probably medium blue. The whole state is very red except for Cook County (where Chicago is), which is dark dark blue. But, Chicago has enough people to make it probably safely blue for quite a while for presidential candidates. Jason I just went by the last two election results there. =) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted April 12, 2005 Before the 2000 election, I knew a guy who went off on a rant about how stupid the electoral college. Then Bush won, and he suddenly favored it. Hypocrisy runs both ways. Indeed it often does, I'm just speaking from my own personal experience, in that every single individual I know who has ever spoken out against the EC a) has only done so after the 2000 election and b) is a card-carrying Democrat. It just amuses me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ISportsFan 0 Report post Posted April 12, 2005 And the Dems run Cook County well enough to make damned sure the Dems win enough votes to win the state. -=Mike I wouldn't say they run Cook County, per se. They run Chicago like nothing else, though. Mayor Daley is practically royalty--he's even a White Sox fan and people on the North Side vote for him because he's (D). That's crazy, for those who don't follow Chicago baseball. Many of the suburbs of Chicago in Cook are mostly Republican. By default, however, since there are so many people in the actual city, Cook is run by Democrats. I can't remember the last Republican who was in a major political position in the county. Also, I wouldn't say the machine is stealing votes anymore like they were in the 1960s. It's to the point where the Democrats don't have to work anymore to win almost any post in the city, so there's no need for corruption. Jason Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CheesalaIsGood 0 Report post Posted April 12, 2005 I hope he never stops bitching. It makes the right people mad. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boon 0 Report post Posted April 12, 2005 I hope he never stops bitching. It makes the right people mad. I find it rather amusing, actually. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted April 12, 2005 I hope he never stops bitching. It makes the right people mad. The bitching and moaning from the left about 2000, only helped the Republicans in 2002 and 2004. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 13, 2005 I hope he never stops bitching. It makes the right people mad. The bitching and moaning from the left about 2000, only helped the Republicans in 2002 and 2004. It'll help them in 2006 and 2008. Well, I assume so since the Dems still don't have a clue why nobody wants to elect them. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley 0 Report post Posted April 13, 2005 1876- Tilden/Hayes 1888- Cleveland/Harrison 2000- Bush/Gore I count three- what's the fourth time? Besides the fact that the electoral college has only been around for 36 elections, not 43. So by my numbers its 3/36, or about 8% of elections. Edit: These numbers might be off, I'm double checking them now. 1824 - J.Q. Adams/Jackson Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted April 13, 2005 By the way, summarizing John Kerry's opinion as that of "democrats" is sort of stupid at this point. If you're using that leap of logic, you're just being an idiot partisan hack. I just noticed that when I read the beginning of this thread again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 13, 2005 By the way, summarizing John Kerry's opinion as that of "democrats" is sort of stupid at this point. If you're using that leap of logic, you're just being an idiot polemic. I just noticed that when I read the beginning of this thread again. Care to name a Democrat who DOESN'T subscribe to the belief that OH had just tons of problems in spite of a lack of evidence? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted April 13, 2005 <------------- Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted April 13, 2005 I didn't mean Michael Moore, by the way. He probably does. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Edwin MacPhisto 0 Report post Posted April 13, 2005 <---Me too. I do mean Prince, by the way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 13, 2005 Shame you can't seem to get the, you know, Democratic Party to agree with you. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted April 13, 2005 And this is exactly what I mean when I say you're being a partisan hack. John Kerry thinks there's voter fraud in OH. So does MoveOn.org and, perhaps, some fringe leftist representatives. Nobody else does. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 13, 2005 And this is exactly what I mean when I say you're being a partisan hack. John Kerry thinks there's voter fraud in OH. So does MoveOn.org and, perhaps, some fringe leftist representatives. Nobody else does. John Edwards. Hillary Clinton. The ENTIRE Congressional Black Caucus. Dennis Kucinich. Howard Dean. The list can continue, if you'd like... -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted April 13, 2005 Dean's quote was more that it should be looked into. Edwards is in the same boat as Kerry: irrelevant. Kucinich? rofl. Hillary Clinton? Care to share a quote? Ditto the CBC. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gary Floyd 0 Report post Posted April 13, 2005 Ya know, I voted for this guy, and I actually feel bad...for myself, for voting for him. Can't they find a better alternative to Bush (And no, Ralph "attention whore" Nader, who makes me feel embaressed to be an independent, does not count) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted April 13, 2005 Ya know, I voted for this guy, and I actually feel bad...for myself, for voting for him. Can't they find a better alternative to Bush (And no, Ralph "attention whore" Nader, who makes me feel embaressed to be an independent, does not count) Kusinich. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 13, 2005 Dean's quote was more that it should be looked into. Edwards is in the same boat as Kerry: irrelevant. Kucinich? rofl. Hillary Clinton? Care to share a quote? Ditto the CBC. http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/cbc106 http://www.yuricareport.com/2004%20Electio...tleHeatsUp.html -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Steel_Fury Report post Posted April 13, 2005 I just wanted to add another point for those people who may be upset when a candidate wins the electoral votes but loses the popular vote. The candidates are campaigning to win electoral votes, not popular votes. If the race was based on a popular vote then the cadidates would have campaigned much differently. For instance, Bush would have actively campaigned much harder in cities like New York and LA. Republicans in California and democrats in Georgia would be much more likely to have voted in the presidential campaign, if they knew their vote counted. No one knows how the 2000 race would have ended if the election would have been based on popular votes. Maybe Gore would have won, maybe not. Simply put, even if a pres. candidate wins the popular vote, it doesnt mean they would have if the campaign was ran differently. Gore winning the popular vote meant nothing legally or morally. I will remember to shut up if the same thing happens to a republican candidate, as it nearly did in 2004. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CheesalaIsGood 0 Report post Posted April 13, 2005 NEARLY???? Don't you know that the president has a MANDATE based on the voter turn out? Just keep saying mandate over and over and there is a case of Coors Light in it for you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted April 13, 2005 And the Dems run Cook County well enough to make damned sure the Dems win enough votes to win the state. -=Mike I wouldn't say they run Cook County, per se. They run Chicago like nothing else, though. Mayor Daley is practically royalty--he's even a White Sox fan and people on the North Side vote for him because he's (D). That's crazy, for those who don't follow Chicago baseball. Many of the suburbs of Chicago in Cook are mostly Republican. By default, however, since there are so many people in the actual city, Cook is run by Democrats. I can't remember the last Republican who was in a major political position in the county. Also, I wouldn't say the machine is stealing votes anymore like they were in the 1960s. Yeah everything here is true. Suburbs you have a lot of Republican parents with Democratic teenagers because "WE HAVE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND BE COMPASSIONATE," but you get that most everywhere. It's to the point where the Democrats don't have to work anymore to win almost any post in the city, so there's no need for corruption. You'd think that, as would I, but isn't Daley getting into trouble for hiring construction companies to work on Midway and O'Hare with some sort of political ties? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted April 13, 2005 \Secondly, why can't we present some valid form of identification to vote. Hell, a driver's license or an ID card? RACIST... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted April 13, 2005 I needed to show identification to rent some DVDs of Mr. Show from the video store last night. I wouldn't be all that upset if they asked me to at a voting booth. EDIT: Also, I wouldn't be all that upset if they gave me DVDs of Mr. Show for voting. Sort of like an "I Voted" sticker that lasts longer and makes you laugh. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted April 13, 2005 And Dean, Mike? Hillary Clinton? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted April 13, 2005 What's wrong with showing ID to vote? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
