Election 2004 "wargaming"

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Doh! I keep forgetting they get electors... since they don't get anything else.

except for the shaft.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Guynemer


It just strikes me as wrong that a vote by a partisan Congress would determine who became President, when the voting public has already made clear who won the popular vote.

I know it is Constitutional, and legal. But it would leave a dirty taste in my mouth.

I think it makes just as much sense as the electoral college in the first place - if this doesn't work, the electoral college shouldn't exist either. Now, there are some good arguments for both sides, but I'm just pointing out the two are fundamentally the same. Remember, Congress was elected too.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by skywalker


I think it makes just as much sense as the electoral college in the first place - if this doesn't work, the electoral college shouldn't exist either. Now, there are some good arguments for both sides, but I'm just pointing out the two are fundamentally the same. Remember, Congress was elected too.

I agree--this is essentially the same thing as the EC, taken to an even more ridiculous extreme--I'd very much like to do away with the EC. I think this scenario illustrates just how profoundly silly it is.

[Q Classic]

a true citizen's government, where people mobilize on beliefs, not parties.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't see why it's an issue. It's how it works in Britain, for example, and you don't see people complaining that they are undemocratic. (Remember that, Sava et al - any British-style democracy has their PM chosen directly by the legislature, so any complaints about the EC apply to them too.)

[monkspider]

Originally posted by skywalker
I don't see why it's an issue. It's how it works in Britain, for example, and you don't see people complaining that they are undemocratic. (Remember that, Sava et al - any British-style democracy has their PM chosen directly by the legislature, so any complaints about the EC apply to them too.)

I think it's crap in Britain too.

[Guynemer]

#1--I could give a rat's ass what the limeys do.

#2--Even given #1, the way the limeys do it is even more stupid than the way we do it.

[FrustratedPoet]

Proportional representation is the way to go. One man, one vote, add them all up and see who has the most. It needn't be any more complicated than that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Proportional representation is the way to go. One man, one vote, add them all up and see who has the most.

Well that's how we do it for Congress. One man, one vote; Add them up and see who has the most, and they he gets elected . Don't need PR for that.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by monkspider
Are there any other states that went to the GOP last time that may go Democrat this time? Missouri perhaps, Tennesee? Florida maybe?

Tennessee?

You mean Gore's home state?

[Ben Kenobi]

Definition of a landslide is more than a 10 percentage point difference.

I thought a landslide is when you win almost all the States.

I see Bush doing that.

[FrustratedPoet]

And winning almost all the states would surely give more than a 10 percentage point difference, so you think it'll be a landslide by either definition.

[Frankychan]

Bush sucks. If it comes down to where Congress has to "decide", I'm going to be royally pissed.

But we all know from experience that Bush'll somehow make himself win if it's close.

Katherine Harris can kiss my big, hairy a**.

[The Mad Monk]

I doubt the congresswoman has any desire to.

[Frankychan]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I doubt the congresswoman has any desire to.

Shoot, now that she's been rewarded by her "master", the loyal dog doesn't have to be so overt in her actions now.


I'm sure he'll get another one of his lackeys or minions to do his bidding.

[The Mad Monk]

Yes, she has been promoted by her master, the people of Florida.

[Frankychan]

Which is run by Jeb Bush!

It's a whole freakin' conspiracy people! Open your eyes!

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Does DC have a primary? I assume they do, and if so, it seems as if Al Sharpton might actually have a chance of winning one

Howard Dean won the D.C. primaries, but they were non-binding and a month later the caucus goers chose John Kerry.

Sharpton came in a distant second during the primaries.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Frankychan
Which is run by Jeb Bush!

It's a whole freakin' conspiracy people! Open your eyes!

Thank you Fox Mulder.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar


Tears of ultimate sadness.

"Mmmm...the Tears of Unfathomable Sorrow...they taste so yummy!" -- Eric Cartman, lapping up the tears rolling down the cheeks of the bully that had taunted him.

Spoiler:

He was crying because he had just learned Cartman setup his parents to be killed...and ground into the chilli he had just eaten and enjoyed.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by monkspider
I think the prospects for Civil War following this election are the greatest since 1860, especially since Kerry will probably get the popular vote.

You're obviously joking with this part of your statement.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I see Bush doing that.

Care to make it interesting, Ben?

[GePap]

The Electoral college is a terrible system- it means avote in California for president is worth less than one in Wyoming-no reason for these two votes to mean less_ bush got no SC's from cali-yet he got more votes in California than in montana, Wyoming,The Dakotas and Idaho combined, simply due to Cali's population size.

As for Ben's notion that Bush will win by a landslide-sorry ben, but obviously you have no clue about his popularity:

I would say that of likely voters, the nation is evenly split-there is a strong 40% of voters that want him back no matter what, and 40% of voters who want him out no matter what- and the undecided can eaisly go either way. This election will be extremely close-and wil be decided solely I thnk by turnout: the Bush people have set up a formidable get the vote out regime and in general the republican storngholds are better at getting the right people to the polls and discouraging the wrong people form voting, becuase in modern politics, making sure the opposition does not get out to vote is as effective as getting your people to vote.

This is what Dems need to work on-not waste money on TV adds right now, but build a working organization ready to do a huge get the vote out drive come October and November.

[Imran Siddiqui]

yet he got more votes in California than in montana, Wyoming,The Dakotas and Idaho combined, simply due to Cali's population size.

And California has more electoral votes than all those states combined.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


And California has more electoral votes than all those states combined.

But not proportionally thanks to the the senate. While I do not know the exact figures, it is fair to say you need somethinglike 200k votes in Montana per Elector while it takes something like 600k in California per elector- meaning in reality a vote in montana is worth about three times more than a vote in california. This is wrong and should no longer be the case.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But you'll never be change it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But you'll never be change it.

Why, because tiny states want to keep their riduculous power in presidential elections?

[debeest]

In 2000 the judicial branch selected the president. The postulated situation would allow the legislative branch to select the president. Of course they'd select Shrub again. Then, in 2012, he should have us well enough under control for the executive branch to take its turn, and Shrub could re-appoint himself.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
Why, because tiny states want to keep their riduculous power in presidential elections?

Yes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Exactly. 2/3rds of the states will never vote to take their own power away. Enough power has already been taken from the states.