Don't count your chickens just yet!

[Gigolo Jason]

Two weeks until election day.

MAGAZINE SHOCK: REPUBLICANS WILL HOLD CONGRESS
Sat Oct 21 2006 18:05:12 ET

BARRON'S COVER Survivor!
The GOP Victory

By JIM MCTAGUE

JUBILANT DEMOCRATS SHOULD RECONSIDER their order for confetti and noisemakers, BARRON's claims in their next edition. The Democrats, as widely reported, are expecting GOP-weary voters to flock to the polls in two weeks and hand them control of the House for the first time in 12 years -- and perhaps the Senate, as well. Even some Republicans privately confess that they are anticipating the election-day equivalent of Little Big Horn. Pardon our hubris, but we just don't see it.

Our analysis -- based on a race-by-race examination of campaign-finance data -- suggests that the GOP will hang on to both chambers, at least nominally. We expect the Republican majority in the House to fall by eight seats, to 224 of the chamber's 435. At the very worst, our analysis suggests, the party's loss could be as large as 14 seats, leaving a one-seat majority. But that is still a far cry from the 20-seat loss some are predicting. In the Senate, with 100 seats, we see the GOP winding up with 52, down three.

[AliceInChains02]

speculation...just like the other 1,000 articles

[dotcom]

I'm gonna vote for Hillary Clinton for prez!

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

"There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics"- Benjamin Disraeli

I'd just wait until November 8 to speculate on the results :icon_thum

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

I'm gonna vote for Hillary Clinton for prez!

Please don't...

[Patrick]

I'm gonna vote for Hillary Clinton for prez!

Why? She has yet to present the "platform" upon which she is running.

I truly don't vote along "party lines", but more on where the candidate stands on what's important to me, as well as their previous record.
Unfortunately, nowadays there's not much to choose from.:eh:

[BrutusTx]

I'm gonna vote for Hillary Clinton for prez!

:nod: :icon_thum

[Gigolo Jason]

I'm gonna vote for Hillary Clinton for prez!

You go do that. Just remember to vote for only Hilary and for no other candidates on election day in two weeks. Her Presidency is counting on you.

:laughing6 :laughing6 :laughing6

[scrapp]

I cant belive she is actually going to run. The country is in too much shit to test out "if a woman president works"
She will be on too much of a power trip to be the first one for her to actually do something good.



On the other hand the country is in too much shit and people might be willing to actually spice things up to see if it gets better. and she might very well actually do good.

No matter the gender, I would actually love to have a president who cares about shaping this country up rather then sneaking shit under the table

[paniro187]

I cant belive she is actually going to run. The country is in too much shit to test out "if a woman president works"
She will be on too much of a power trip to be the first one for her to actually do something good.



On the other hand the country is in too much shit and people might be willing to actually spice things up to see if it gets better. and she might very well actually do good.

No matter the gender, I would actually love to have a president who cares about shaping this country up rather then sneaking shit under the table:angry7:

[scrapp]

hey dont shake your head at me, its my opinion...I feel as is she would be too agressive, and make alot of big changes just because she is teh first woman president, and to "prove" a point. Im sick of political people always wanting to prove something. Do your goddamn job and make this country a better place.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

hey dont shake your head at me, its my opinion...I feel as is she would be too agressive, and make alot of big changes just because she is teh first woman president, and to "prove" a point. Im sick of political people always wanting to prove something. Do your goddamn job and make this country a better place.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I think Pan would be thinking the same thing I'm thinking with regard the aforementioned quote...

You are saying this based on what? Do you have any empiracal evidence to support your assertions?

[scrapp]

no, i will admit, this is just my viewpoint. from some of the "bold personality" she has given off, im sure she would be very respectable, and serious, so she proves that she, and other women can do it...but at the same time I kind of feel like she might make some irrational decisions.

But nothing can be as worse as what playground BS bush has been doing.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

...I truly don't vote along "party lines", but more on where the candidate stands on what's important to me, as well as their previous record.
Unfortunately, nowadays there's not much to choose from.:eh:

+1...

I'm so sick of people voting along party lines, particularly when both parties are more concerned with "lobbyist" concerns than those of the people. Ridiculous! :eh:

[BigComfy]

Let McCain be Prez PLZZZZ

[Gigolo Jason]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I think Pan would be thinking the same thing I'm thinking with regard the aforementioned quote...

You are saying this based on what? Do you have any empiracal evidence to support your assertions?

I think he's trying to say he can't believe she is running with that cow bell of a husband she has.

:laughing6 :laughing6 :laughing6 :laughing6 :laughing6 :laughing6 :laughing6

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

no, i will admit, this is just my viewpoint. from some of the "bold personality" she has given off, im sure she would be very respectable, and serious, so she proves that she, and other women can do it...but at the same time I kind of feel like she might make some irrational decisions.

But nothing can be as worse as what playground BS bush has been doing.

I feel you...and atleast you are willing to admit that those things you are saying are just "your opinion" and not facts (unlike a number of people on here)...but I think she is a very capable politician but therein lies my problem with her, not to mention the fact that I disagree with her on a great deal of things...If there were a woman running for office that atleast majorily shared my perspective and views then I would have full confidence in her ability as Commander and Chief...

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

I think he's trying to say he can't believe she is running with that cow bell of a husband she has.

:laughing6 :laughing6 :laughing6 :laughing6 :laughing6 :laughing6 :laughing6

Ever heard of a red herring ? :laughing6

[BrutusTx]

She might just do a great job, and sooner or later we will get someone in there that WILL do a great job. Somehow I doubt it will be a person that everyone thinks will be a great president.
And really, can she be worse than what we've been getting?

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

...can she be worse than what we've been getting?

...Highly Unlikely

[BrutusTx]

...Highly Unlikely

Why?

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Why?

Well...

Rarely, after seeing the mistakes of his/her predecesor, does an individual repeat said mistakes...this is not to say she will do much better but it is highly unlikely that she could do any worse...it goes along the lines of the saying: Learning from others mistakes.

I find it hard to believe she can do much worse...

[BrutusTx]

Well...

Rarely, after seeing the mistakes of his/her predecesor, does an individual repeat said mistakes...this is not to say she will do much better but it is highly unlikely that she could do any worse...it goes along the lines of the saying: Learning from others mistakes.

I find it hard to believe she can do much worse...

Exactly, so why would she NOT make a good president?

[paniro187]

Exactly, so why would she NOT make a good president?
same thing i'm wondering gigolo jason and patrick have been posting negatvie things about her over and over. I would love to know where the deep seeded resentment of her comes from.

[Maverick]

KINKY

[kstrs]

She might just do a great job, and sooner or later we will get someone in there that WILL do a great job. Somehow I doubt it will be a person that everyone thinks will be a great president.
And really, can she be worse than what we've been getting?

YES, the peoples republic of America would suck.

[kstrs]

KINKY

I'm sure she is but, remember what the dems told us "It's just about sex.... no big deal right?" :confused1

[Patrick]

Not resentment, but I don't care for the woman, or her ethics (or lack thereof. Hell, she's the only first lady EVER to have to testify in front of a grand jury.)
A good non-biased source of info can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

She has only been in congress 5 years, and she's held no other previous public office. Just because she was married to a president, and not one of the better ones IMO, does not qualify her to be president.
Don't get me wrong, Bushs' ethics aren't stellar either.
IMO the presidency has been somewhat of a farce since billybob got caught with his pants down.
FWIW, I curently have not formed an opinion yet on who I would vote for in the next pesidential election, however I am certain of who I am not voting for, Hillary tops the list.

[CBR RN]

what do you think of Barack Obama of Illinois?
http://www.npr.org/news/images/2004/jul/27/reuters/obama_140.jpg

[paniro187]

what do you think of Barack Obama of Illinois?
http://www.npr.org/news/images/2004/jul/27/reuters/obama_140.jpgnot enough exp he just started this politics stuff but then again do you need that to maybe shake things up. who knows.

[BrutusTx]

not enough exp he just started this politics stuff but then again do you need that to maybe shake things up. who knows.

He seems to stay out of the spotlight, at least nationaly, I haven't seen/heard much about him. But I admit I don't follow politics so I may be wrong.

[Gigolo Jason]

She has only been in congress 5 years, and she's held no other previous public office. Just because she was married to a president, and not one of the better ones IMO, does not qualify her to be president.
Don't get me wrong, Bushs' ethics aren't stellar either.
IMO the presidency has been somewhat of a farce since billybob got caught with his pants down.
FWIW, I curently have not formed an opinion yet on who I would vote for in the next pesidential election, however I am certain of who I am not voting for, Hillary tops the list.

I agree with what Patrick has said. Hillary is under qualified for the presidency and IMO unelectable for the position becasue of her actions and the actions of her husband from January 1993-January 2001.

what do you think of Barack Obama of Illinois?

He is a freshman Senator with no prior experience or voting record. He is not qualified for the office he holds much less a position up the ladder. He needs to cut his teeth first before he runs for something higher.

[Gigolo Jason]

He seems to stay out of the spotlight, at least nationaly, I haven't seen/heard much about him. But I admit I don't follow politics so I may be wrong.

That is because there isn't much out there about him. He is a newbie to the game. His campaign skills are as of yet unproven and his senate record is nonexistent.

[paniro187]

I agree with what Patrick has said. Hillary is under qualified for the presidency and IMO unelectable for the position becasue of her actions and the actions of her husband from January 1993-January 2001.



He is a freshman Senator with no prior experience or voting record. He is not qualified for the office he holds much less a position up the ladder. He needs to cut his teeth first before he runs for something higher.and bush's actions up to now have been stellar right??

[TxVrod]

and bush's actions up to now have been stellar right??

No, they haven't but Bush isn't eligible to run again this next election.

[paniro187]

No, they haven't but Bush isn't eligible to run again this next election.
I know he isn't eligible for next election BUT I was saying they act as if what we have now is just so awesome........:eh:

[Gigolo Jason]

I know he isn't eligible for next election BUT I was saying they act as if what we have now is just so awesome........:eh:

I never said it was the best of situations, but it's better then having a Clinton lackey or a treasonous Senator from Massachusetts in the office.

[paniro187]

I never said it was the best of situations, but it's better then having a Clinton lackey or a treasonous Senator from Massachusetts in the office.true dat

[paniro187]

true dat
although i've stated before it seems that kerry was more of a person that just goes along ith what the people want. everyone wanted to go to war so he said let's go people started to feel uneasy about the war and he didn't want the war anymore. maybe he would feel the same on the border issue as the amercian people do. you never know. it seems hillary has a agenda. kerry just goes along with the popular opinion. if it's the popular opinion then it's what the majority of amecian people want right???

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Exactly, so why would she NOT make a good president?

...Well...never said she wouldn't make for a good president because the "good" she does is relative...what you may find to be good may be significantly different than what I consider to be good. I, personally, disagree with many of her policies, therefore, I don't want her in office...vote for her if you will but I won't be...I was simply defending her capacity to be president, because I disagree with the thhought that she is incapable of holding this office due to her being a woman...deal? :icon_thum

[Patrick]

BUT I was saying they act as if what we have now is just so awesome....

If you were directing that towards me, you misunderstand.
My current confidence in Bushs' ability to lead this country is near zero, as well as most of the people around him.
To me it wasn't a good sign when Colin started distancing himself from Bush, and eventually got out.
Colin is someone i respect and I would definitely consider voting for.:icon_thum

[Moody]

They all suck!

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Hillary is under qualified for the presidency and IMO unelectable for the position because of her actions and the actions of her husband from January 1993-January 2001.

1) She is not underqualified (Refer to US Constitution, Article II, Section I)

2) She did nothing wrong, her husband was the guilty party in that particular - Here in the US, you are not simply guilty by Association

If you disagree with Hillary Clinton, then disagree on the basis of HER policies or actions that SHE has taken that you happen to disagree with...not those of her husband...

[hotcknstrips]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paniro187
and bush's actions up to now have been stellar right??


No, they haven't but Bush isn't eligible to run again this next election.

Thank God.

[Moody]

Bush will probably enact some kind of martial law or policy that will allow him to continue his presidency.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Bush will probably enact some kind of martial law or policy that will allow him to continue his presidency.

LMAO:laughing6 :laughing6 :laughing6 I been sayin' that for the last few months...hell...just told charles that the other day...funny shyt, too bad it isn't that far from the realm of possibility...

[BrutusTx]

To me it wasn't a good sign when Colin started distancing himself from Bush, and eventually got out.
Colin is someone i respect and I would definitely consider voting for.:icon_thum

I agree:icon_thum

[TxVrod]

http://www.specialfarm.net/macgyver2008/macgyver-header.jpg

[kstrs]

1) She is not underqualified (Refer to US Constitution, Article II, Section I)

2) She did nothing wrong, her husband was the guilty party in that particular - Here in the US, you are not simply guilty by Association

If you disagree with Hillary Clinton, then disagree on the basis of HER policies or actions that SHE has taken that you happen to disagree with...not those of her husband...

True... That said, 1) There are many more qualified than her.

2) Maybe nothing wrong but she has been very open with her views on such issues as Gun rights, Taxation, Tort reform.... etc.

My opinion.... shes the wrong man for the job.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

True... That said, 1) There are many more qualified than her.

There will always be someone who is more qualified than the next person dependant on the merits upon which you base those qualifications...but we do agree in principal, she is not one who I would want in office...

My opinion.... shes the wrong man for the job.

Again, we are in agreement...


...Well...never said she wouldn't make for a good president because the "good" she does is relative...what you may find to be good may be significantly different than what I consider to be good. I, personally, disagree with many of her policies, therefore, I don't want her in office...vote for her if you will but I won't be...I was simply defending her capacity to be president, because I disagree with the thhought that she is incapable of holding this office due to her being a woman...deal? :icon_thum

[Gigolo Jason]

There will always be someone who is more qualified.....

Then why can't we elect a candidate who is the best qualified person for the job?

.......she is not one who I would want in office...

Again, we are in agreement.......

Yes, we actually agree on something. :nod:

[Moody]

http://img331.imageshack.us/img331/4571/pootieforpresidentwqdeleted

[Moody]

Then why can't we elect a candidate who is the best qualified person for the job?



Yes, we actually agree on something. :nod:
Because we do not elect anyone for President. :icon_thum

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Then why can't we elect a candidate who is the best qualified person for the job?

Hell I hope we can, sorry to sound a lil pessimistic, but I'm a little skeptical that the American people -as a whole- will elect the most qualified or best person for the job...our record isn't so hot over the last 6 years (not to mention the lack of quality leaders)...we're usually too busy voting along party lines or voting for the guy our parents/friends/pastors/(insert item) are voting for...it's ridiculous...

Yes, we actually agree on something. :nod:

Amazing isn't it...:icon_thum

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Because we do not elect anyone for President. :icon_thum

You popular vote advocate you...:nod:

[Moody]

You popular vote advocate you...:nod:
Well, in truth we loose control of the vote and obviously have completely lost control of our goverment. I have a theory about how exactly this happens and it deals with lobbying and the white tape that happens in Washington once we send our elected official to cast our vote. I also like Bill Hicks take on it. He stated that no matter what canidate is elected they are are immediately escorted to a private room after their innogeration where the fat cats come in and hand over the new presidential agenda. :icon_bigg

[ratmzapa]

Honestly, we have not had a great leader since the turn or early part of the century...these people now are crooked, cheats, liars, thieves, you name it...that does not in my book make them qualified for any position in government. However how do these people honestly become president? Do you think we actually have a say so? Guess again...we do not have any say so in our political system...we can listen to all the talk shows and talk about how things should be all day long...but in the end...we are just pawns in the whole system...the Constitution and Bill of Rights gave us both law and God given rights which are now being taken away slowly...under the guise of Acts that pertain to so called "terrorism". Initially we were suppose to be a full democratic society where we have say so in our laws and politicians...those days are gone...

[Gigolo Jason]

Hell I hope we can, sorry to sound a lil pessimistic, but I'm a little skeptical that the American people -as a whole- will elect the most qualified or best person for the job...our record isn't so hot over the last 6 years (not to mention the lack of quality leaders)...we're usually too busy voting along party lines or voting for the guy our parents/friends/pastors/(insert item) are voting for...it's ridiculous..

The problem I see is our process for selecting candidates. The present caucus system will never supply us with the most qualified person for the job. Thus our only choice is to select the best person for the job from the limited list of less desirable candidates that the American people are presented with on Nov 4th.

[Moody]

Honestly, we have not had a great leader since the turn or early part of the century...these people now are crooked, cheats, liars, thieves, you name it...that does not in my book make them qualified for any position in government. However how do these people honestly become president? Do you think we actually have a say so? Guess again...we do not have any say so in our political system...we can listen to all the talk shows and talk about how things should be all day long...but in the end...we are just pawns in the whole system...the Constitution and Bill of Rights gave us both law and God given rights which are now being taken away slowly...under the guise of Acts that pertain to so called "terrorism". Initially we were suppose to be a full democratic society where we have say so in our laws and politicians...those days are gone...
Democratic Republic, which in theory should keep big goverment to a minimum on a federal level. Allowing for our roles in the local goverment to have political stature over our lives except for major national issues.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Well, in truth we loose control of the vote and obviously have completely lost control of our goverment. I have a theory about how exactly this happens and it deals with lobbying and the white tape that happens in Washington once we send our elected official to cast our vote. I also like Bill Hicks take on it. He stated that no matter what canidate is elected they are are immediately escorted to a private room after their innogeration where the fat cats come in and hand over the new presidential agenda. :icon_bigg

Yep, in the end...corporate america owns the govt. I've said this before, we need to put greater restrictions on lobbyists'. I personally think that if we made our elected officials more accountable (i.e. you disappoint your constituancy, you are relieved of your duties 2 yrs later) for their actions during their tenure, then we will have a little more control of our government and those elected officials will be alot more concerned with the issues facing their constituancy than with those concerns of corporate lobbyist's...

[ratmzapa]

Yes they have no regard for the constitution that they sworn to protect and uphold...it seems as now as long as they get their hands in the bag...all laws and responsibilities are thrown out the window.

[Moody]

Yep, in the end...corporate america owns the govt. I've said this before, we need to put greater restrictions on lobbyists'. I personally think that if we made our elected officials more accountable (i.e. you disappoint your constituancy, you are relieved of your duties 2 yrs later) for their actions during their tenure, then we will have a little more control of our government and those elected officials will be alot more concerned with the issues facing their constituancy than with those concerns of corporate lobbyist's...
Some changes definetly need to be looked at for how long the Senate gets to hold their positions.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Democratic Republic, which in theory should keep big goverment to a minimum on a federal level. Allowing for our roles in the local goverment to have political stature over our lives except for major national issues.

Exactly: For the people, by the people. The only reason things are out of hand is because those in our legislative and executive branches feel that they can do anything and we are too stupid to vote them out of office...

-The Electoral College is in place for a reason, it has worked for this long...I see no need to abolish now

-A Rubber Stamp congress is responsible for most of these ridiculous acts and regulations that are currently in place. Congress was meant to act as a check...not check writer...Congress can override any law by a two-thirds vote, there is no excuse for us to be losing any of our civil liberties because we are responsible for how the congress conducts itself...

[Gigolo Jason]

Some changes definetly need to be looked at .......

I am not confident that government will do this in its present state. Yes, I agree that changes need to be made, but I believe that they will not be done within our current two party systems.

[Moody]

I am not confident that government will do this in its present state. Yes, I agree that changes need to be made, but I believe that they will not be done within our current two party systems.
:sad7:

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Some changes definetly need to be looked at for how long the Senate gets to hold their positions.

Yep...I've been considering writing a petition to Mrs. Hutchinson to consider and hopefully present something similar to congress placing term limits on members of congress(I'm thinking 4 terms/8 yrs is enough). Hell I even think those justices holding office in the Supreme Court should be subjected to term limits.

Just don't kno how many sig's I'll get and I'm not trying to waste time on something that may deem itself moot...

[Moody]

Yep...I've been considering writing a petition to Mrs. Hutchinson to consider and hopefully present something similar to congress placing term limits on members of congress(I'm thinking 4 terms/8 yrs is enough). Hell I even think those justices holding office in the Supreme Court should be subjected to term limits.
Definetly!

[Gigolo Jason]

Exactly: For the people, by the people. The only reason things are out of hand is because those in our legislative and executive branches feel that they can do anything and we are too stupid to vote them out of office...

And so far they are right. Incumbents are reelected more often then not.

-The Electoral College is in place for a reason, it has worked for this long...I see no need to abolish now

It does not allow America to choose the president. It's an out dated, antiquated system that needs to be replaced. A popular vote system would put more power into the people's hands and out of the hands of the politicians.

there is no excuse for us to be losing any of our civil liberties because we are responsible for how the congress conducts itself...

I agree.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

And so far they are right. Incumbents are reelected more often then not.

Indeed.


It does not allow America to choose the president. It's an out dated, antiquated system that needs to be replaced. A popular vote system would put more power into the people's hands and out of the hands of the politicians.

I strongly disagree. It protects the smaller states with smaller populations. We are afterall, a unification of a number states. It allows the popular vote from districts to determine the president. If anything, those districts may need to be remapped. I won't go through the process in detail but if you all would like, I'll post the relevant sections of the Constitution.

[Gigolo Jason]

I strongly disagree. It protects the smaller states with smaller populations. We are afterall, a unification of a number states. It allows the popular vote from districts to determine the president. If anything, those districts may need to be remapped. I won't go through the process in detail but if you all would like, I'll post the relevant sections of the Constitution.

I stongly disagree. In an electoral college system not all votes are counted equally, thus defeating the premise that all men are created equal.

Under our current system, a single vote for president in the state of Wyoming, for instance, counts for more than a single vote in California.

The founding fathers chose the system becasue of communication and transportation limitations at the time. We no longer have the problem.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

In an electoral college system not all votes are counted equally, thus defeating the premise that all men are created equal.

This is a kind of Red Herring. Each state, with regard to its size, is given a number of electoral votes or points if you will. Those points are given by the "electors" of their relative districts. The popular vote of each district decides where those points are alotted. This system protects the minority while abiding by the will of the majority, which is ofcourse, the point.


Under current system, a single vote for president in the state of Wyoming, for instance, counts for more than a single vote in California.

Actually, California has something like 55 electoral votes while Wyoming has around 3....

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Here's a good link to learn about the electoral college and how points are allocated among states...

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004/allocation.html

Being that California is one of the most densely populated areas, they are given the most points...ergo, the concept of protecting the minority, while still adhering to the will of the majority...it's a beautiful system that should be upheld

[Moody]

My problem is not with the process but the holes it leaves with modern issues. Such as lobbyist and personal objectives. Not sure what the cure is though.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

My problem is not with the process but the holes it leaves with modern issues. Such as lobbyist and personal objectives. Not sure what the cure is though.

The cure, in my opinion, is accountability. Quit allowing the incumbants who do not do their jobs to hold office. I also think we as voters should educate ourselves and learn the process...if we know the system and how it works, then we will be less likely to be bamboozled(sp*).

[Gigolo Jason]

This is a kind of Red Herring. Each state, with regard to its size, is given a number of electoral votes or points if you will. Those points are given by the "electors" of their relative districts. The popular vote of each district decides where those points are alotted. This system protects the minority while abiding by the will of the majority, which is ofcourse, the point.

Actually, California has something like 55 electoral votes while Wyoming has around 3....

Explain to me how this is a Red Herring?

Wyoming has an inflated number of electoral votes (three) because every state is awarded a minimum of three (one for its member of Congress and two for each senator). California, with a population over fifty times as large as Wyoming, has only a little more than eighteen times as many electoral votes. This means that a vote in Wyoming counts about three times more than a vote in California.

Thus one vote for President in Wyoming is worth more then one vote in California.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Explain to me how this is a Red Herring?

Wyoming has an inflated number of electoral votes (three) because every state is awarded a minimum of three (one for its member of Congress and two for each senator). California, with a population over fifty times as large as Wyoming, has only a little more than eighteen times as many electoral votes. This means that a vote in Wyoming counts about three times more than a vote in California.

Thus one vote for President in Wyoming is worth more then one vote in California.

Because you said this, the above, means that all men are not created equal. The argument is flawed. The two issues are not related as presented.

[Gigolo Jason]

The cure, in my opinion, is accountability. Quit allowing the incumbants who do not do their jobs to hold office. I also think we as voters should educate themselves and learn the process...if we know the system and how it works, then we will be less likely to be bamboozled(sp*).

I agree to an extent. I believe the cure is to have more then two parties. A parlimentary style system within the current frame work would force compromise and alliances, thus leading to better government.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Explain to me how this is a Red Herring?

Wyoming has an inflated number of electoral votes (three) because every state is awarded a minimum of three (one for its member of Congress and two for each senator). California, with a population over fifty times as large as Wyoming, has only a little more than eighteen times as many electoral votes. This means that a vote in Wyoming counts about three times more than a vote in California.

Thus one vote for President in Wyoming is worth more then one vote in California.

In the end, California has more votes so if the populus of California decides that candidate "A" should win and the populus of Wyoming decides that candidate "B" should...California would win.

The system as it stands PROTECTS the minority while allowing the majority its will. I kno no other way of presenting this to you. Guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree because I don't have the desire to further discuss it...

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

I agree to an extent. I believe the cure is to have more then two parties. A parlimentary style system within the current frame work would force compromise and alliances, thus leading to better government.

I'm right there with you, we need more options...

[Gigolo Jason]

Because you said this, the above, means that all men are not created equal. The argument is flawed. The two issues are not related as presented.

Shouldn't all men be created equal in the US? What we are talking about here is fundemantal civil rights.

A popular vote system within the existing state framework would make all men created equal and all votes created equal. They are not under the Electoral College system, shown in my above example with California and Wyoming.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Shouldn't all men be created equal in the US? What we are talking about here is fundemantal civil rights.

A popular vote system within the existing state framework would make all men created equal and all votes created equal. They are not under the Electoral College system, shown in my above example with California and Wyoming.

Yes, they should...but I don't feel that the system as it stands denigrates that concept. I understand what you are saying, but I don't feel that what you are saying is accurate. Sure it would seem that individual votes in California as comparable to those of Wyoming are not as valuble as those individual votes of the latter state BUT as I said before...the overall populus of EACH state decides who they, as a state, elects. When you compare the overall power of each states populus, California has more power to decide the president elect. It requires 270 electoral votes to win an election and 55 would take an individual alot further than would 3. Protection of the minority...

[Gigolo Jason]

If 55 California votes mattered so much, why isn't it a popular campaign stop for candidates? Why are smaller "swing" states more of a popular target for election campaigns?

The Electoral College puts an unjustified emphasis placed upon "swing" states, which leads to the neglect of the voters in the majority of states where one party or the other holds sway, California being a prime example.

How does this unequal emphasis on "swing" states protect the minority in the non "swing" states?

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

If 55 California votes mattered so much, why isn't it a popular campaign stop for candidates? Why are smaller "swing" states more of a popular target for election campaigns?

Because California is one state versus a number of smaller states that together, equate to more than 55 votes...Cali is typically known as either red or blue state and many of the others you speak of are known as swing states. Can't focus on one state when there are a number of very important others that when combined equate to a larger percentile of the 270 needed to win the election.


The Electoral College puts an unjustified emphasis placed upon "swing" states, which leads to the neglect of the voters in the majority of states where one party or the other holds sway, California being a prime example.

WRONG.

"Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector (Texas happens to be on the list of states that punish said faithless electors). The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

Today, it is rare for electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged." (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#popular)

How does this unequal emphasis on "swing" states protect the minority in the non "swing" states?

Refer to above.

[Gigolo Jason]

"Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector (Texas happens to be on the list of states that punish said faithless electors). The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

Your point is mute because it is way off topic. We are not discussing electorates, we are discussing presidential candidates. Reread my last post and stop trying to squirm off topic.

If you need a definition for faithless electorates here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

How is it that Pennsylvania got more presidential candidate visits in the 2004 election then California even though it has far fewer Electoral College votes then California?

I will tell you why, because Pennsylvania is a "swing" state.

The Electoral College system is flawed and disenfranchises voters, minority and otherwise.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Your point is mute because it is way off topic. We are not discussing electorates, we are discussing presidential candidates. Reread my last post and stop trying to squirm off topic.

If we are discussing the ELECTORAL COLLEGE, then its ELECTORS are very much relative. Therefore you can retract those "squirm off topic" type statements...I never run from a debate. It's too much fun...


If you need a definition for faithless electorates here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

I know exactly what a "faithless voter" is, especially seeing as I was the one to bring it up, but thank you for the extra bit of info anyway...

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Reread my last post and stop trying to squirm off topic.

Re-read it...n yep, I'm pretty sure we were discussing the Electoral College...:icon_thum

here's what you posted....in case you forgot...

The Electoral College puts an unjustified emphasis placed upon "swing" states, which leads to the neglect of the voters in the majority of states where one party or the other holds sway, California being a prime example.

How does this unequal emphasis on "swing" states protect the minority in the non "swing" states?

[Gigolo Jason]

I am sorry, my appologies, I was under the impression that we were discussing the Electoral college SYSTEM and not the ELECTORS.

What do the ELECTORS have to do with the prinipals and purposes upon which the Electoral College SYSTEM was founded?

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

I am sorry, my appologies, I was under the impression that we were discussing the Electoral college SYSTEM and not the ELECTORS.

If they are a part of the system, and they are a pretty significant part at that...then I would imagine they are relative to that discussion.


What do the ELECTORS have to do with the prinipals and purposes upon which the Electoral College SYSTEM was founded?

They are afterall the entities who ultimately hold responsibility for determining who each individual states electoral votes go to. Past that I don't know.

Look we dissagree and obviously are getting nowhere...you feel that due to the processes of the Electoral College, the value of certain voters votes are somehow diminished. I see where you are coming from but I feel that the Electoral College is a valuble process that both protects the smaller states and minds the will of the majority. I think that if we go with a popular vote, those states with smaller amounts of citizens will be muffled in the democratic process due to their inability to compete with those larger states. I see it one way, you see it another. I have my reasons as I am sure you have yours. If you want to go point for point on a specific subject vis a vis the Electoral College system, then we can do so (Shoot me a question, I'll respond and ask you one as well). Otherwise we can just agree to disagree.