Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Presidential Election System  
User currently offlineJush From Germany, joined Apr 2005, 1636 posts, RR: 3
Posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1617 times:

Hi Fellas!
Just a question for our American a.netters
What do you think of your election system for your president.
When you had your last election i lived in the UK and they had a bit of a laugh in the news about your election system which is pretty old and seems to not work properly.
Is there any chance it will be modernised or do you think it will never or it is not even necessary?

Appreciate any answers

Regards
jush


There is one problem with airbus. Though their products are engineering marvels they lack passion, completely.
41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1611 times:

Quoting Jush (Thread starter):
When you had your last election i lived in the UK and they had a bit of a laugh in the news about your election system which is pretty old and seems to not work properly.

Or were they saying that because they didn't like who was elected?  Wink

Our system works just fine. It's worked for 220 years, and I don't see a need to change it.

And why didn't it work properly this time around? I'd like to hear that one.

Quoting Jush (Thread starter):
Is there any chance it will be modernised or do you think it will never or it is not even necessary?

I'd like to get rid of paper punch cards, and make the system faster, but also free of the possibility of fraud (i.e. electronic machines with recepits), but other than that, don't touch the system.


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3589 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1602 times:

The system works fine. The allegations of problems were primarily due to partisan lawyers trying to overturn results they didn't like.

User currently offlineJush From Germany, joined Apr 2005, 1636 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1601 times:

Well what i meant with not working properly were the problem ins 2000 in Florida and in 2004 IIRC there were some problems again with counting or so.

You might be right as one say never touch a (running) working system.

Regards
jush



There is one problem with airbus. Though their products are engineering marvels they lack passion, completely.
User currently offlineDeltaMD11 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 1701 posts, RR: 35
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1598 times:

I think that there are problems as far as ballot casting is concerned. The states and moreoever indidvidual counties control balloting procedures, which is a federal issue as I see it. Some counties are using newer electronic machines while others are using machines that stem from the 1930's. I'd like to see Congress make a unified effort in standardizing ballot casting procedures. As costly as it would be, I think that there are great benefits to be sought in terms of efficiency and reporting accuracy.

Other than that I see no problem with how our electoral system works as the Constitution dictates it and I would entreat you to further expoun upon these supposed "problems".



Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1595 times:

I wouldn't say that the system is entirely broken. But it COULD use a bit of tweaking.

Some people insist that the current system is just fine. And other believe that it should be strictly a popular vote.

If that were the case, then LA, New York, and Chicago would in essence decide everything for the rest of the country.

That's not good.

But at the same time, the "winner take all" system isn't exactly fair anyway. Even though some 15 million people here in "Blue" CA voted for Bush, not one single of those votes mattered in the end. CA went for Kerry.

I think the Electoral College should be based on proportionality. Just for ease of explanation, let' say that CA has 50 electoral votes. If half the state votes for Bush, and the other for Kerry, then Bush should get 25 of CA's electoral vote. Not zero. And Kerry shouldn't get all 50.

I


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1592 times:

Quoting Jush (Reply 3):
Well what i meant with not working properly were the problem ins 2000 in Florida and in 2004 IIRC there were some problems again with counting or so.

The problems with Florida in '00 had more to do with incompetence in Florida than any problem with the soundness of the U.S. presidential election system. And every independent count thereafter has shown the results were accurate-with slightly different vote counts, but they show Mr. Bush beat Mr. Gore in an incredibly tight state race. I did have a problem with the USSC butting in, instead of telling Florida "it's your problem, you figure it out", but the result would have been the same no matter what.

And there were precious few, and very minor problems in '04.


User currently offlineLogan22L From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1590 times:

The system works fine - just the way we want it to.

Signed,

Diebold


User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20393 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1588 times:

What a lot of people don't realize is that you don't directly vote for a presidential candidate. Instead, you vote for a delegate to cast an electoral college ballot based upon how the individual rules each state has designated to apportion them according to the election results. The electoral college delegates may even abstain from voting by casting a blank ballot, or change their vote to another candidate.

Changing the way a president is elected would require changing the way voting is counted at the federal level, and how voting works in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1582 times:

Quoting Logan22L (Reply 7):
The system works fine - just the way we want it to.

Signed,

Diebold

THAT is one of my concerns, but I haven't seen anything credible that says Deibold in '00 or '04 did anything underhanded, despite the statement of it's CEO in '00 that he would do anything to see Bush elected.

The Deibold systems, from what I understand, don't give a receipt to the voter on how he/she voted, and I think that should be required of any automated machine.


User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1717 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1573 times:

Here's a good explanation of the system including the pro and con arguments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College

I personally would like to see a popular vote system, but I'm not going to loose sleep if the Electoral College stays.

Another issue like this is the disproportionate representation in the US Senate. The founders set up our bicameral system to protect against the dominance of States with large populations, but they never envisioned the degree of population differences that would occur two hundred years in the future. Wyoming has 494,000 people, California has 38,000,000. Both get two Senators.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineDeltaMD11 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 1701 posts, RR: 35
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1568 times:

The founders initially had intended for the U.S. House of Representatives to choose the Executive when they wrote the Constitution. The Electoral College was to serve basically as a funneling process to whittle down the number of candidates. Unfortunately the system never quite worked that way under normal circumstances, as George Washington was immensely popular and won both elections by a landslide so the House never had an opportunity to become involved in the process. With the advent of widespread communication in the late-1800's/early-1900's this phenomena was drowned out even more as candidates could reach their electorates far easier with more potency and generate a higher level of appeal and ultimately support. Throw the power of political parties into the mix and you basically have a controlled candidacy scenario with a small handful of candidates actually running by the time the election rolls around. The process is actually a little more detailed than this, but I don't have the time to write a dissertation right now.


Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
User currently offlineDeltaMD11 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 1701 posts, RR: 35
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1556 times:

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 10):
Another issue like this is the disproportionate representation in the US Senate. The founders set up our bicameral system to protect against the dominance of States with large populations, but they never envisioned the degree of population differences that would occur two hundred years in the future. Wyoming has 494,000 people, California has 38,000,000. Both get two Senators.

That is precisely why the Senate was brought forth in the Connecticut Plan (which we owe to Ben Franklin really for the idea of coming up with the committee do further deliberate on this issue in the first place), to protect the smaller states from disproportionate representation. California, using your example, has a far greater population than Wyoming thus they have a greater amount of representation in the U.S. House. Wyoming and California have the same amount of representation in the Senate. The creation of a bicameral legislature stems from a Republican/Democratic compromise. The U.S. House members are elected directly by the people (which is a Democratic ideal), whereas Senate members (until 1912) were chosen by the state legislatures (a Republican ideal). To avoid confusion let me stipulate that by saying "Democractic" or "Republican" I'm not referring to the political parties but to the political systems/ideologies. Interestingly enough, usually the most prominent citizens in each state were chosen to be Senators as they were the ones making or breaking the state legislators in the first place.



Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
User currently offlineLogan22L From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1547 times:

Quoting Matt D (Reply 5):
I think the Electoral College should be based on proportionality. Just for ease of explanation, let' say that CA has 50 electoral votes. If half the state votes for Bush, and the other for Kerry, then Bush should get 25 of CA's electoral vote. Not zero. And Kerry shouldn't get all 50.

I have to say, I entirely agree.  Wow! Obviously, it works both ways.


User currently offlineDeltaMD11 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 1701 posts, RR: 35
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1541 times:

Quoting Logan22L (Reply 13):
Quoting Matt D (Reply 5):
I think the Electoral College should be based on proportionality. Just for ease of explanation, let' say that CA has 50 electoral votes. If half the state votes for Bush, and the other for Kerry, then Bush should get 25 of CA's electoral vote. Not zero. And Kerry shouldn't get all 50.

I have to say, I entirely agree. Obviously, it works both ways.

If I recall correctly, two states currently allow/utilize a split electoral ballot system based on who wins each individual district. I want to say Nebraska and Maine are the two states, but I'm not positive.



Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1526 times:

Quoting Jush (Thread starter):
When you had your last election i lived in the UK and they had a bit of a laugh in the news about your election system which is pretty old and seems to not work properly.

The system is just fine . . . . regardless of who is sitting in Oval Office . . . the system has been working for over 200 years. It's only deemed broken by those that think someone else should be in the hot seat. Of course, had someone else won, it wouldn't be an issue. The system works fine.
Naturally all the pissers and moaners will snivel about Florida in 2000, and some will even piss and moan about Ohio in 2004, but whatever. Once again, the system works, and has been working, for over 200 years. Show me another democracy on this planet that can make the same boast . . . .

Quoting Jush (Thread starter):
Is there any chance it will be modernised or do you think it will never or it is not even necessary?

The only thing necessary is electronic voting. Nothing else.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1524 times:

Quoting Jush (Thread starter):
When you had your last election i lived in the UK and they had a bit of a laugh in the news about your election system which is pretty old and seems to not work properly.
Is there any chance it will be modernised or do you think it will never or it is not even necessary?

The only thing I would change is to create a standardized voting system, ideally computerized. The system's programming and tabulation would be overseen by a unit of the government that would be relatively independant from the normal Executive or Legislative branches, similar to the way the Federal Reserve is run. All the counting would be done in Washington, even for local elections.

Quoting Matt D (Reply 5):
I think the Electoral College should be based on proportionality. Just for ease of explanation, let' say that CA has 50 electoral votes. If half the state votes for Bush, and the other for Kerry, then Bush should get 25 of CA's electoral vote. Not zero. And Kerry shouldn't get all 50.

That would be fine for states with lots of Electors. But what of the ones that have only 3 or 4? And what happens when there are more than 2 candidates getting significant numbers of votes, as when Perot ran?

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 8):
Changing the way a president is elected would require changing the way voting is counted at the federal level, and how voting works in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia.

It would need a constitutional amendment, that's all.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 9):
The Deibold systems, from what I understand, don't give a receipt to the voter on how he/she voted, and I think that should be required of any automated machine.

I've never heard of any voting system that gave you a receipt. And in the case of a recount, I would think that millions of fraudulant "receipts" would be presented trying to change the results.

BTW, I understand that many people (particularly Democrats, are complaining about attempts to require that ID be presented in order to vote. There is NO legitimate reason to oppose this rule, but plenty of illegitimate ones (dead people voting, etc.). I think they tipped their hand there.

It should be simple. You are registered to vote in one particular voting station, which has a printed list of all registered voters for that station. You present your ID, your name is crossed off, and you turn in your ballot. One man, one vote.


User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1717 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1518 times:

Quoting DeltaMD11 (Reply 12):

I'm well aware of the history of the "Great Compromise". You clearly missed my point, or perhaps I didn’t communicate it well.

No one in the eighteenth century, in their wildest dreams, could have predicted the scope of the population differences that we see between the states today. In 1787 the smallest colony, Delaware, had a population of 60,000, and the largest, Virginia, had a population of 745,000. While that difference is substantial, it isn’t even close to the disparity we see today. I don’t think Madison and Hamilton would have acquiesced to Bedford and the rest if that same degree of disproportion was true in 1787.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4343 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1508 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 16):
I've never heard of any voting system that gave you a receipt. And in the case of a recount, I would think that millions of fraudulant "receipts" would be presented trying to change the results.

I don't care about a 'receipt' so much as an audit trail, almost a double verification system, where you vote and it's recorded electronically, but a paper trail is created as well. Of course I realize there at tons of complexities in this, as well as the issue of keeping your vote secret, but until you can confirm that software is 100% secure, you're going to need to have a way to resolve questions.

As others have said, the actual system works well. There are several tweaks that need to be investigated, from the above mentioned voting, the electoral college splits, and my personal issue, the disparate and Byzantine methods for getting a third party on the ballot in each state. But the basic framework, like much of our governing structure, was purposely built to be flexible and grow into the future, and it has done well.



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineSLC1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1508 times:

Quoting Matt D (Reply 5):
I think the Electoral College should be based on proportionality. Just for ease of explanation, let' say that CA has 50 electoral votes. If half the state votes for Bush, and the other for Kerry, then Bush should get 25 of CA's electoral vote. Not zero. And Kerry shouldn't get all 50.

Under that system, voters in Wyoming still would have essentially twice the voting power as those in California. How is that fair?


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1505 times:

Quoting SLC1 (Reply 19):
Under that system, voters in Wyoming still would have essentially twice the voting power as those in California. How is that fair?

That was specifically what the Founding Fathers wanted. They wished that the states with small populations would have a trump card to play - a little bonus to ensure that their rights would not be crushed by states with large populations and cities.


User currently offlineDeltaMD11 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 1701 posts, RR: 35
Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1497 times:

Ahhh I hear you 11Bravo, your remark above was a bit misleading but I see what you're saying now. However, the population disparity was actually far greater in 1790 than it is now if you analyze it in terms of percentage.

According to the US Census Bureau the population of the United States in 1790 was 3,893,974. The most populous state was indeed Virginia with 747,550 citizens or 19% of the population. The least populous state was Delaware with 59,096 citizens, or 1.5% of the population. This is a 17.5% disparity in population between the most and least populous states.

The population of the United States in 2000 was 281,421,906 (I'll stick with the actual census information from 2000 instead of the 2004 projections for fairness). The most populous state was California with 33,871,648 citizens or 12% of the total US population. The least populous state, Wyoming, had 443,783 residents or .16% of the population. This is a 11.84% disparity. One could make the case that the U.S. is better off percentage wise in terms of population today than in 1790. Even though the numbers seem far greater, percentage wise we're doing better off.

Arguably I see your point however as the US is more populous as a whole than any of the founders probably imagined at the time. Interesting how it all plays out though.



Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20393 posts, RR: 62
Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1496 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 16):
It would need a constitutional amendment, that's all.

We did that once already with the Twelfth Amendment. It clarified the role of the Electoral College.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21515 posts, RR: 55
Reply 23, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1488 times:

Quoting DeltaMD11 (Reply 14):
I want to say Nebraska and Maine are the two states, but I'm not positive.

I think you're right. Colorado was also considering the same thing, but didn't implement it for 2004.

I think the electoral college is fundamentally a good idea, but should be tweaked in the following ways:

1) Electors have to vote according to the votes of the people. Right now there is no provision for that in many states, and while I don't believe it's happened in the past, I don't see any reason to leave the door open for it to happen in the future.

2) Get rid of the winner-take-all system, as MattD says. Just out of interest, here is how the 2004 election might have gone without it:

AL: Bush 6, Kerry 3 (63%/37% with 9 electoral votes)
AK: Bush 2, Kerry 1 (61%/36% with 3 electoral votes)
AZ: Bush 6, Kerry 4 (55%/44% with 10 electoral votes)
AR: Bush 3, Kerry 3 (54%/45% with 6 electoral votes)
CA: Bush 25, Kerry 30 (45%/54% with 55 electoral votes)
CO: Bush 5, Kerry 4 (52%/47% with 9 electoral votes)
CT: Bush 3, Kerry 4 (44%/54% with 7 electoral votes)
DC: Bush 0, Kerry 3 (9%/90% with 3 electoral votes)
DE: Bush 1, Kerry 2 (46%/53% with 3 electoral votes)
FL: Bush 14, Kerry 13 (52%/47% with 27 electoral votes)
GA: Bush 9, Kerry 6 (58%/41% with 15 electoral votes)
HI: Bush 2, Kerry 2 (45%/54% with 4 electoral votes)
ID: Bush 3, Kerry 1 (69%/30% with 4 electoral votes)
IL: Bush 9, Kerry 12 (44%/55% with 21 electoral votes)
IN: Bush 7, Kerry 4 (60%/39% with 11 electoral votes)
IA: Bush 4, Kerry 3 (50%/49% with 7 electoral votes)
KS: Bush 4, Kerry 2 (62%/37% with 6 electoral votes)
KY: Bush 5, Kerry 3 (60%/40% with 8 electoral votes)
LA: Bush 5, Kerry 4 (57%/42% with 9 electoral votes)
ME: Bush 2, Kerry 2 (54%/45% with 4 electoral votes)
MD: Bush 4, Kerry 6 (43%/56% with 10 electoral votes)
MA: Bush 5, Kerry 7 (37%/62% with 12 electoral votes)
MI: Bush 8, Kerry 9 (48%/51% with 17 electoral votes)
MN: Bush 5, Kerry 5 (48%/51% with 10 electoral votes)
MS: Bush 4, Kerry 2 (60%/40% with 6 electoral votes)
MO: Bush 6, Kerry 5 (53%/46% with 11 electoral votes)
MT: Bush 2, Kerry 1 (59%/39% with 3 electoral votes)
NE: Bush 3, Kerry 2 (66%/33% with 5 electoral votes)
NV: Bush 3, Kerry 2 (51%/48% with 5 electoral votes)
NH: Bush 2, Kerry 2 (50%/49% with 4 electoral votes)
NJ: Bush 7, Kerry 8 (46%/53% with 15 electoral votes)
NM: Bush 3, Kerry 2 (50%/49% with 5 electoral votes)
NY: Bush 13, Kerry 18 (40%/59% with 31 electoral votes)
NC: Bush 8, Kerry 7 (56%/44% with 15 electoral votes)
ND: Bush 2, Kerry 1 (63%/36% with 3 electoral votes)
OH: Bush 10, Kerry 10 (51%/49% with 20 electoral votes)
OK: Bush 5, Kerry 2 (66%/34% with 7 electoral votes)
OR: Bush 3, Kerry 4 (48%/52% with 7 electoral votes)
PA: Bush 10, Kerry 11 (49%/51% with 21 electoral votes)
RI: Bush 2, Kerry 2 (60%/39% with 4 electoral votes)
SC: Bush 5, Kerry 3 (58%/41% with 8 electoral votes)
SD: Bush 2, Kerry 1 (60%/39% with 3 electoral votes)
TN: Bush 6, Kerry 5 (57%/43% with 11 electoral votes)
TX: Bush 21, Kerry 13 (61%/38% with 34 electoral votes)
UT: Bush 4, Kerry 1 (72%/26% with 5 electoral votes)
VT: Bush 1, Kerry 2 (39%/59% with 3 electoral votes)
VA: Bush 7, Kerry 6 (54%/46% with 13 electoral votes)
WA: Bush 5, Kerry 6 (46%/53% with 11 electoral votes)
WV: Bush 3, Kerry 2 (56%/43% with 5 electoral votes)
WI: Bush 5, Kerry 5 (49%/50% with 10 electoral votes)
WY: Bush 2, Kerry 1 (69%/29% with 3 electoral votes)

Totals: Bush 281, Kerry 257
The Way It Was: Bush 286, Kerry 252

So a slightly closer election without winner-take-all, but still the same result.

3) Standardize polling. Use one type of machine that prints a reciept. No more punchcards in one county and scanners in the next. It's a federal election, the federal government needs to run it. And the manufacturers of the machines can't be associated with the candidates.

Other than that, no major problems with the system.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20393 posts, RR: 62
Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1482 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 23):
Electors have to vote according to the votes of the people. Right now there is no provision for that in many states, and while I don't believe it's happened in the past

It's happened plenty of times:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College#Faithless_electors



International Homo of Mystery
25 Falcon84 : You can drop that idea. What happened to the conservative mantra, Charles, of the local and state having its own autonomy? Count LOCAL elections in W
26 11Bravo : You’re comparing the state populations to the population of the whole country. To compare the states with each other, you have to calculate a ratio
27 B757300 : A better way is how Maine and Nebraska do it which is by Congressional District. Whichever candidate gets the most votes in that district wins the el
28 AeroWesty : No, it's not a yes and no. How a president is elected is currently governed by the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, and affirmed by the USSCt in R
29 DeltaMD11 : Yes but when it comes down to it 11Bravo you have a set of 435 electoral votes of which are distributed based on current population figures. Agreed th
30 Post contains images TedTAce : Ignoring above for timing it's Thousands upon thousands of voters were disenfranchised by 8+ hour waits to vote. Not to mention how screwed this two p
31 Searpqx : The Constitution limits it no more than one for every 30,000. Actually the figure of 435 is based on a law passed by congress in 1911. The size of th
32 DeltaMD11 : So whats your point? Back then a Constituency of 10,000 was absolutely huge, compared to what 10,000 is today. And yes, the Constitution in Article 1
33 Post contains images Searpqx : Cool your jets their young'un - didn't mean to get you all riled up. . . Actually I'll admit that I wasn't really making a point, I'm bored and this i
34 Post contains images DeltaMD11 : Oh I'm cool man, I think I just had too much coffee this evening. Studying for an International Relations midterm....no harm meant.
35 Boeing7E7 : Actually they did. They also knew that a direct vote by a certain percentage of people in the overall population (see Florida) who can't find their a
36 Post contains images StevenUhl777 : This idea, or the one that goes by Congressional district, would be ideal. I voted for Bush in Washington, but in the end, it didn't make a lick of d
37 Jush : Thank y'all for your answers. That was really interesting to read. Learned some new facts to. Actually California has almost half the population of en
38 B744F : That depends. Currently, each state can do the picking any way they want. So if each state got rid of the winner take all system and instead used a p
39 Cfalk : That's one of the biggest issues today, I think. A person is not allowed to donate more than $100 or $1000 or something like that to a candidate, but
40 B744F : I think thats hilarous how you choose to pick out one person who happens to fund the DNC when it is the Republicans who are masters at that financing.
41 Psa53 : The system is just fine.It's the media that needs fixing, who were very cautious in calling anything in 2004,one party or another,because of the prev
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Real US Presidential Election Winner! posted Sun Nov 21 2004 15:12:31 by GKirk
Winner Of US Presidential Election In Nov. posted Sun Mar 14 2004 14:35:54 by SK901
If The US Presidential Election Were Today... posted Sat Nov 15 2003 16:50:13 by LHMark
The 2008 US Presidential Election posted Wed Jun 11 2003 05:38:56 by I LOVE EWR
Korean Presidential Election 02: Big Blow To US posted Thu Dec 19 2002 19:48:22 by Bigo747
The Official Mexican Presidential Election Thread. posted Sat Jul 1 2006 04:54:26 by SFOMEX
For Whom Will You Vote In Next Us Pres. Election? posted Fri Apr 7 2006 03:19:22 by DL021
Fienstein: "Newsom Cost Us The Election" posted Sun Nov 7 2004 21:30:48 by ConcordeBoy
Voted In My First Presidential Election posted Sun Oct 3 2004 02:16:04 by Jcs17
Official US 2004 Election Election Thread! posted Tue Aug 10 2004 07:00:58 by QIguy24