|
| T O P I C | |
|
Just sit and read... Quietly.
December 8th 2000, 10:59 CET by Andy Man sues porn site after wanking too hard... Well no, not really, but it's bound to happen sooner or later. For now, though, we'll have to make do with a touch of American legal culture arriving in Britain's schools. According to a report in the Times Educational Supplement, primary schools are banning traditional playground games due to fears of being sued. The games being banned include conkers (now classed as "offensive weapons"), rounders, British bulldog, three-legged races and skipping (because girls may fall over and hurt themselves). Bizarrely, football is also set to be banned, having been deemed "anti-social". A survey found that 57% of parents would seek compensation if their child was injured at school. One headmaster quoted in the report said he would prefer to "ban all playtimes, as they are a nightmare". The report's author, a University researcher who studied the breaktime activities of 1,000 children, concluded that playgrounds are becoming "barren, sterile and unimaginative". Hopefully we'll soon be back to the days when kids have nothing better to do than bully each other, get into fights and talk to the guy at the gate handing out free cigarettes. Much healthier than football. |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: Just sit and read... Quietly.
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
|
<b><u>ChrisJohnson</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#40</b>, babbled the following: <quote>Whoever wins it stole it.</quote> Not true. Bush has not ever been in the position of having lost the election. He has had nothing to 'steal' because he won the election in the first place, the second place, the third place, the fourth against the law but ordered by the court anyway place. And he is most likely going to win in the fifth place, if the court has its way and the legislature steps in. Which is really what needed to happen in the first place. <b><u>ChrisJohnson</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#40</b>, babbled the following: <quote>We had an almost EXACT copy of the current situation happen in the 1860s (I think... anyone have a date?) where people argued what should and shouldn't be counted, etc etc etc, and everything seemed to have turned out okay. (And remember: all the legal jockeying is completely allowed under the structure of the laws... it either is or isn't abuse of the laws... but in any event, it's using them to their fullest. By both parties, no matter what one party or the next would want the sheep to believe.) </quote> It was in 1876, when Hayes was elected. And the situation was not the same, except in the sense that the political climate was the same - the country was seriously divided regarding a variety of issues, the most pressing of which was Reconstruction in the South. Brief history <a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101175.html">here </a> You'll notice that the courts were not involved to the same degree. The issue was the canvassing boards in the contested states. It does not say in the article, but IIRC Hayes was not finally sworn in until well after the Jan 20th date due to the amount of time taken by the electoral commission. While legal wrangling is allowable under the law, one of the issues in Florida is "What is the law, and who has the authority here?" If you follow both the US and Florida Constitutions, that law is decided and under the authority of the Legislature. The courts have no authoriuty in the procedure of the election. The courts are involved in the cases of protested and contested elections, but the administration of that election resides with the canvassing boards under the authority of the Legislature. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<quote>because he won the election in the first place, the second place, the third place, the fourth against the law but ordered by the court anyway place. </quote> You usually make a habit of quoting highly biased sound bites in order to make a highly biased point? Just wondering. ;) Sorry, but I don't buy it. I mean if he really had won it without any sort of question, then: There wouldn't be the question of popular vote vs. electoral vote discrepancies. There wouldn't be seemingly true allegations of Republican vote fraud in the case of illegally filled-in absentee ballots by Republican party workers. There wouldn't be the need for the Secretary of State to deny the counting officials of whichever county the extra hour and a half in order to get their balloting numbers in (which she acknowledged that she knew they would need, but refused to allow it anyways, and then simultaneously trumpeting the cause of "making sure every vote is counted"), even though the actual deadline wasn't until 9 oclock the next morning. There wouldn't be the need to question the Secretary of Sate herself. I mean can someone who is the fucking co-chair of the Bush campaign really be expected to be the slightest bit impartial? Of course not. She's a Party faithful, and played her role as such perfectly. She should have recused herself from the process immediately... if she actually had any intent to be fair to the system. There wouldn't be the need for the Bush campaign to talk about how the legal system shouldn't be brought in -- and then counter-sue every step of the way. (including an interesting turn when one of his own people admitted that manual recounts were necessary...) There wouldn't be the need for Guv'nuh Dubya to proclaim during the campaign how he trusts the states and the citizens to run things correctly -- and then argue that they can't be trusted to be able to count. There wouldn't be the need for the Governor to blast and proclaim the manual recount process as flawed and illegal -- even though he passed a law in Texas saying that in a case like this manual recounts are needed and required. Am I saying that Gore won? No. Am I saying he is without fault? Oh hell fuck no. But I know for a fucking fact that Dubya didn't come anywhere near "winning" this election. If he did, none of this would be happeneing, and he wouldn't be so damn worried as to have everything happen as it has. He's as much of a hypocrite as Gore is. He has as much right to the Presidency as Gore does. Either man wins, the air of illegitimacy will follow their admiinistrations around like so much stink on a week-old corpse. It's just a damn shame that the non-thinking Party-loving sheep are so willing to swallow the PR flap they pump out like sweet candy, rather than the bitter pill it is. |
|
On 12/11/00 at 5:49:45 PM, ChrisJohnson opened his/her mouth and said (#43): <quote>There wouldn't be seemingly true allegations of Republican vote fraud in the case of illegally filled-in absentee ballots by Republican party workers. </quote> This really grates on me. There have been <i><b>no</b></i>, I repeat, <i><b>no</b></i> allegations of Republicans illegally filling absentee ballots. The incident you're referring to happened like this: Republicans made a mistake on postcards they send to votes for them to request absentee ballots; their printing process didn't put the line for <i>voter id</i> on the card. Some voters didn't put in their numbers, cause they didn't know they needed it. Then, the Republicans realized the problem, and filled in the voter ID on some of those cards. They are <b><i>not</i></b>, I repeat, <i><b>not</b></i> the ballots. *grr* I really wish people got these things right. -- It cultivates the mind, the spirit and the soul. And we must always cultivate the soul.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
I just think it's hilarious that people still refer to America as the greatest democracy on Earth, when they don't even have a system to handle stalemates such as this. And it is a stalemate, make no mistake. The preferential system that szcx refers to isn't just an Australian thing, many European countries also have it. Under the Irish system (I don't know how the Australian one works), a voter has three votes which he casts in order of preference - number one vote goes to his preferred choice, number to his next choice etc. In the event where there is no clear winner (taking into account that you vote for your local party member, not the party leader), parties can transfer votes and form a coalition government. This is something that is the most stupid of all. What possible reason is there against a teenage boy seeing a naked women? What is it? Please enlighten me here. It's not so much naked women as naked women engaging in lewd acts with naked men/other women/inanimate objects. I wouldn't have any real concerns about my young teenage son looking at a Page 3 model (I don't actually have one, this is hypothetical), but I would be concerned about him looking at hardcore MMF hi-quality porn on the internet. deadlock |
|
Actually, I want to add that I'd be worried if a teenage boy wasn't displaying a healty interest in naked women. deadlock |
|
<quote>This really grates on me. There have been no, I repeat, no allegations of Republicans illegally filling absentee ballots. The incident you're referring to happened like this: Republicans made a mistake on postcards they send to votes for them to request absentee ballots; their printing process didn't put the line for voter id on the card. Some voters didn't put in their numbers, cause they didn't know they needed it. Then, the Republicans realized the problem, and filled in the voter ID on some of those cards. They are not, I repeat, not the ballots.</quote> Okay then. Either I understood the story wrong, or it was misreported when I heard/read/whatever about it. (or quite possibly, I've become so disinterested, I only paid attnetion partway... lord knows it's happened before) Regardless, the ultimate complaint is that preferential treatment was made <b>along party lines</b> allowing a situation where as a disparity occured (or had the potential to occur) as a result. Which is very much similar to the "stealing" of the Illinois vote during the Kennedy electionthat is so heavily argued about to this day, especially when examined in line with the the other allegations. |
|
On 12/11/00 at 7:13:08 PM, ChrisJohnson opened his/her mouth and said (#47): <quote>Regardless, the ultimate complaint is that preferential treatment was made <B>along party lines</B> allowing a situation where as a disparity occured (or had the potential to occur) as a result. </quote> True, it was. However, consider that the Democrats had neither the problem itself (their voter ID field did not cause problems like the Republicans did) nor did they ask to do it. The Republicans asked if they could fix those cards that lacked the voter ID field, they were not contacted and offered the ability to do so. Even then, a large number were denied due to, among other things (I think), incomplete/incorrect fields. -- It cultivates the mind, the spirit and the soul. And we must always cultivate the soul.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>#45</b> "deadlock" wrote... <quote>I just think it's hilarious that people still refer to America as the greatest democracy on Earth, when they don't even have a system to handle stalemates such as this. And it is a stalemate, make no mistake. The preferential system that szcx refers to isn't just an Australian thing, many European countries also have it. Under the Irish system (I don't know how the Australian one works), a voter has three votes which he casts in order of preference - number one vote goes to his preferred choice, number to his next choice etc. In the event where there is no clear winner (taking into account that you vote for your local party member, not the party leader), parties can transfer votes and form a coalition government. [...] deadlock</quote> There is no stalemate. The system is not broken. We will have a Presidental Elect. There will be no civil war or any other ludicris bullshit. The system we have was designed well enough to take care of this. Its in our constituition. Its amazing the amount of misinformation spread around by stupid people these days. Ever wonder why we are a repersenative democracy? Because some people are too stupid to vote thats why. The dumb and corrupt insist on spreading misinformation and bending every issue around to their benefit. I don't see how you could have paid any intention to the issue at all and think there was voter fraud. But yet we still have people insisting that the Republican were tampering with the votes (as has already been discussed). There haven't been any alegations of the sort. All you had to do was read the next sentence of the newspaper and its self evident. "Ohh but we must count the votes, those Evil Replicans" is a mantra spouted by every Democrat, <b>idiot</b> CNN can dig out of the gutters to put on thier show. People actually think that they are talking about counting "votes" as in I, a reasonable person (not mentally retarded), cast a vote and the Republicans refuse count it cause it will hurt thier man. Bull Shit. Discusting, unethical, Bullshit. Thank god, we have a US Supreme Court who actually care about the law and "Americans" more than they do about politics. The "crisis" America is going through sells magazines, newpapers, and air time and thats about the extent of it. As disgusted as I get about the bastards they parade on TV and the "general public" idiocies that insist on crawling out of the wood work, I'm glad that someone hundreds of years ago was intelligent enough to look out for my well being now. V BTW: I am in neither party. My views are central on most issues. This is just one time I think the Republicans are in the right. Not necessarily with all thier rehetoric, but with the facts at hand and the logical conclusions they (most of them) have reached from them. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>#48</b> "Kitrack" wrote... <quote>On 12/11/00 at 7:13:08 PM, ChrisJohnson opened his/her mouth and said (#47): <quote>Regardless, the ultimate complaint is that preferential treatment was made <B>along party lines</B> allowing a situation where as a disparity occured (or had the potential to occur) as a result. </quote> True, it was. However, consider that the Democrats had neither the problem itself (their voter ID field did not cause problems like the Republicans did) nor did they ask to do it. The Republicans asked if they could fix those cards that lacked the voter ID field, they were not contacted and offered the ability to do so. Even then, a large number were denied due to, among other things (I think), incomplete/incorrect fields. -- It cultivates the mind, the spirit and the soul. And we must always cultivate the soul.</quote> Exactly! The Democrates used a different company for printing, thats why they didn't have a problem. The Republicans were correcting mistakes made by thier printer (company), and had permission to do so. No one ever said they touched the applications themselves. But that doesn't get the idiots (Democrat protestors) all uptight or boost your ratings. V<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>deadlock</b> (#45): <quote>I just think it's hilarious that people still refer to America as the greatest democracy on Earth, when they don't even have a system to handle stalemates such as this. And it is a stalemate, make no mistake. The preferential system that szcx refers to isn't just an Australian thing, many European countries also have it. Under the Irish system (I don't know how the Australian one works), a voter has three votes which he casts in order of preference - number one vote goes to his preferred choice, number to his next choice etc. In the event where there is no clear winner (taking into account that you vote for your local party member, not the party leader), parties can transfer votes and form a coalition government.</quote> And that's just how the electorial collage votes (two votes each first and second choice, first choice for pres., second highest gets VP). This populer vote shit just confuses the hell out of people since it doesn't exist. Adding up the state populer vote total is nothing more the a stupid media thing. The states could pick the names out of a fliping hat if they felt like it. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<quote>The states could pick the names out of a fliping hat if they felt like it. </quote> Well some can. Some of the states (a slim majority, I believe) require the electors to reflect the wishes of the populace as put forth in their popular vote. Other states, well, don't. So the popular vote can mean something, depending on the state where that votes i cast. |
|
<b>ChrisJohnson</b> (#52): <quote>Well some can. Some of the states (a slim majority, I believe) require the electors to reflect the wishes of the populace as put forth in their popular vote. Other states, well, don't. So the popular vote can mean something, depending on the state where that votes i cast.</quote> Well yes, but the state laws/constitution could be writen or amended to allow for the hat meathod. However that doesn't matter much since I was primaraly talking about the national populer vote number (which are made up media crap). It's getting a bit annoying seeing all these clames that the system needs to be fixed so that the populer vote winner always wins, that's not how it works the national number are added totals from each state nothing more (and should have no relationship to the winner at all).<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
There's nothing particularly creepy or unnatural about the American system of democracy, though it is misunderstood. And it's misunderstood because Americans usually aren't very well educated about democratic political theory, and very few take it on themselves to read the US Constitution or make themselves familiar with the political process in general. And that's fine. It is in fact the way our nation was designed to work. It's the happy medium between the constant political participation required by the political philosophy of Rousseau and the fuck-it-cos-it's-all-shit-anyways political nihilism of Hobbes, one which balances rights and majorities by the process of electing representatives. It encourages non-participation - you only have to pay any attention at all to politics once every couple of years. The people who start prattling about how this leads to lies and deception are really complaining that they aren't carefully spoon-fed the truth. So don't babble overmuch about how incomprehensibly stupid American government is when you don't comprehend it. |
|
Let's get something straight here before we preach about Gore's popular vote win. Gore wants the under vote counted right? There's over 1 million under votes nation wide. Maybe even 2 million, I forget the exact number. Anyway, Gore's popular vote lead is under 300,000. Gore *may* have not won the popular vote if we counted every single vote as he suggests we do in Florida. Also, there was 5 states with very close races, like Florida. One was won by Bush, it was New Hampshire. Gore could have contested that race and if he won, even if Bush got Florida, he couldn't get 270 electoral votes. Gore choose not to do that because New Hampshire probably doesn't have a liberal activist court that'll ignore the law. The other 4 states were barely won by Gore and could have been over turned if Bush, like Gore, made a big stink until every vote was counted. He may have not needed Florida either(I forget the states so I can't check their number of votes) but Bush choose not to because it does have a negative effect on the nation and he had already won. Yes Gore won the popular vote in the sense that Bush won Flordida...the <b>legal</b> way. You see, there's laws set up to stop people from taking advantage of ballots. We have equality laws. You can't say one ballot is acceptable in one area and not another. That's not fair. There's federal laws that stop the states from changing the law after the election, like Gore wants. It should be pretty obvious why we have laws like this. It's fair because you can't talior to the laws to get yourself a win. Florida, for years said dimpled ballots do not count. There's reason for that, the dimples aren't always put there by the person and the person may dimple a ballot while making a decision but changing his mind later not to vote for the person. So a mark is there but he did not choose the canidate. Also, a black woman who just happens to be a republican lost a race in Florida this September. She lost by 11 vote. The Palm Beach canvasing board said the lead wasn't low enough. They said the difference must be in the single digits in order to get a hand recount. What a suprise that they changed their minds about recounts and dimples when it comes to a democrat but they stick to the law when it comes to republicans. This is why the law is set up the way it is. So you can screw someone over. Sure Gore may have won Florida if we counted votes that the rest of the nation didn't count and Florida never counted before but then again maybe Bush truly won the popular vote and those 4 states with tight races. There's alot of "what if" statements you can cmoe with. Luckly our laws are setup so they don't matter and keep it <b>fair and equal</b> for everyone. What I also find funny is Jesse Jackson is trying his damnedest to make this a race issue. He even said if Bush won, it'll be by Nazi tactics. So he's saying the Constitution is the work of Nazis, basically, because it's teh constitution that's on Bush's side. Also, where was he when the black woman lost by 11 votes and didn't get a recount? Jesse Jackson is a liberal scumbag. There's no way around it, he doesn't care about equality one bit. In matter of fact, where was Jesse Jackson when his own son was complaining about the airports? Mr.Jackson's son, along with a bunch of other people were bitching about our airports, hoping Clinton would do something. Jackson choose to stand by Clinton, not his own son. A few days ago Clinton finally acknowledged we have a problem. Rather than fixing the problem with the current department of transportation, he came up with a new committee, which of course will be funded with new tax money and of course the dept. of transportation will still get tax money as well, even if it is "broke". You should hope Bush wins and be thankful because it means the laws that we've used for years are being held up despite the fact partisian people want to change it to benefit themselves and it also means the nation was treated equally and isn't that what we all want, equality? Sure it was a close race but that's because both canidates are below average. That's no reason to destory our laws and all the work we did to get equality.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
BTW, we need the electoral college. Well, let me rephrase that, minorities need the electoral college. Minority voters make up 10% of the total voters. Without the electoral college, someone could possibly win with a campaign where he promises to kick minorities out of the country. Assuming enough white voters didn't care. The minority vote is worthless without the electoral college. But with the electoral college, it's impossible to win some states without the minority vote. So a black man's vote is worth somethig under the current system. It's worthless under a popular vote system. Also, the majority of the country can also be ignored with a popular vote system which means the election will really be won by a few states, like New York, California and Washington. Do you think Gore and Bush would go to Ohio or Pennsylvania or a bunch of other smaller states if we had a popular vote system? They'd pretty much be in New York and California. Which brings up another problem. In New York, democrats out number republicans by a huge margin, something like 2 to 1(maybe even more) and it's like that in alot of heavily populate areas which gives one party a huge, huge advantage and hurts 3rd parties even more. The electoral college is the best thing for people that are in the minority, whether it's by race, party affiliation, etc. Hillary Clinton shows how much a clueless turd she is when she suggests that we get rid of the electoral college. I'm just glad I don't live in New York. :) <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
Just a few points .... On 12/12/00 at 1:48:05 AM, toadwarrior opened his/her mouth and said (#55): <quote>Jesse Jackson is a liberal scumbag. </quote> I don't think he's a liberal scumbag. He's a powermongering scumbag, and his political orientation is irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned. <quote>he came up with a new committee, </quote> Don't you know? That's what democrats do! Their goal is universal employment by having everyone work for the government. *grin* -- It cultivates the mind, the spirit and the soul. And we must always cultivate the soul.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
Lies lies lies. The electoral college favors minorities if and only if the minorities happen to coalesce within particular states. It actually gives more power to little states - i.e. a single voter's power in a little state counts for more than another single voter in a big state. So the electoral college actually does dick for racial or ethnic minorities unless you're worried about the Pennsylvania Dutch. It's apathy that does the most for minorities. American democracy operates by intentionally playing sides off each other - it's the only way to ensure that the intensity of a voter's preferences are accounted for. Think about it for a little while; if nothing comes to mind I'll explain it to you. |
|
So you think it's better than the little states mean absolutely nothing? Because that's pretty much what they'll be worth if we go solely by the popular vote. Of course in a race with to below average canidates, like this, they may mean something but 99.9% the time, there'd be no reason to bother with them. I fail to see how that would be better. No one's saying every single minorities vote will be a make or break vote but in some states it certainly will be. Under both systems, the one black family in Iowa has on real effect on the outcome of the election. :) It's better to get as many minority votes to actually effect an outcome of the election rather than make all of them meaningless. Sure there's more minorities in California than Pennsylvania but California also has the most electoral votes and gets alot of, if not the most, attention. The minorities in Pennsylvania(yes there are blacks, orientals, mexicans there) can have a chance to making or breaking a guys vicotory in that state and perhaps the whole election. That's better than there vote not meaning anything. BTW, I don't think the PA Dutch can vote. Atleast they better not since they don't pay near the amount of taxes that the rest of us do and they don't fight in our wars.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>#55</b> "toadwarrior" wrote... <quote>Gore choose not to do that because New Hampshire probably doesn't have a liberal activist court that'll ignore the law. </quote> Wow, have you been talking to him? Where did you information come from? I know, I bet he said that in some interview. Do you know where I can read about it? There's no way for you to know that. While that answer fits your bias (don't deny it, everyone has one) the reason could just as easily have been that he didn't figure that recounting in New Hampshire would change who won, because Bush really did receive more votes. On the other hand, Gore might have felt that in Florida he received more votes, and that a full counting would show that he had won in Florida, not Bush. You can't know his motivations. Quit spreading untruths like that. Say it's your opinion, but don't present it as fact - because it's not. <b>#55</b> "toadwarrior" wrote... <quote>The other 4 states were barely won by Gore and could have been over turned if Bush, like Gore, made a big stink until every vote was counted. He may have not needed Florida either(I forget the states so I can't check their number of votes) but Bush choose not to because it does have a negative effect on the nation and he had already won</quote> Bush had not already won. No one has won until the US congress certifies the election results. He can't even claim to have more electoral votes, because the electors haven't cast their ballots yet. And so far no one has stolen this election, or even tried to. Both sides have their interpretation of how the election should be run, and are attempting to use the full, legal power of all three branches of government to make sure the laws are interpreted in a way that benefits them. Slightly sleazy, possibly. Illeagal, no. If you have a problem with judicial review, that's another issue altogether. -Whisp<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
Whisp! Bad Whisp! How dare you challenge the blind following capabilities of the Party faithful with such things as logic and facts??!!?? ;) |
|
<b>toadwarrior</b> (#55): <quote>Let's get something straight here before we preach about Gore's popular vote win. </quote> That's just it no body won the national populer vote, because those numbers are BS generated by the media as nothing but an early indicator of who will win (pointless now that the media adds up elecotrial votes based on the 48 states that have all or nothing laws). <b>toadwarrior</b> (#55): <quote>What I also find funny is Jesse Jackson is trying his damnedest to make this a race issue. He even said if Bush won, it'll be by Nazi tactics. </quote> You really should read some of the facts around some of those tactics, they're funny as hell. According to Jackson there where two roadblock setup to check ids vefore voting, the facts are both roadblocks had nothing to do with voting (one as an emitions check point, the other setup after a robery took place). He also clames black voters where put down because of the odd ballets, never bothering to tell any one that the NAACP's get out the vote effort resulted in a 65% incress in voter turn out among blacks (many of them first time voters, who on average have a nigher misstake rate then long time voters). Of course all the race things have been said so the facts no longer count (I'm willing to bet in the next election minority turn out will be much lower then this year because of Jackson's crap). toad I knotice you said some stuff about other close states being fucked up, take a look at this little tib bit from the Kendallville News-Sun http://kpcnews.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2000/December/04-473-opinion3.txt Good thing Indianna wasn't a close state. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
Re Toadwarrior: So you think it's better than the little states mean absolutely nothing? Because that's pretty much what they'll be worth if we go solely by the popular vote. Of course in a race with to below average canidates, like this, they may mean something but 99.9% the time, there'd be no reason to bother with them. I fail to see how that would be better. You total fucking moron. Going solely by the popular vote means that every state and every vote in every state genuinely counts. Gore swept the Eastern Seaboard - look at the election return maps. If the president were determined by "square acres with a majority vote for candidate X" Bush would have far and away been the victor. It was the overimportance of small states and the all-or-nothing electoral college system operating in large diverse states that gave Gore the (ostensible) electoral college lead. Do you even know the history of the electoral college? No, of course not. Here's a quick lesson: it was installed so that The Clueless Masses couldn't win out over the Whims Of The Whigs. Madisonian democracy in general is obsessed with keeping power out of the hands of The Clueless Masses - relatively sound policy in colonial America, but much less so today when public education allows something like 85%-90% adult literacy. Without the all-or-nothing electoral college there would be no reason to concentrate campaigning in very large states, because each voter's vote actually does count. In some states they've hit upon a reasonable compromise: splitting the electoral college votes. In other words, yes: smaller states should have less "power", because then each voter has the same amount of power. That's populistic democracy - you know, the thing that democracy kind of aspires to be. But don't let your pathetic mewling ignorance get you down, because American government is designed remarkably well to suit both goons and geniuses. |
|
Well looks like Florida has decided to vote for electors, even before knowing if there's going to be a recount required by the Supreme Court. Their argument is that this is in order to make sure the state is counted in the final electoral process. However, if the court decides to make the recount mandatory, then the deadline of the 12th is nullified (which is, much to Republican dismay, perfectly legal). And if the recount IS ordered, then there will be two sets of electors, with the group being used under Florida law being the one certified by te Florida governor. Who just happens to be Dubya's brother. Imagine that. So now, this is no longer an election. It's an orchestrated power grab. Let's hear it for political parties. Whee. And people wonder why I'm an independent. |
|
On 12/12/00 at 4:25:10 PM, ChrisJohnson opened his/her mouth and said (#64): <quote>And if the recount IS ordered, then there will be two sets of electors, with the group being used under Florida law being the one certified by te Florida governor. </quote> That's assuming, of course, that Gore <i>does</i> win the recount. With an election this tight, I wouldn't make a decision until about a week after the result come in. We've seen what happens if we decide in advance who we think won. -- It cultivates the mind, the spirit and the soul. And we must always cultivate the soul.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>kizu</b> (#63): <quote>In other words, yes: smaller states should have less "power", because then each voter has the same amount of power. </quote> Please consider that the US government isn't about protecting the people all the time. The whole point is to protect the states from out side forces and protect the states from each other (and yes protect the people from their state oppresing basic rights). Under that view it's right to allow the states to select the figure head of the government that represents them as a whole (the people still have the right to select the people that make the desisions both localy and in congres). The curent system was setup as a compramise between the two views (US Government protects all people, and US Government protects the states and the states protect the people). <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
Re: [25] WarrenMarshall *beating you to fucking death with sack of wet mice* Hack that. Re: All other posts recently *beating the fuck out of this dead electoral horse* |
|
Going solely by the popular vote means that every state and every vote in every state genuinely counts. Gore swept the Eastern Seaboard - look at the election return maps. If the president were determined by "square acres with a majority vote for candidate X" Bush would have far and away been the victor. It was the overimportance of small states and the all-or-nothing electoral college system operating in large diverse states that gave Gore the (ostensible) electoral college lead. Uhhh.... when people say small states, they mean small states by population, not acres. That's why New York despite being relatively small is such an important state to win, and Alaska despite being the biggest isn't as big of a concern with only 3 votes. Charlie Wiederhold |
|
None1: Don't confuse the federalism/confederatism argument with the completely different argument that spawned the electoral college, an argument that was laid out in intense detail in the Federalist Papers (which I'll be posting shortly.) The electoral college has nothing to do with protecting states from each other. Please to recall who was eligible to vote when all these documents were being drafted, and keep in mind the other big arguments that were going on at time: big states versus little states, Southern states vs. Northern states, industry vs. argiculture, classless society vs. caste society. Charlie: I'm sorry. You must have missed these classes in high school, but the "Eastern Seaboard" is on the side of the country with Boston and New York. There are a lot of LITTLE TINY STATES, some of whom have LITTLE TINY POPULATIONS. Alaska is a big country with a small population, Rhode Island is a little country with an even littler population than Alaska. But RI gets *at least 3 votes guaranteed* - one for their Representative, two for their Senators. There are a lot more people in California, but still only two Senators. The electorate is represented by their entire Congressional delegation, hence the vote of a single voter in RI has more power in terms of elector-representatives than a single vote in CA. Tell me, does the guy in RI really MEAN MORE to the nation? Yet because Gore basically ate the Eastern Seaboard, he managed to corner a market both small in terms of land and population but with disproportionately large political power - his campaign time in those states was spent much more efficiently than his time in California. Meanwhile Bush took lots of big states with smallish-to-medium populations whose political power was not as strong. I was commenting on the incredible dichotomy: how can a guy who ate such a large part of the country still only eat half the votes and less than half, barring Florida, of the electors? |
|
<quote>That's assuming, of course, that Gore does win the recount. With an election this tight, I wouldn't make a decision until about a week after the result come in. We've seen what happens if we decide in advance who we think won.</quote> True enough, and my fault for not stating such. *shrug* The whole thing is kinda like watching a bad car wreck, and the details like that slip my mind. :) |
|
On 12/12/00 at 6:43:06 PM, ChrisJohnson opened his/her mouth and said (#70): <quote>The whole thing is kinda like watching a bad car wreck, and the details like that slip my mind. :)</quote> To be honest, I haven't heard a more apt description. Hope you don't mind if I use it. -- It cultivates the mind, the spirit and the soul. And we must always cultivate the soul.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
kizu, I'm well aware of the east being full of small states with (generally) smaller populations than say California or Texas. BUT, those states compared to the midwest are doing just grand on population. However, you mentioned acerage as if that had any relevance to the electoral voting system. It has zero, so why bring it up? Charlie Wiederhold |
|
I was commenting on the incredible dichotomy: how can a guy who ate such a large part of the country still only eat half the votes and less than half, barring Florida, of the electors? Because farmland can't vote. Charlie Wiederhold |
|
Shut up, Charlie. You make my heart ache. |
|
<quote>To be honest, I haven't heard a more apt description. Hope you don't mind if I use it</quote> Not at all; feel free. The interesting thing about all of this is the coverage as much as anything. We were talking about the news coverage of it all here at work, and how the nightly news always have these intros to the stories like "As the nation waits on pins and needles, the Supreme Court deliberated its decision today..." Pins and needles? Really? Who exactly are they talking about? Because last I noticed, except for discussions like this, most of the people really stopped paying attention about two and a half days into it. The need to sensationalize it and try and make the viewers truly <b>believe</b> that it's so taxing on the average person's mind is near hilarious. Can you imagine what it'd b like if this were were happening during sweeps week? |
|
<quote>Shut up, Charlie. You make my heart ache. </quote> Yeah! No rational thought allowed! It makes baby Jesus cry! |
|
<b>#63</b> "kizu" wrote... <quote> Do you even know the history of the electoral college? No, of course not. Here's a quick lesson: it was installed so that The Clueless Masses couldn't win out over the Whims Of The Whigs. Madisonian democracy in general is obsessed with keeping power out of the hands of The Clueless Masses - relatively sound policy in colonial America, but much less so today when public education allows something like 85%-90% adult literacy. Without the all-or-nothing electoral college there would be no reason to concentrate campaigning in very large states, because each voter's vote actually does count. In some states they've hit upon a reasonable compromise: splitting the electoral college votes. In other words, yes: smaller states should have less "power", because then each voter has the same amount of power. That's populistic democracy - you know, the thing that democracy kind of aspires to be. <A href="http://opensource.planetcrap.com">But don't let your pathetic mewling ignorance get you down</A>, because American government is designed remarkably well to suit both goons and geniuses</quote> Ohh yes, literacy is bar I want for the people who decide my future. But thats hardly the point. Smaller states should not necessarily have less power. Otherwise, the larger states would abuse the smaller ones. We don't aspire to be a "populistic democracy". Not really, otherwise we wouldn't still have the electorial college. The "will of the people" isn't always such a good thing. Its condoned little things like... I don't know.. slavery, genocide, etc. etc. V<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>kizu</b> (#69): <quote>Don't confuse the federalism/confederatism argument with the completely different argument that spawned the electoral college, an argument that was laid out in intense detail in the Federalist Papers (which I'll be <A href="http://opensource.planetcrap.com">posting</A> shortly.) The electoral college has nothing to do with protecting states from each other. Please to recall who was eligible to vote when all these documents were being drafted, and keep in mind the other big arguments that were going on at time: big states versus little states, Southern states vs. Northern states, industry vs. argiculture, classless society vs. caste society. </quote> None of the original reasons applied every a few years after the Federalist Papers where writen. It turned out to be a good thing anyway. Also look at this way the whole point of creating a stronger central government originaly was to prevent the problems caused under the articles of confederation (which was mostly fighting between states). Yes the primary reason where not releated to this, but it does make since that under a government that was setup to protect the states that the states should deside who heads the branch that enforces what the government desides. At one point I was for a direct vote, but the more reading I've done on the other side has changed my mind a great deal. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
"Wow, have you been talking to him? Where did you information come from? I know, I bet he said that in some interview. Do you know where I can read about it? There's no way for you to know that. While that answer fits your bias (don't deny it, everyone has one) the reason could just as easily have been that he didn't figure that recounting in New Hampshire would change who won, because Bush really did receive more votes. On the other hand, Gore might have felt that in Florida he received more votes, and that a full counting would show that he had won in Florida, not Bush. You can't know his motivations. Quit spreading untruths like that. Say it's your opinion, but don't present it as fact - because it's not." It's quite simple. The under vote count is higher than Bushes lead, Gore could win New hampshire. I doubt he would but why risk it? Especially when he's so hell bent on making sure every vote counts(HA!) and it would stop Bush from getting 270. It doesn't matter what Gore thinks he won. There's laws about changing the rules after an election and you can't have different standards in different counties. That violates equal rights laws. Gore lost Florida, it's time the bitch realizes it. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b><u>ChrisJohnson</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#43</b>, babbled the following: <quote>There wouldn't be the question of popular vote vs. electoral vote discrepancies</quote> That is a non-issue here. The fact is that the popular vote means nothing as far as the determination of the Presidency is concerned. If you have not learned that in the last few weeks, then you are just not paying proper attention. The President is elected by the States, not the general populace. It is nice if those two number agree, but the popular vote is not a requirement. But, if you must have a 'majority' of some sort to make you feel better about it, then you can say that the President is elected by the majority of the states. George Bush won a majority of the States. Which brings me back to what my point was (which was not quoted, btw, it was a wholly original statement by me) in the first place. Al Gore has not ever once been elected President, George W. Bush has. Al Gore has never had the Florida majority. He has never been certified the winner of the Florida totals. Both candidates needed to win Florida in order to be presumed the winner. George Bush won Florida, and therefore is the presumed winner. And I am really tired of arguing that point. <b><u>ChrisJohnson</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#43</b>, babbled the following: <quote>There wouldn't be seemingly true allegations of Republican vote fraud in the case of illegally filled-in absentee ballots by Republican party workers. </quote> While there may have been inappropriate action taken by the canvassing boards, they do not constitute voter, either in common sense, or according to Florida Law. The fact that both the trial court, trial precedent, and the Fl. Supreme court agree with that assessment would tend to bear that out. What was decided was that while the actions taken by the Republicans with regards to the<i> applications</i> were not strictly legal, they did not affect the validity of the <i>ballots</i>. Florida precedent allows that if the ballot itself is otherwise admissable, mishandling of the application by the cancassing boards does not invalidate it. That is not voter fraud. <b><u>ChrisJohnson</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#43</b>, babbled the following: <quote>There wouldn't be the need for the Secretary of State to deny the counting officials of whichever county the extra hour and a half in order to get their balloting numbers in (which she acknowledged that she knew they would need, but refused to allow it anyways, and then simultaneously trumpeting the cause of "making sure every vote is counted"), even though the actual deadline wasn't until 9 oclock the next morning. </quote> Agreed, there was no need for her to have done that. But then again, she should not have been forced to accept an extended dealine by the FLSC, who were all the while spouting babble about how they do not interfere in the execution of administrative functions by the appropriately elected public official assigned those duties. She should have certified on the 14th, according to the election law, which she was proscribed to uphold and execute in the first paragraph of the Florida Election Code itself. <b><u>ChrisJohnson</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#43</b>, babbled the following: <quote>There wouldn't be the need to question the Secretary of Sate herself. I mean can someone who is the fucking co-chair of the Bush campaign really be expected to be the slightest bit impartial? </quote> SHe was elected to do a job by the people of Florida. She was doing the job the way to was told to do the job by both the Legislature, and the FLSC - you don't like the result - so apparently she is a hack. Whatever. <b><u>ChrisJohnson</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#43</b>, babbled the following: <quote>There wouldn't be the need for Guv'nuh Dubya to proclaim during the campaign how he trusts the states and the citizens to run things correctly -- and then argue that they can't be trusted to be able to count.</quote> He was not arguing that they could not count. He was arguing that they were not counting under any sort of legally enforcible standard, and that action itself violated the law. The USC agreed with him. <b><u>ChrisJohnson</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#43</b>, babbled the following: <quote>There wouldn't be the need for the Governor to blast and proclaim the manual recount process as flawed and illegal -- even though he passed a law in Texas saying that in a case like this manual recounts are needed and required</quote> Texas law submits a standard. Florida law does not. <b><u>ChrisJohnson</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#43</b>, babbled the following: <quote>But I know for a fucking fact that Dubya didn't come anywhere near "winning" this election. If he did, none of this would be happeneing, and he wouldn't be so damn worried as to have everything happen as it has. </quote> This is all happening because Al Gore could not accept defeat. I will give you something here. AL Gore made a mistake in pursuing this the way he did. Had he allowed Florida to certify on time and then properly submitted a contest to the election, which is allowed under Florida law, he may very well have won it on an overturn. It is possible. What Al Gore did was force the entension of the protest period of the election, until there was no time left for the contest period. Had he gone to contest the election properly, the state would have had time to set standards where required, listen to arguments, decide on arguments, count, recount, verify the recount, go through the appeals process, and come to a conclusion. He might have won. He didn't do it that way, because (IMHO) he did not want to appear to have lost the election in the first place. He dragged us all down this road for appearances sake. Had he come out the other side of a proper contest, I do not doubt that he would have been accepted as the President, however onerous that might have been. BTW, most of the above is based on my interpretation of the court proceedings. You want quotes - read them yourself. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
VeeSpike: I can see where you're coming from on everything except the Secretary of State's involvement. Simply because she is elected doesn't mean she should stay in her position when it's such a blatant conflict of interest. If she's basically the state's number one campaigner for one of the two candidates in question, she reallyshouldn't be incharge of impartiality. Hell, Jeb got out of the situation, she should have done the same. would it have made a difference? Probably not, and I fully acknowledge that, but it would have saved a whole hell of a lot of questionable goings-on and second-guessing. Not that anyone at the 'Crap ever second guesses anything. ;) As for this bit: <quote>He didn't do it that way, because (IMHO) he did not want to appear to have lost the election in the first place</quote> You may very well be right: http://www.cnn.com&story=breaking_news@2423705816/gore.html ;) (Please: note the smiley) |
|
Glad this entire show is over. The simpleton has won. Hurrah for Bush. |
|
Prize for Bob! |
|
What is it about this mindless, repetitive activity that reminds you of me? I don't like that you think about me so often. Dood.
|
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: Just sit and read... Quietly.
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
| P O S T A C O M M E N T |
|
|
| C R A P T A G S | ||||||||
|
|
| There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details] |
Powered by blah 0.9.1-dev •
PlanetCrap is © 1997-2035 Hendrik "Morn" Mans
|