Jeep thing or sheep thing?

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 23:47:51 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
wrote:

>DTJ wrote:
>
>> >So, statistically, the voter with the greatest popular support is harmed
>> >the most.
>>
>> Which was of course Bush, as he had more votes in Florida by every
>> count done, including the original one, the recounts by the state and
>> counties, the recounts by every newspaper, every radio station, every
>> tv station, every journalist.
>
>Now wait a minute, DTJ - Let's be accurate here. I think of the 16
>different ways the votes were counted, Gore did win in one of those, and
>Bush won in the other 15. So *OBVIOUSLY* Gore won the election. What
>were you thinking!? 8^)

Well I did read in the ny times that gore won. They also reported how
the real number of counts to find gore won were more than the
acceptable counts that showed that Bush won.

Note: When a liberal uses phrases like "acceptable counts" he really
means any count that showed al bore won, and anything that showed Bush
won is not acceptable.
 
David Allen wrote:
>
> "Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 'nuther Bob wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 23:15:07 GMT, RickMerrill
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Electoral votes is how the game is played, and for good reasons.
> > >
> > > I'd be interested in knowing what you think the "good reasons"
> > > for the electoral system are. About the only thing the electoral
> > > college does today is make the votes of some voters worth more
> > > than the votes of other voters. Only the political parties (both
> > > of them) have an interest in preserving this unfair, antiquated,
> > > dinosaur of a voting system.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > That may be true or may not be true (it can be argued that there are
> > practical reasons that other, more "fair" ways, would not be do-able -
> > and arguably, in your favor, some of those practical reasons may no
> > longer apply in the modern world). *BUT*, right or wrong, it was the
> > rules of the game (which no one was violently disputing before that
> > election and the bizarre situations that occurred) at the time of that
> > particular election.
> >
> > It's kind of like football rules - some may be stupid (and even change
> > over time), but as long as they are applied to both teams equally during
> > any given game (election), and not pre-meditated to give one team
> > (candidate or party) an unfair advantage, it's disingenuous to argue to
> > change the results of the game after the fact when serious objections
> > weren't raised ahead of time. Maybe the rules will be changed - but
> > only for future "games".
> >
> > Bill Putney
> > (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> > address with "x")
> >
>
> I wouldn't call the electoral college stupid. It recognizes the interest of
> states. If the election was strictly a national popular vote, large
> metropolitan cities would always determine the presidency. That's where
> campaigns would focus and their interests catered to. Note how the
> campaigns of the electoral method focus on "battleground states". These
> states were not necessarily CA or NY or FL. The smaller states of the time
> clearly saw the advantage of the electoral system so they wouldn't get shut
> out and the interests of their populations become irrelevent. Perhaps a
> better sports analogy is golf.
>
> The mere mention of the words "popular vote" is deceptive. There is no
> popular election, so there's no popular vote. Tabulating the aggregate of
> individual state elections is NOT indicitive of a honest to goodness
> national popular vote.

All true. Those of certain political leanings were saying the same
thing before the 2000 election, but they have amnesia about that now.
But to hear them speak about it now, the electoral system is stupid and
needs to be demolished. But as usual, they either suggest nothing to
replace it, or what they would like to do would be worse or totally
impractical (and in future unanticipated situations could actually bite
them in the butts - i.e., cause them to loose an election that they
otherwise would have won under the existing system - then they would be
whining about how much fairer the old electorate system was, ad
infinitum).

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
 
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 00:29:21 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
wrote:


>That may be true or may not be true (it can be argued that there are
>practical reasons that other, more "fair" ways, would not be do-able -
>and arguably, in your favor, some of those practical reasons may no
>longer apply in the modern world).

Give me ONE single reason that the electoral system is more fair than
counting the popular vote.

>*BUT*, right or wrong, it was the
>rules of the game (which no one was violently disputing before that
>election and the bizarre situations that occurred) at the time of that
>particular election.

I don't dispute that fact. I dispute the assertion that there
are "good reasons" for the electoral college.
>
>Maybe the rules will be changed - but
>only for future "games".

Don't bet on it. The parties have a vested interest in the system.
We're long past the days where many politicians do things because
they're "right".

If George Bush wanted to win the next election hands down, he
could have come out in force and pushed a constitutional amendment
to abolish the electoral college. The resulting popular appeal
would push his popularity to new heights. But, he didn't have
the nuggies or the smarts, and now he doesn't have the time.

Bob
 
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 04:36:18 GMT, "David Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>Maybe I'm using the wrong search engine, but I can't find any ruling
>indicating the butterfly ballot is illegal.

Perhaps you are. Find the statute. Florida law requires that the
circle be TO THE RIGHT of the candidates name. It also requires
that candidates be listed on the ballot with the candidates who
received the most votes in the primaries. The ballot clearly
failed the first test.

>The standard of illegality is only significant if the design prevents the
>voter from voting properly. The butterfly didn't.

You're ignoring the facts. The ballot caused a statistically
incredible number of double punched ballots. Statistics also easily
showed that votes intended for Gore were accidentally cast for
Buchanan. A statistical comparison of the Buchanan vote in the
districts which were heavily over 65 and Democratic showed that
Gore would have gained over 6000 votes if the ballots had been
cast correctly. (I suppose you want to believe that Buchanan
actually received those votes).

Bob
 
'nuther Bob wrote:

>
>
> You're ignoring the facts. The ballot caused a statistically
> incredible number of double punched ballots. Statistics also easily
> showed that votes intended for Gore were accidentally cast for
> Buchanan. A statistical comparison of the Buchanan vote in the
> districts which were heavily over 65 and Democratic showed that
> Gore would have gained over 6000 votes if the ballots had been
> cast correctly. (I suppose you want to believe that Buchanan
> actually received those votes).
>
> Bob

You mean the old South Florida Jews really didn't vote for Buchanan? I'm
shocked :)

 
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 04:52:24 GMT, "David Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>I wouldn't call the electoral college stupid. It recognizes the interest of
>states. If the election was strictly a national popular vote, large
>metropolitan cities would always determine the presidency. That's where
>campaigns would focus and their interests catered to. Note how the
>campaigns of the electoral method focus on "battleground states". These
>states were not necessarily CA or NY or FL. The smaller states of the time
>clearly saw the advantage of the electoral system so they wouldn't get shut
>out and the interests of their populations become irrelevent.

That's nonsense - you are arguing both sides of the same issue. Using
the popular vote would insure that *every* citizens vote would count
as much as every other citizen. Obviously the politicians would
concentrate on the more populated areas as they do now. That's
irrelevant. What is relevant is ONE vote PER VOTER. With the current
system, votes in certain states are worth more, other states less.

>The mere mention of the words "popular vote" is deceptive. There is no
>popular election, so there's no popular vote. Tabulating the aggregate of
>individual state elections is NOT indicitive of a honest to goodness
>national popular vote.

Huh ?

Bob

 
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 05:54:47 GMT, DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:


>al bore made sure everyone saw the ballot. It was even on the news in
>China.
>
>He lost, get ****ing over it.

You're quite a linguist and no doubt an intellectual as well.

Bob
 
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 08:59:20 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
wrote:

>But as usual, they either suggest nothing to
>replace it,

Tally the votes across the country. Add them up. Most votes wins.
Was that so hard ?

> or what they would like to do would be worse or totally
>impractical

In this day an age, tallying nationwide votes is not an issue.

>(and in future unanticipated situations could actually bite
>them in the butts - i.e., cause them to loose an election that they
>otherwise would have won under the existing system - then they would be
>whining about how much fairer the old electorate system was, ad
>infinitum).

That a foolish hypothetical being argued for partisan reasons.
You really are transparent.

Bob
 
'nuther Bob wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 23:15:07 GMT, RickMerrill
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Electoral votes is how the game is played, and for good reasons.
>
>
> I'd be interested in knowing what you think the "good reasons"
> for the electoral system are. About the only thing the electoral
> college does today is make the votes of some voters worth more
> than the votes of other voters. Only the political parties (both
> of them) have an interest in preserving this unfair, antiquated,
> dinosaur of a voting system.

Well, Some of the 1800 AD reasons no longer apply, and the
modern day reasons are not written down AFAIK. One reason is that
it permits candidates to concentrate their efforts on states that
might swing towards them, spending less time on states that they
are pretty sure to win (or not). Another reason is that big population
states are somewhat less liable to push aside votes and voteres in
smaller states. But the BEST reason I can think of is that the
electoral process isolates the need for recount to single states!
Imagine if we had to do a recount (or worse a revote) for the
entire country!

Rick
Merrill

 
'nuther Bob wrote:
>
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 00:29:21 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >That may be true or may not be true (it can be argued that there are
> >practical reasons that other, more "fair" ways, would not be do-able -
> >and arguably, in your favor, some of those practical reasons may no
> >longer apply in the modern world).
>
> Give me ONE single reason that the electoral system is more fair than
> counting the popular vote.

I didn't say it *was* more fair. Read that paragraph again. My point
was that fairness is not the *only* consideration - in an ideal world,
yes; in the real world, no. Perfect example: Let's say that, ideally,
every single legal and legislative decision should be determined by 100%
popular vote. That would not be practical. That is an absurd example,
but illustrates what I mean.

And with a resonable solution, 95% of the fairness issue is covered by
the fact the the same rules, good or bad, apply to both sides, as in the
football analogy that I gave previously.

> >*BUT*, right or wrong, it was the
> >rules of the game (which no one was violently disputing before that
> >election and the bizarre situations that occurred) at the time of that
> >particular election.
>
> I don't dispute that fact. I dispute the assertion that there
> are "good reasons" for the electoral college.
> >
> >Maybe the rules will be changed - but
> >only for future "games".
>
> Don't bet on it. The parties have a vested interest in the system.
> We're long past the days where many politicians do things because
> they're "right".
>
> If George Bush wanted to win the next election hands down, he
> could have come out in force and pushed a constitutional amendment
> to abolish the electoral college. The resulting popular appeal
> would push his popularity to new heights. But, he didn't have
> the nuggies or the smarts, and now he doesn't have the time.
>
> Bob

I think that's absurd - it should be way down on the priority list for
the country with everything else going on. I still think that anything
you can propose that wouldn't bankrupt the country to administer is
going to have its own set of new flaws. I have no vested interest in
the electoral college - but if someone wants to propose something to
replace it, lets make darn sure we're not going to create something
worse (and, as with many "progressive" ideas, some problems may not be
possible to anticipate).

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
 
'nuther Bob wrote:
>
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 08:59:20 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >But as usual, they either suggest nothing to
> >replace it,
>
> Tally the votes across the country. Add them up. Most votes wins.
> Was that so hard ?
>
> > or what they would like to do would be worse or totally
> >impractical
>
> In this day an age, tallying nationwide votes is not an issue.
>
> >(and in future unanticipated situations could actually bite
> >them in the butts - i.e., cause them to loose an election that they
> >otherwise would have won under the existing system - then they would be
> >whining about how much fairer the old electorate system was, ad
> >infinitum).
>
> That a foolish hypothetical being argued for partisan reasons.
> You really are transparent.
>
> Bob

Whatever.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
 

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 04:36:18 GMT, "David Allen"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >Maybe I'm using the wrong search engine, but I can't find any ruling
> >indicating the butterfly ballot is illegal.
>
> Perhaps you are. Find the statute. Florida law requires that the
> circle be TO THE RIGHT of the candidates name. It also requires
> that candidates be listed on the ballot with the candidates who
> received the most votes in the primaries. The ballot clearly
> failed the first test.
>

"The Department of State has now reviewed the Palm Beach County ballot,"
her office announced. "Clay Roberts, director of the Division of Elections,
and Deborah Kearney, general counsel for the Department of State, have
determined that the design and layout of the ballot does conform to the law
of the state of Florida."

"Courts have generally declined to void an election" unless defects in the
ballot "clearly operate to prevent a free, fair and open choice,"

Once again, nobody is hanging their hat on the left/right column argument.
That's because those people who had problems with it clearly didn't give due
consideration to voting properly as did 400,000 other voters.

> >The standard of illegality is only significant if the design prevents the
> >voter from voting properly. The butterfly didn't.
>
> You're ignoring the facts. The ballot caused a statistically
> incredible number of double punched ballots. Statistics also easily
> showed that votes intended for Gore were accidentally cast for
> Buchanan. A statistical comparison of the Buchanan vote in the
> districts which were heavily over 65 and Democratic showed that
> Gore would have gained over 6000 votes if the ballots had been
> cast correctly. (I suppose you want to believe that Buchanan
> actually received those votes).
>

No. The error rates in Palm Beach County were on par with other counties
statewide and nationwide. You're focusing on irrugularities and errors that
may have harmed Gore. Voting error rates tend to be insignificant and
cancel each other out. In this close election, one could selectively point
to any irregularity and cry "foul". This was Gore's strategy. Selective
complaints, selective recounts.

Fair enough, but the recounts favored Bush and the complaints ran up against
legal brick walls, like the butterfly ballot and the absentee ballots where
Gore's people tried to use minor technicalities to void thousands of
otherwise valid votes.

Note that, according to Gore's people, the butterfly ballot, which may have
caused people not paying attention to make a mistake, warranted a revote.
Whereas they wanted to just void absentee ballots with minor irregularities
not the fault of the voter and drop them on the floor.

Nevermind that ballot format problems can only be legally challenged before
the election, not after.


 

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 04:52:24 GMT, "David Allen"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >I wouldn't call the electoral college stupid. It recognizes the interest
of
> >states. If the election was strictly a national popular vote, large
> >metropolitan cities would always determine the presidency. That's where
> >campaigns would focus and their interests catered to. Note how the
> >campaigns of the electoral method focus on "battleground states". These
> >states were not necessarily CA or NY or FL. The smaller states of the
time
> >clearly saw the advantage of the electoral system so they wouldn't get
shut
> >out and the interests of their populations become irrelevent.
>
> That's nonsense - you are arguing both sides of the same issue. Using
> the popular vote would insure that *every* citizens vote would count
> as much as every other citizen. Obviously the politicians would
> concentrate on the more populated areas as they do now. That's
> irrelevant. What is relevant is ONE vote PER VOTER. With the current
> system, votes in certain states are worth more, other states less.
>

It's not nonsense. The President is selected by the states. The method
recognizes that states have unique makeup and interests apart from each
other. It recognizes that local (state) government is what is significant
to people.

One could argue compellingly that much of this changed after the civil war
and the 13th/14th ammendments passed ending much of the sovereignty and
independence of the states. But the value of the electoral college is still
significant enough that many states would never agree to abolish it.

> >The mere mention of the words "popular vote" is deceptive. There is no
> >popular election, so there's no popular vote. Tabulating the aggregate
of
> >individual state elections is NOT indicitive of a honest to goodness
> >national popular vote.
>
> Huh ?
>

Uh, let's try it again. There is no national popular vote. Each state
selects electors in a fashion they decide. Nearly all have adopted a winner
take all statewide election. There are a couple of states that have a
proportional take where each congressional district chooses it's elector
independently and winner doesn't take all. A state could, if they choose,
not have a statewide election. They could have a simple vote within the
state legislature.

Voter turnout is a function of many things, but it includes the effects of
campaigning. Turnout in battleground states is higher. Also the
expectation of the value of a vote, how many Democrats stay home in Alaska
on election day?

To derive a national count from the aggregate of each state election is not
to be representative of a real national popular election. It's similar to
the baseball analogy where number of runs over a season doesn't correlate
perfectly with number of games won. There is a correlation, but it's a
loose one. Hope that helps.

> Bob
>


 

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 08:59:20 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >But as usual, they either suggest nothing to
> >replace it,
>
> Tally the votes across the country. Add them up. Most votes wins.
> Was that so hard ?
>

With that method, my vote, and the votes of millions of Americans living in
rural areas, will not count. All Presidents would be selected by the several
major cities.
Fair? Not even close.
You try hard to argue your side, but in my opinion you are wrong on ever
point you've made in this thread, and I disagree with your conclusions as
well.

> > or what they would like to do would be worse or totally
> >impractical
>
> In this day an age, tallying nationwide votes is not an issue.
>
> >(and in future unanticipated situations could actually bite
> >them in the butts - i.e., cause them to loose an election that they
> >otherwise would have won under the existing system - then they would be
> >whining about how much fairer the old electorate system was, ad
> >infinitum).
>
> That a foolish hypothetical being argued for partisan reasons.
> You really are transparent.
>
> Bob


 

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 00:29:21 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> >That may be true or may not be true (it can be argued that there are
> >practical reasons that other, more "fair" ways, would not be do-able -
> >and arguably, in your favor, some of those practical reasons may no
> >longer apply in the modern world).
>
> Give me ONE single reason that the electoral system is more fair than
> counting the popular vote.

Al Gore had more popular votes than Bush, but geographically Bush blew Gore
out of the water. I used to have a link that showed the votes per county,
but can't find it at the moment. Regardless, most of the country voted Bush,
only the large population areas voted Gore. With a true popular vote system
like you propose, 80% of the country would be ignored by the high population
20%.

>
> >*BUT*, right or wrong, it was the
> >rules of the game (which no one was violently disputing before that
> >election and the bizarre situations that occurred) at the time of that
> >particular election.
>
> I don't dispute that fact. I dispute the assertion that there
> are "good reasons" for the electoral college.
> >
> >Maybe the rules will be changed - but
> >only for future "games".
>
> Don't bet on it. The parties have a vested interest in the system.
> We're long past the days where many politicians do things because
> they're "right".
>
> If George Bush wanted to win the next election hands down, he
> could have come out in force and pushed a constitutional amendment
> to abolish the electoral college. The resulting popular appeal
> would push his popularity to new heights. But, he didn't have
> the nuggies or the smarts, and now he doesn't have the time.
>
> Bob


 

"Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 00:29:21 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
Here is one map, not the one I had, but it shows why your popular vote idea
won't work. Ignoring all rural areas, which are normally Republican, just to
assure your Democrats will win every election would, I am sure, start an
uprising to dwarf the Civil war.
http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/countymap.htm


 
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 14:57:06 GMT, 'nuther Bob
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Give me ONE single reason that the electoral system is more fair than
>counting the popular vote.

Simple, but we all expect you will have significant difficulty
understanding it.

The population is spread throughout the country. There are areas of
heavy concentration. Those areas should not be given more power than
is reasonable, just like we shouldn't let the majority decide
everything. The electoral college thus prevents NY, LA, Chicago and a
few other liberal enclaves from adversely infecting our government.
Instead of someone like al bore succeeding by focusing on just a few
areas where he is popular, he has to campaign across the heartland
also. Since people in the cities are more easily duped by democrats,
this forces dems to the middle to get elected.

>>*BUT*, right or wrong, it was the
>>rules of the game (which no one was violently disputing before that
>>election and the bizarre situations that occurred) at the time of that
>>particular election.
>
>I don't dispute that fact. I dispute the assertion that there
>are "good reasons" for the electoral college.

Well idiots do have problems with complex issues like voting.

>>Maybe the rules will be changed - but
>>only for future "games".
>
>If George Bush wanted to win the next election hands down, he
>could have come out in force and pushed a constitutional amendment
>to abolish the electoral college. The resulting popular appeal
>would push his popularity to new heights. But, he didn't have
>the nuggies or the smarts, and now he doesn't have the time.

No, unlike kkklinton/bore, Bush supports the constitution.
 
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 15:17:15 GMT, 'nuther Bob
<[email protected]> wrote:

>You're ignoring the facts. The ballot caused a statistically
>incredible number of double punched ballots. Statistics also easily

Assuming facts not in evidence. Nobody knows what caused the VERY FEW
double punches we saw. (Note: incredible must be anything more than
3 or 4 to you) Statistics mean nothing.

>showed that votes intended for Gore were accidentally cast for
>Buchanan. A statistical comparison of the Buchanan vote in the
>districts which were heavily over 65 and Democratic showed that
>Gore would have gained over 6000 votes if the ballots had been
>cast correctly. (I suppose you want to believe that Buchanan
>actually received those votes).

As has been stated before, Buchanan received less votes than he did in
the primary, so actually it looks like Gore received votes that were
intended for Buchanan.
 
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 15:20:41 GMT, 'nuther Bob
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 04:52:24 GMT, "David Allen"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>I wouldn't call the electoral college stupid. It recognizes the interest of
>>states. If the election was strictly a national popular vote, large
>>metropolitan cities would always determine the presidency. That's where
>>campaigns would focus and their interests catered to. Note how the
>>campaigns of the electoral method focus on "battleground states". These
>>states were not necessarily CA or NY or FL. The smaller states of the time
>>clearly saw the advantage of the electoral system so they wouldn't get shut
>>out and the interests of their populations become irrelevent.
>
>That's nonsense - you are arguing both sides of the same issue. Using
>the popular vote would insure that *every* citizens vote would count
>as much as every other citizen. Obviously the politicians would
>concentrate on the more populated areas as they do now. That's
>irrelevant. What is relevant is ONE vote PER VOTER. With the current
>system, votes in certain states are worth more, other states less.

No, you are just an idiot. The electoral college votes are based on
population in each state. Thus voters are treated equally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Discodevon
Jeep Cherokee 2.7 crd 2002
Replies
9
Views
1K
Firebobby1
Firebobby1
F
Help 😪 this thing is driving me mad 😆
Replies
9
Views
1K
freelandertd4bmw
F
Zorro587
Noise gone but prop shaft queries abound
Replies
14
Views
1K
Chris_68
C
feyniriel
Gearbox fault P38?
Replies
3
Views
839
Grrrrrr
Grrrrrr
xDParis64
Freelander 1 Skid Plate Bolt Sizes + Engine Compression
Replies
19
Views
755
J_D
J_D
Back
Top