Page 2 of 6
Posted: June 4, 2008 12:40 am
by sonofabeach
Imo it's in the bag for Obama barring a major blunder.
Of course my opinion means jack shiznit! just ask my wife
Posted: June 4, 2008 7:29 am
by chippewa
Feesh wrote:UpstateNYPH wrote:rumdrinks wrote:SchoolGirlHeart wrote:Staredge wrote:Ahhhh....but who won the POPULAR vote????????
It doesn't matter..... Our election system doesn't run on the popular vote.....
(Please note I didn't say whether or not I support any of the three candidates in the race.....)
Just ask Al Gore
The electoral college just seems so outdated. Maybe I am missing some benefit to that system? I havent really researched it enough to make an educated opinion.
Without the electoral college, candidates would only need to campaign in the large states. The electoral college allows states with smaller populations the opportunity to make their vote count. It's a necessity.
Agreed. And while the overall popular vote doesn't determine who wins, the popular vote does determine a winner in each individual state. So you get a sort of combination of individual votes and state's (electoral) votes.
Posted: June 4, 2008 8:28 am
by PIA
Posted: June 4, 2008 8:29 am
by Capt.Flock
PIA wrote:
all hail the great leader a
Posted: June 4, 2008 8:32 am
by PIA
Capt.Flock wrote:PIA wrote:
all hail the great leader a
he scares every country in the world...dead or alive....
Posted: June 4, 2008 8:58 am
by alphabits
chippewa wrote:Feesh wrote:UpstateNYPH wrote:rumdrinks wrote:SchoolGirlHeart wrote:Staredge wrote:Ahhhh....but who won the POPULAR vote????????
It doesn't matter..... Our election system doesn't run on the popular vote.....
(Please note I didn't say whether or not I support any of the three candidates in the race.....)
Just ask Al Gore
The electoral college just seems so outdated. Maybe I am missing some benefit to that system? I havent really researched it enough to make an educated opinion.
Without the electoral college, candidates would only need to campaign in the large states. The electoral college allows states with smaller populations the opportunity to make their vote count. It's a necessity.
Agreed. And while the overall popular vote doesn't determine who wins, the popular vote does determine a winner in each individual state. So you get a sort of combination of individual votes and state's (electoral) votes.
I'm gonna take the opposite stance on this. Consider this:
"It is possible to win the election by winning eleven states and disregarding the rest of the country. If one ticket were to take California (55 votes), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27) Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Georgia (15), New Jersey (15), and North Carolina (15), that ticket would have 271 votes, which would be enough to win."
Theoretically, a candidate could win each of those states by a single vote, lose overwhelmingly in all the smaller states, and still be elected. (Obviously this has never happened and the likelihood that it will is miniscule BUT it does illustrate the potential.)
That being said, now that we have two definitive candidates I suspect it won't be too long before the simians on both sides start the obligatory "poo flinging".
Posted: June 4, 2008 9:02 am
by Capt.Flock
alphabits wrote:chippewa wrote:Feesh wrote:UpstateNYPH wrote:rumdrinks wrote:SchoolGirlHeart wrote:
It doesn't matter..... Our election system doesn't run on the popular vote.....
(Please note I didn't say whether or not I support any of the three candidates in the race.....)
Just ask Al Gore
The electoral college just seems so outdated. Maybe I am missing some benefit to that system? I havent really researched it enough to make an educated opinion.
Without the electoral college, candidates would only need to campaign in the large states. The electoral college allows states with smaller populations the opportunity to make their vote count. It's a necessity.
Agreed. And while the overall popular vote doesn't determine who wins, the popular vote does determine a winner in each individual state. So you get a sort of combination of individual votes and state's (electoral) votes.
I'm gonna take the opposite stance on this. Consider this:
"It is possible to win the election by winning eleven states and disregarding the rest of the country. If one ticket were to take California (55 votes), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27) Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Georgia (15), New Jersey (15), and North Carolina (15), that ticket would have 271 votes, which would be enough to win."
Theoretically, a candidate could win each of those states by a single vote, lose overwhelmingly in all the smaller states, and still be elected. (Obviously this has never happened and the likelihood that it will is miniscule BUT it does illustrate the potential.)
That being said, now that we have two definitive candidates I suspect it won't be too long before the simians on both sides start the obligatory "poo flinging".
Posted: June 4, 2008 9:05 am
by LIPH
alphabits wrote:That being said, now that we have two definitive candidates I suspect it won't be too long before the simians on both sides start the obligatory "poo flinging".
Can I be first?
Posted: June 4, 2008 9:07 am
by alphabits
Oh, the poo-manity!!!
Posted: June 4, 2008 9:14 am
by Feesh
alphabits wrote:chippewa wrote:Feesh wrote:UpstateNYPH wrote:rumdrinks wrote:SchoolGirlHeart wrote:
It doesn't matter..... Our election system doesn't run on the popular vote.....
(Please note I didn't say whether or not I support any of the three candidates in the race.....)
Just ask Al Gore
The electoral college just seems so outdated. Maybe I am missing some benefit to that system? I havent really researched it enough to make an educated opinion.
Without the electoral college, candidates would only need to campaign in the large states. The electoral college allows states with smaller populations the opportunity to make their vote count. It's a necessity.
Agreed. And while the overall popular vote doesn't determine who wins, the popular vote does determine a winner in each individual state. So you get a sort of combination of individual votes and state's (electoral) votes.
I'm gonna take the opposite stance on this. Consider this:
"It is possible to win the election by winning eleven states and disregarding the rest of the country. If one ticket were to take California (55 votes), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27) Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Georgia (15), New Jersey (15), and North Carolina (15), that ticket would have 271 votes, which would be enough to win."
Theoretically, a candidate could win each of those states by a single vote, lose overwhelmingly in all the smaller states, and still be elected. (Obviously this has never happened and the likelihood that it will is miniscule BUT it does illustrate the potential.)
That being said, now that we have two definitive candidates I suspect it won't be too long before the simians on both sides start the obligatory "poo flinging".
You're right because the likelihood of this ever happening is miniscule. Look at the history of those states and whether they vote red or blue. Because there have been so many weak candidates put up in the last few elections, these states will follow tradition and vote red or blue.
However, if a strong candidate came along, this person would most likely win the popular vote by a landslide and probably would take all of the states you mentioned above.
Posted: June 4, 2008 9:19 am
by chippewa
alphabits wrote:I'm gonna take the opposite stance on this. Consider this:
"It is possible to win the election by winning eleven states and disregarding the rest of the country. If one ticket were to take California (55 votes), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27) Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Georgia (15), New Jersey (15), and North Carolina (15), that ticket would have 271 votes, which would be enough to win."
Theoretically, a candidate could win each of those states by a single vote, lose overwhelmingly in all the smaller states, and still be elected. (Obviously this has never happened and the likelihood that it will is miniscule BUT it does illustrate the potential.)
That being said, now that we have two definitive candidates I suspect it won't be too long before the simians on both sides start the obligatory "poo flinging".
That's true but in theory even fewer states could decide the election in a strictly popular vote. The last election had about 142 million registered voters. There are enough registered voters in the 10 most populous states that if they had 100% turnout and all voted for one candidate, that candidate would have almost 73 million votes. In theory.
Posted: June 4, 2008 9:20 am
by Feesh
sonofabeach wrote:Imo it's in the bag for Obama barring a major blunder.
Of course my opinion means jack shiznit! just ask my wife
I have to completely disagree with you on this one. I think the only shot Obama has is if Hillary is on the ticket. And what they call a "dream" ticket is what I consider a "nightmare" for this country.
Unfortunately, I feel my party went against it's supposed conservative values and went with a candidate who they feel had the best shot against Obama or Clinton. McCain will carry the conservative vote and will pull a large minority of independents and some of the liberal vote.
If people don't think the Democratic party isn't disenfranchised after what has gone on between Obama and Hillary, I have to disagree. IMO, Hillary supporters will not be happy unless she is the nominee. And yes, there are major differences between Obama and Hillary policies.
McCain would have to seriously mess up to lose this election.
Posted: June 4, 2008 9:32 am
by alphabits
chippewa wrote:alphabits wrote:I'm gonna take the opposite stance on this. Consider this:
"It is possible to win the election by winning eleven states and disregarding the rest of the country. If one ticket were to take California (55 votes), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27) Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Georgia (15), New Jersey (15), and North Carolina (15), that ticket would have 271 votes, which would be enough to win."
Theoretically, a candidate could win each of those states by a single vote, lose overwhelmingly in all the smaller states, and still be elected. (Obviously this has never happened and the likelihood that it will is miniscule BUT it does illustrate the potential.)
That being said, now that we have two definitive candidates I suspect it won't be too long before the simians on both sides start the obligatory "poo flinging".
That's true but in theory even fewer states could decide the election in a strictly popular vote. The last election had about 142 million registered voters. There are enough registered voters in the 10 most populous states that if they had 100% turnout and all voted for one candidate, that candidate would have almost 73 million votes. In theory.
How about this scenario .... a gazillionaire (or space alien) pays off all the registered voters in each of those eleven states. One voter in each state is instructed to vote for a particular candidate while the rest are instructed not to vote. The candidate consequently receives only 11 votes but wins the election based on winning the electoral vote in those eleven states. Farfetched? Ha, that's what they said about Arnold Schwarzenegger becoming governor of California!
Posted: June 4, 2008 9:33 am
by ConchRepublican
Feesh wrote:UpstateNYPH wrote:rumdrinks wrote:SchoolGirlHeart wrote:Staredge wrote:Ahhhh....but who won the POPULAR vote????????
It doesn't matter..... Our election system doesn't run on the popular vote.....
(Please note I didn't say whether or not I support any of the three candidates in the race.....)
Just ask Al Gore
The electoral college just seems so outdated. Maybe I am missing some benefit to that system? I havent really researched it enough to make an educated opinion.
Without the electoral college, candidates would only need to campaign in the large states. The electoral college allows states with smaller populations the opportunity to make their vote count. It's a necessity.
Exactly. Without the Electoral College, basically the coasts would control the country. It's another example of the great foresight in planning our government's checks and balances, it protects rural areas from being totally controlled by the interests of urban areas.
I'm not positive on who's it's architect, but it sounds very Jeffersonian. From my understanding he was extremely distrustful of cities and felt they tended to draw the worst characters and that the "soul" of the country was the farmer. Being born and raised in New york . . . well, I have a hard time disagreeing to much with that standpoint.
Posted: June 4, 2008 9:35 am
by ConchRepublican
alphabits wrote:chippewa wrote:alphabits wrote:I'm gonna take the opposite stance on this. Consider this:
"It is possible to win the election by winning eleven states and disregarding the rest of the country. If one ticket were to take California (55 votes), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27) Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Georgia (15), New Jersey (15), and North Carolina (15), that ticket would have 271 votes, which would be enough to win."
Theoretically, a candidate could win each of those states by a single vote, lose overwhelmingly in all the smaller states, and still be elected. (Obviously this has never happened and the likelihood that it will is miniscule BUT it does illustrate the potential.)
That being said, now that we have two definitive candidates I suspect it won't be too long before the simians on both sides start the obligatory "poo flinging".
That's true but in theory even fewer states could decide the election in a strictly popular vote. The last election had about 142 million registered voters. There are enough registered voters in the 10 most populous states that if they had 100% turnout and all voted for one candidate, that candidate would have almost 73 million votes. In theory.
How about this scenario .... a gazillionaire (or space alien) pays off all the registered voters in each of those eleven states. One voter in each state is instructed to vote for a particular candidate while the rest are instructed not to vote. The candidate consequently receives only 11 votes but wins the election based on winning the electoral vote in those eleven states. Farfetched? Ha, that's what they said about Arnold Schwarzenegger becoming governor of California!
Paging Art Bell!!!!! Foil hat alert!!!!!!!
Posted: June 4, 2008 9:36 am
by green1
ejr wrote:I think it is appropriate to take a step back and look at what has happened--this really is a significant night in American politics, and one that many thought would never, ever happen.
Whether you agree with him or his politics or not, this night is historical.
Maybe I am missing something, but didn't the NAACP say that Bill Clinton was the first African American president? Now there's a first African American Presidential Candidate? I am confused.
EDIT-Sorry, it wasn't the NAACP it was Toni Morrison.
Posted: June 4, 2008 9:44 am
by chippewa
alphabits wrote:chippewa wrote:alphabits wrote:I'm gonna take the opposite stance on this. Consider this:
"It is possible to win the election by winning eleven states and disregarding the rest of the country. If one ticket were to take California (55 votes), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27) Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Georgia (15), New Jersey (15), and North Carolina (15), that ticket would have 271 votes, which would be enough to win."
Theoretically, a candidate could win each of those states by a single vote, lose overwhelmingly in all the smaller states, and still be elected. (Obviously this has never happened and the likelihood that it will is miniscule BUT it does illustrate the potential.)
That being said, now that we have two definitive candidates I suspect it won't be too long before the simians on both sides start the obligatory "poo flinging".
That's true but in theory even fewer states could decide the election in a strictly popular vote. The last election had about 142 million registered voters. There are enough registered voters in the 10 most populous states that if they had 100% turnout and all voted for one candidate, that candidate would have almost 73 million votes. In theory.
How about this scenario .... a gazillionaire (or space alien) pays off all the registered voters in each of those eleven states. One voter in each state is instructed to vote for a particular candidate while the rest are instructed not to vote. The candidate consequently receives only 11 votes but wins the election based on winning the electoral vote in those eleven states. Farfetched? Ha, that's what they said about Arnold Schwarzenegger becoming governor of California!
Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.
Posted: June 4, 2008 9:51 am
by alphabits
green1 wrote:ejr wrote:I think it is appropriate to take a step back and look at what has happened--this really is a significant night in American politics, and one that many thought would never, ever happen.
Whether you agree with him or his politics or not, this night is historical.
Maybe I am missing something, but didn't the NAACP say that Bill Clinton was the first African American president? Now there's a first African American Presidential Candidate? I am confused.
EDIT-Sorry, it wasn't the NAACP it was Toni Morrison.
Well, in fairness to Ms. Morrison, he was wearing sunglasses and playing the saxophone at the time. She may have gotten him confused with Clarence Clemons.
![[smilie=noeyedear-shrugging.gif]](./images/smilies/noeyedear-shrugging.gif "noeyedear-shrugging")
Posted: June 4, 2008 9:53 am
by RinglingRingling
alphabits wrote:green1 wrote:ejr wrote:I think it is appropriate to take a step back and look at what has happened--this really is a significant night in American politics, and one that many thought would never, ever happen.
Whether you agree with him or his politics or not, this night is historical.
Maybe I am missing something, but didn't the NAACP say that Bill Clinton was the first African American president? Now there's a first African American Presidential Candidate? I am confused.
EDIT-Sorry, it wasn't the NAACP it was Toni Morrison.
Well, in fairness to Ms. Morrison, he was wearing sunglasses and playing the saxophone at the time. She may have gotten him confused with Clarence Clemons.
and he was still in his Big Mac munchin' mode..
Posted: June 4, 2008 9:55 am
by green1
RinglingRingling wrote:alphabits wrote:green1 wrote:ejr wrote:I think it is appropriate to take a step back and look at what has happened--this really is a significant night in American politics, and one that many thought would never, ever happen.
Whether you agree with him or his politics or not, this night is historical.
Maybe I am missing something, but didn't the NAACP say that Bill Clinton was the first African American president? Now there's a first African American Presidential Candidate? I am confused.
EDIT-Sorry, it wasn't the NAACP it was Toni Morrison.
Well, in fairness to Ms. Morrison, he was wearing sunglasses and playing the saxophone at the time. She may have gotten him confused with Clarence Clemons.
and he was still in his Big Mac munchin' mode..