Is somebody could explain me, a non US resident, why the president is not elected directly by individual votes like in all the other countries. The use of EVs only makes the electoral process more complicated and enables a candidate to be elected with less votes. This happened at the previous election, am I right?
Why the whole world detest Bush?
- Thread starter wakeman
- Start date
Regnand, don't denigrate the Swift Vets (BushCo's SwiftBoatSwine). They served our country. They were there with Kerry and are giving eyewitness accounts. We have a freedom of speech in the US.
Last edited:
Wakeman,
You need to understand US history and the reasons for the Revloutionary War to fully answer this question. The simple answer is that the USA is a confederation of independent states, and the electoral college is designed to prevent one large state (like California) from wielding disproportionate power over smaller states like Connecticut. That is why each state has 2 US senators. People in Connecticut do not want federal policy dictated by citizens of Texas or California or New York. So we get proportional representation in the House of Representatives but an equal say in the Senate. This neutralizes the power of the bigger states.
It is inappropriate to compare the US system to any other democracy. We are a union of 50 independent states. Nobody else has such a system. Our system works. It is democracy in its purest form. Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues, James Madison et al, were the greatest political geniuses of all time. We owe very much to our founding fathers.
If you are ever in Washington D.C., visit the Jefferson memorial. There you will see a monument to one of the 3 greatest Americans who ever lived, the others being Abraham Lincoln and Benjamin Franklin.
You are correct, Wakeman, that Gore lost the election in 2000 despite winning the popular vote. Think of it as a hockey game. It is not the team with the most shots on goal that wins. It is the team with the most goals that wins. And to score goals in the US political system, you need to rack up EVs.
You need to understand US history and the reasons for the Revloutionary War to fully answer this question. The simple answer is that the USA is a confederation of independent states, and the electoral college is designed to prevent one large state (like California) from wielding disproportionate power over smaller states like Connecticut. That is why each state has 2 US senators. People in Connecticut do not want federal policy dictated by citizens of Texas or California or New York. So we get proportional representation in the House of Representatives but an equal say in the Senate. This neutralizes the power of the bigger states.
It is inappropriate to compare the US system to any other democracy. We are a union of 50 independent states. Nobody else has such a system. Our system works. It is democracy in its purest form. Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues, James Madison et al, were the greatest political geniuses of all time. We owe very much to our founding fathers.
If you are ever in Washington D.C., visit the Jefferson memorial. There you will see a monument to one of the 3 greatest Americans who ever lived, the others being Abraham Lincoln and Benjamin Franklin.
You are correct, Wakeman, that Gore lost the election in 2000 despite winning the popular vote. Think of it as a hockey game. It is not the team with the most shots on goal that wins. It is the team with the most goals that wins. And to score goals in the US political system, you need to rack up EVs.
Last edited:
EB,
Thanks for the infos, but it answers only to a part of my question. I understand and totally agree with the principles pertaining the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The President being the leader of all the nation (many would say of all nations), don't you think it would be normal that every elector could vote to elect the President? The President takes decisions affecting the life of each american.
Thanks for the infos, but it answers only to a part of my question. I understand and totally agree with the principles pertaining the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The President being the leader of all the nation (many would say of all nations), don't you think it would be normal that every elector could vote to elect the President? The President takes decisions affecting the life of each american.
Wakeman,
I am not sure if I understand you question. All of the votes count, to the extent that they determine whether a given State's electoral votes go to one candidate or the other. If the popular vote in one State goes to one candidate, it is winner take all for the electoral votes of that State.
I am not sure exactly what question it is that remains unanswered.
I am not sure if I understand you question. All of the votes count, to the extent that they determine whether a given State's electoral votes go to one candidate or the other. If the popular vote in one State goes to one candidate, it is winner take all for the electoral votes of that State.
I am not sure exactly what question it is that remains unanswered.
CS Martin,
You are technically correct, we are a republic. But to me it is a pure republican form of democracy, with the "checks and balances" designed by the founding fathers. That terms refers to the separation of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the US governmental system in such a way that each can override the other in some way. A full explanation of this is beyond the scope of this Board.
You are technically correct, we are a republic. But to me it is a pure republican form of democracy, with the "checks and balances" designed by the founding fathers. That terms refers to the separation of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the US governmental system in such a way that each can override the other in some way. A full explanation of this is beyond the scope of this Board.
daydreamer41 -- Neither the First Amendment nor service to one's country gives anyone the right to fantasize accusations into being. Navy documents, the Swift Vets' own past statements, and actual eyewitness testimony (that is, from people close enough to see what was going on) indicate that this is what the Swift Vets are doing.
And calling Mr. Regnad a "pig" is, how shall I say, childish.
Mr. Martin -- The electoral college system actually makes it more likely that one state can "decide an election on its own." Consider 2000, where the election turned not on who had won the country (Al Gore) but who was adjudicated the winner of Florida (George Bush).
It's true that Athens had certain limitations on its democracy, the main one being that much of the population could not vote because they were slaves.
And calling Mr. Regnad a "pig" is, how shall I say, childish.
Mr. Martin -- The electoral college system actually makes it more likely that one state can "decide an election on its own." Consider 2000, where the election turned not on who had won the country (Al Gore) but who was adjudicated the winner of Florida (George Bush).
It's true that Athens had certain limitations on its democracy, the main one being that much of the population could not vote because they were slaves.
Stripper -- You have misinformation on this point. Americans do not have to be registered with a party in order to vote.
In fact many states allow independents to vote in primaries -- that is, in elections expressly designed for a particlar party to choose its nominees. In New Hampshire, for example, John McCain beat George Bush in 2000 largely because independents were allowed to vote in the Republican primary.
In fact many states allow independents to vote in primaries -- that is, in elections expressly designed for a particlar party to choose its nominees. In New Hampshire, for example, John McCain beat George Bush in 2000 largely because independents were allowed to vote in the Republican primary.
SL,
I am an independent and vote as such. There is no requirement of party affiliation. When you register to vote you can say democrat, republican or independent. I suppose if you said nothing you would be deemed an independent.
Red Paul,
If your logic is followed through to its natural conclusion, then in the current poll scenario of Kerry having 270 EVs to Bush's 259, Connecticut would be a swing state if it voted for Bush, because Bush would then win the election 266-263. If it came down to one vote in Connecticut, me, then it wouldn't be one State that controlled the election, it would be one out of shape attorney who eats out too much. One person controlling the election - isn't that what a democracy is supposed to be all about? Every vote counts?
I am an independent and vote as such. There is no requirement of party affiliation. When you register to vote you can say democrat, republican or independent. I suppose if you said nothing you would be deemed an independent.
Red Paul,
If your logic is followed through to its natural conclusion, then in the current poll scenario of Kerry having 270 EVs to Bush's 259, Connecticut would be a swing state if it voted for Bush, because Bush would then win the election 266-263. If it came down to one vote in Connecticut, me, then it wouldn't be one State that controlled the election, it would be one out of shape attorney who eats out too much. One person controlling the election - isn't that what a democracy is supposed to be all about? Every vote counts?
Last edited:
SL,
As an "independent" I am not affiliated with anyone or anything. It is just a meaningless category for those who are neither Republicans nor Democrats. I can vote for whomever I wish.
I believe voter registration forms may be mailed to the registrar of voters in the town in which you live. Obviously a form has to be filled out, otherwise how would we be able to keep track of who is registered and who is not registered? When you go to vote they have a list of registered voters and your name is then crossed off the list so nobody can vote twice.
Typically SL the democrats stage voter registration drives and associated events during election years as it is typically they who most benefit from the votes of the poor and downtrodden. The voter registration drives usually result in heightened registration totals in inner city and urban areas.
As to voter turnout, I think there is some degree of apathy when one candidate or another is far ahead in the polls, but this year the opposite is true and the polls may actually incentivize a much higher voter turnout than we have seen in recent elections.
As an "independent" I am not affiliated with anyone or anything. It is just a meaningless category for those who are neither Republicans nor Democrats. I can vote for whomever I wish.
I believe voter registration forms may be mailed to the registrar of voters in the town in which you live. Obviously a form has to be filled out, otherwise how would we be able to keep track of who is registered and who is not registered? When you go to vote they have a list of registered voters and your name is then crossed off the list so nobody can vote twice.
Typically SL the democrats stage voter registration drives and associated events during election years as it is typically they who most benefit from the votes of the poor and downtrodden. The voter registration drives usually result in heightened registration totals in inner city and urban areas.
As to voter turnout, I think there is some degree of apathy when one candidate or another is far ahead in the polls, but this year the opposite is true and the polls may actually incentivize a much higher voter turnout than we have seen in recent elections.
Reggnad you are beyond ignorant in this one. Have you READ the Book? No. You only listen to ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and the other DEMOCRATIC Operatives. Rassman was in the water when this happen. I guess he makes a good witness. O'Neill interviewed the surviving members of Kerry's unit, Kerry's commanders, and others that knew him. O'Neill admittedly disliked Kerry's testimony in front of Congress, which Kerry never has offerred facts to back up. Kerry is a self-admitted war criminal. He self-admittedly did things worse than Abu Grais. You have witnessess that say that Kerry threw a grenade in a stack of rice the day before the Rassman incident; that Kerry injured himself then and there.
Where are your facts that Bush or the RNC is behind these Vets? Let me hear specifics?
Yes, you can call 200 vets liars, SWINE, even? but if anyone attacks you or your views or your candidates views, gee, the name calling begins. These men are not swine. They are heros, and they want to prevent a dishonest man from being in charge of our forces.
Just remember, the pictures of John Kerry and Jane Fonda are in the Vietnam Hall of Fame as Americans that help win their Revolution. Communism has murdered millions of innocents. Is that what you represent, Regnand? That's what Kerry represents, and God save us from having him as our commander in chief.
And one more thing Regnand, the lawyer who resigned - Ginsberg, who is NOT a Swift Vet - (you can't even get your facts straight) resigned because he gave these guys legal advice, which is NOT ILLEGAL. What is ILLEGAL is the staffer for MOVEON.ORG that is NOW on the Kerry campaign, and does not resign from the 527. Zach Exley is a key campaign staffer who served as the organizing director for MoveOn.org throughout the presidential primaries.
There is a picture of the guys who served with Kerry on Swiftvets.com. Why don't you look at the picture yourself? The book interviews many who served with him. Most are against Kerry and testify against what Kerry says. Rassmann (gee you don't even know which one Rassman was) was one of them. Again he was pulled out the water. The question is - was Kerry under enemy fire at the time or not? There is a disagreement to whether he was or not. Many say they were not. A couple say they were.
The day you argue facts is the day you will look all wet, because you never used a fact to win an argument.
And yes I do resent you calling these guys Swine. They are honorable. Kerry is not. Redpaul, calling these vets Swine is very immature. I was responding to Regnands' addressing these heros as swine. And Red Paul answer one question:
Why hasn't Kerry released all of his medical records, like President Bush has? Doe he have something to hide?
No, these guys are not fantasizing ... PROVE IT.
Last edited:
HAHAHAHAHA ... . Regnad, where is one fact you presented? All the millions that Michael Moore has given Moveon ...
Hot air regnad. Give me facts ... these guys tell the truth. Tell me how they are lying?
The truth is that you can't, or can you? If you can, spill it out. Give me details.
Again, you didn't answer the multi-million dollar question --- why hasn't Kerry released his all of his medical records? Bush has.
Don't call these guys Swines or Liars. They are honorable people.
Hot air regnad. Give me facts ... these guys tell the truth. Tell me how they are lying?
The truth is that you can't, or can you? If you can, spill it out. Give me details.
Again, you didn't answer the multi-million dollar question --- why hasn't Kerry released his all of his medical records? Bush has.
Don't call these guys Swines or Liars. They are honorable people.
Last edited:
Hey stripperlover, I said beyond ignorant in this one ... IN THIS ONE. It means you do not know the facts. I speak english. Don't cut off my sentences and infer that I am calling him ignorant as a person. I am saying he is ignorant about the subject. Why don't you apologize to me?
Stripperlover, Read the whole sentence ... I said he is ignorant on the subject ... If that is not plain English, what is? Stop twisting my words.
Curious, Neither did Bill Clinton. Gee, that did not matter. He ran against Bob Dole, who was a genuine War hero, and had permanent injuries. But that did not matter to the democrats who celebrating Kerry's medals. In fact, they said it did not matter that Clinton was a draft dodger. All this is extremely opportunistic.
You can't have it both ways and always your way depending on the history of your candidate at the time.
Kerry originally tried to get out of the service. He opted for the swift boats which were up until Kerry's enlistment running off of the coast. A rear admiral (I think Rogers) changed that and put the swifts on the river to chase Viet Cong. Unfortunate for Kerry he was there on the Swift. So don't give me this chicken, hero comparison.
John O'Neil, the author of the Swift Vets book, Unfit for Command, said that he is more outraged with what Kerry did after the war. It hurt our POWS; it hurt the people who came home after serving; and it hurt the image of our country. Kerry lied in front of Congress. He said that the average Vet was like atilia the hun, cutting off people's heads, raping, pileraging. I think these Vets would have been more happy with Howard Dean as the candidate. This is payback for the irresponsible things Kerry said after he came home.
You know Curious, Bush served well as commander in chief. He deserves a second term.
You can't have it both ways and always your way depending on the history of your candidate at the time.
Kerry originally tried to get out of the service. He opted for the swift boats which were up until Kerry's enlistment running off of the coast. A rear admiral (I think Rogers) changed that and put the swifts on the river to chase Viet Cong. Unfortunate for Kerry he was there on the Swift. So don't give me this chicken, hero comparison.
John O'Neil, the author of the Swift Vets book, Unfit for Command, said that he is more outraged with what Kerry did after the war. It hurt our POWS; it hurt the people who came home after serving; and it hurt the image of our country. Kerry lied in front of Congress. He said that the average Vet was like atilia the hun, cutting off people's heads, raping, pileraging. I think these Vets would have been more happy with Howard Dean as the candidate. This is payback for the irresponsible things Kerry said after he came home.
You know Curious, Bush served well as commander in chief. He deserves a second term.
Regnand, thank you for giving your true colors, an anti-war protestor from Massachusetts. The ends meets the means, as Lenin said. The truth means nothing. Kerry lied about the Vietnam Vets and you support that. That's what these guys are outraged about. You are right Curious, this election is the Vietnam War 2, but this time it is the war protestors vs. the Veterans. By the Way Regnand, most of the Vietnam Vets dispise Kerry, except for the few radical ones. I know quite a few Vietnam Vets. I pray Bush wins. Lenin in the White House is scary.
Last edited:
Regnad, were do you get this stuff (from the Moveon.org website? I don't know; I don't visit the site) --- but this shadow intelligence and all --- I don't know what you mean by it.
Since 9/11 we haven't had a terrorist attack. I am not saying that we will not forever, but the Bush Admin. has foiled a few attacks. Terror alerts info were from Jan. sources, and who knows what cells are out there. Al Qaida plots take several months, if not more than a year; so what are you saying?
The WMDs? They are somewhere, maybe Syria or Iran? Hussein was changing guards at the border constantly before the US invaded. We know that from Iraqi sources. The US, Russia and UK all had the same intelligence. Putin told Bush that there is credible intelligence that Hussein wanted to strike the US; Putin was former head of the KGB, not to be laughed at. Russia has her own problems with Terrorism from Chechnia. Why didn't Hussein let the inspectors inspect? Why was he playing stalling games? John Loftus, a democrat and former Justice Department prosecutor and army intelligence officer, has said that it is believed that the WMD's are in Syria.
What rest are ALL the of the politicians? What failures? Gee, Regnand, speak in definite terms.
We are in a serious war against terrorists. I rather have Bush who understands that we are in a serious war, than Kerry who wants to please France, Germany and the rest of the Euronuts. If we had the attitude that the media and many Democrats have, we never would have won World War II. God save us if we have to depend on the French. And God save us if Kerry wins. The 2 go hand in hand.
Kerry is too far to the Left for most Americans. He is being masqueraded as a moderate. He is not.
Zell Miller (D-GA) who gave the keynote speech for Clinton will do this 12 years later for Bush. Why? Because Kerry is too far Left. His senate record proves it. Miller said once he would never vote for a Republican, but this year he will. Why? Kerry is too far to the Left.
Since 9/11 we haven't had a terrorist attack. I am not saying that we will not forever, but the Bush Admin. has foiled a few attacks. Terror alerts info were from Jan. sources, and who knows what cells are out there. Al Qaida plots take several months, if not more than a year; so what are you saying?
The WMDs? They are somewhere, maybe Syria or Iran? Hussein was changing guards at the border constantly before the US invaded. We know that from Iraqi sources. The US, Russia and UK all had the same intelligence. Putin told Bush that there is credible intelligence that Hussein wanted to strike the US; Putin was former head of the KGB, not to be laughed at. Russia has her own problems with Terrorism from Chechnia. Why didn't Hussein let the inspectors inspect? Why was he playing stalling games? John Loftus, a democrat and former Justice Department prosecutor and army intelligence officer, has said that it is believed that the WMD's are in Syria.
What rest are ALL the of the politicians? What failures? Gee, Regnand, speak in definite terms.
We are in a serious war against terrorists. I rather have Bush who understands that we are in a serious war, than Kerry who wants to please France, Germany and the rest of the Euronuts. If we had the attitude that the media and many Democrats have, we never would have won World War II. God save us if we have to depend on the French. And God save us if Kerry wins. The 2 go hand in hand.
Kerry is too far to the Left for most Americans. He is being masqueraded as a moderate. He is not.
Zell Miller (D-GA) who gave the keynote speech for Clinton will do this 12 years later for Bush. Why? Because Kerry is too far Left. His senate record proves it. Miller said once he would never vote for a Republican, but this year he will. Why? Kerry is too far to the Left.
Here are your WMD's:
http://www.john-loftus.com/wmd_bekaa.asp
John Loftus is a Democrat, by the way.
http://www.john-loftus.com/wmd_bekaa.asp
John Loftus is a Democrat, by the way.
Similar threads
