Bush...to declare victory...

[LixyChick]

Just got news that GW will declare victory later this morning.

*weeping* Could someone point me to the edge of the planet? I want to get off!

I sooooooooooooo counted on Ohio for the electoral votes! *sigh*

[Lilith]

(((((((((Lixy)))))))))))

[LixyChick]

TY (((((((Lilith)))))))

*sigh* Gotta go to work with this feeling looming! *sigh*

[jseal]

LixyChick,

It won't last forever, even if, at times, it may seem so.

[maddy]

I admit I'm no political expert, but I just read a news article stating that Kerry isn't willing to concede yet. I didn't think Bush could officially declare a victory before Kerry's concession... or maybe that's just a bunch of polite tradition?

[flywater]

It is just a political tradition for the winner to wait for a concession speech Maddy.

[jennaflower]

Personally... I am THRILLED... as the resident Republican I now have hope for the future... rather than the dread I had with the prospects of Kerry... Hell.. had Kerry won.. I was gonna call in sick today.... but since he didn't...

off to work for me :)

Hugs to all...

[flywater]

Personally... I am THRILLED... as the resident Republican I now have hope for the future... rather than the dread I had with the prospects of Kerry... Hell.. had Kerry won.. I was gonna call in sick today.... but since he didn't...

off to work for me :)

Hugs to all...

Jenna, your not the only Republican here, so dont feel alone! I am also glad about the result, no matter how much flack I catch about posting that! LOL!

[Catch22]

Isn't Australia the edge of the earth or is it New Zealand?

[Irish]

Once again,my motto proves correct---"A quitter never wins & a winner
never quits! Irish
P.S.Winning a battle,does not win the war!

[Cheyanne]

Here we go again! Arggggggggggggg - I am with ya Lixy!

I don't think Kerry should concede. I think that all votes should be counted and until those results are finalized should anyone concede. I think the Bush camp needs to be patient about that rather than urging Kerry to give up seeing how they are so confident that they won.

Currently there are four states still out - not just Ohio and Iowa being one of them. Granted 7 electorial votes vs. 20 is a no brainer, but ALL VOTES SHOULD BE COUNTED!!!!

(Gonna build a bigger soapbox)

[campingboy]

It was/is a close race. I only hope that as a nation common ground is found and that issues and policies are developed for the better of all.

[Pita]

I'm glad that it looks like Bush won. Yesterday I wasn't feeling hopeful with so many going out to vote but it looks like the country has spoken their mind and change is not what the majority is wanting at this time.

I also hope we can all come together for the good of the country now and that everyone will support the President.

[nikki1979]

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW AND HOT DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! am so glad it looks like bush is gettin it!!!! SWEET!!!! im kinda confussed on fox it says bush got ohio but on cnn it still says its not in , so may be i shuddnt be yehawin yet LOL

~nikki

[Mackenzie]

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW AND HOT DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! am so glad it looks like bush is gettin it!!!! SWEET!!!! im kinda confussed on fox it says bush got ohio but on cnn it still says its not in , so may be i shuddnt be yehawin yet LOL

~nikki

You may YEEEEEEHAWWWWWW All you want! And I am with you!!!!! Kerry refuses to concede even though it is impossible for him to win! *cough* Cry baby *cough*!!!!

[flutelady]

I'm a republican, but I couldn't cast my vote for Bush... nor could I cast it for Kerry. I didn't vote for either one of them. I did vote, tho!

[nikki1979]

I'm a republican, but I couldn't cast my vote for Bush... nor could I cast it for Kerry. I didn't vote for either one of them. I did vote, tho!

i honestly dont consider my self republican or democratic , but if i had to pick it wud be repub, i voted bush cuz no matter what yall say, hes good for me, he is the one who gives my husband his pay increases and helps keep my husband employed, i dont trust kerry and i think hes a backstabber, BUT what politian isnt??? ohwell lesser of two evils for, id rather have the devil i know than the devil i dont!!!

~nikki

[MilkToast]

Jenna, your not the only Republican here, so dont feel alone! I am also glad about the result, no matter how much flack I catch about posting that! LOL!
you can count me in as well

[gekkogecko]

Just got news that GW will declare victory later this morning.

What worries me is not so much that Bush won the election-I was pretty much looking a Tweedledum and Tweedledee. But that the Republicans have control of the house, the senate, and the white house. And hence, are set to extend their control over the judiciary.
Good-bye, what few civil rights the US public has left to it.

I want to get off!

Well, I wouldn't mind helping you do that.

[osuche]

I sooooooooooooo counted on Ohio for the electoral votes! *sigh*

I voted my piece, but I know what you mean. I want to slap my fellow Ohioans upside the head. :D

But then again....we also voted for the constitutional amendment (in OH) to ban gay marriage.....which shows our judgement is faulty. <sigh>

The Constitution should be about *protecting* rights, not taking them away!

[maddy]

amazingly enough, I just got home from my day at 10:30p and have emails from some liberal friends who are still convinced the election isn't over and that it was all a fraud. but on the flip side, i'm pleased with the result and only hope that much productivity is accomplished in the next four years.

[JustSomeGuy]

Personally... I am THRILLED... as the resident Republican I now have hope for the future... rather than the dread I had with the prospects of Kerry... Hell.. had Kerry won.. I was gonna call in sick today.... but since he didn't...

off to work for me :)

Hugs to all...

You aren't the only Republican here - I'm active duty military and I voted for Bush. Nothing could have made me vote for Kerry - NOTHING.

[LixyChick]

When GW saw the division in the country and realized the amount of support JK got, he complimented Kerry on his spirited effort and said he hoped the country could come together and get behind his administration. I'm afraid now because, again, I don't think the prez understands what the divided part of this country has said in showing our support for JK. He only sees that he has many supporters and so he thinks that ALL he does is right. The moment he sincerely admits his mistakes and takes measures to rectify them is the moment I get behind the next four years. Till then, be it apathy or something else, I have no faith in GW and I cannot support him in any way, shape or form. When that changes, I'll let ya know!

P.S. That does NOT mean I do not support our troops and wish them well and hope for an end to this nonsensical war!!!! I DO support them and I fear for them as well!

[jseal]

LixyChick,

One good to come out of this election was the distinct increase in voter registration and turnout. Nationally, the number I recall reading was 59.1% of registered voters actually voted. This was, I believe the highest turnout since the late 60s. In my state of Maryland, 72% of registered voters went through the effort to actually vote.

The trick will be to keep these percentages this high in the future.

[Lilith]

Since 1968...

[Coach Knight]

Well, well, well ....

I am still officially retired but being a red in a blue state, I must give a little opinion.

I did vote for GW and I do support him. Right after Sept. 11 he indicated he was going to go after terrorists, not wait for them to attack us and everyone cheered. He is only standing by his convictions. I will not make fun of Kerry for flip-flopping because if he won, I would have to support him as well. (Actually, I think that the way presidents are ridiculed in this country is deliterious to the common good. It is the most powerful position in the world and the person who holds it should be held in high regard. And, you DO NOT become president if you are a complete moron).

Anyways, there are two Americas and the people who live in red states are offended by the way the blue states push their values upon them. (News media, celebrities, etc.) Anyone that thinks that Ben Affleck is going to change someone in Alabama's mind about voting was obviously wrong. I have much more to offer but looking at the map, it seems obvious. Northeast (Boston, New York), upper midwest (Illinois, Michigan), and west coast (California, etc.) all went were blue states. The democrats need to find a way to tap into the heartland. Those people feel disenfranchised by liberal America.

Either way, I still had to go to work this morning, so I guess it doesn't matter.

[skyler_m]

Well, I'm a registered Republican. I voted for Dubya. As a rule, I do not push my views onto others nor do I look down on them. I have heard some very interesting commentary about this election in the last 2 days. Although most of it came from highly conservative talk radio, it really put an interesting spin on the whole political scene.

Even the right wingers have said that they are afraid of the downturn that this could cause the democrats. For months, the mantra that has been chanted (either directly or indirectly) by the Dems isn't "Vote Kerry" nearly as much as it has been "Anyone but Bush". (Hell, I saw 2 bumper stickers just this morning with that slogan on it.) Looking from the outside, that is very difficult to rally around.

The Dems had the numbers to be able to take the White House; however, their key demographics historically do not have great turnout at the polls. How many times did we see celebrities trying to get young voters registered? (Will Michael Moore just disappear now for a while???) The 18-25 voter turnout was yet again a very small percentage. The other 2 areas that are historically big backers of the Democrats are union people (and the % of union workers to non-union workers is the lowest since the industrial revolution) and minorities. Again, not a high percentage of voter turnout in either of those categories. (New rule... if you didn't vote and are upset that Bush won... you get an automatic kick in the nuts)

It will be extremely interesting to see if there is any backlash and infighting within the Democratic party. They took perhaps the largest political hit in US history, unable to gain the White House and are now the minority party in both the house and senate (and Tom Daschle losing his senate seat could have more of an impact on the Democratic party than losing the presidency).

The Dems have 2 years to get themselves back in line and strengthen their party. As I stated before, I'm a registered Republican, but I don't think that a 1 party system has any merit to it. Although flawed, the US government was setup with a series of checks and balances. Although rival political parties wasn't originally part of that framework, it has definitely become that way. I'm a middle of the road kinda guy. Balance is good.

Regroup and come out firing!



and for Hell's sake, don't let Hillary run in '08... LOL

[PantyFanatic]

Skyler, that was one of the most rational statements put forth anywhere so far. :)

[skyler_m]

Thanks, PF. I hope I haven't set the bar too high for myself now.

[Sugarsprinkles]

My only consolation in Tuesday's debacle is that at least this time he was actually elected and not anointed by the Supreme Court.

[skyler_m]

Okay. I got caught in a little mis-statement. I stated that the Dems were now the minority in both the house and the senate. They were prior to the Tuesday election (51 Rs, 28Ds, 1 indy; however, the Dems lost 4 seats. The point I was making was that the Republicans have 55 seats now. Even if 1 or 2 of the Rs cross party lines on voting of an issue, they will still have a majority.

My apologies for any confusion I may have caused.

[Irish]

A persons record,shows how he really thinks!
When a person campaigns(sp?),he tells you what he wants you to believe
about him,so that you will vote for him.Having lived,both N & S of Mass (Conn
& NH),it was easy to pick the lesser of two evils.Plus bieng a 10% disabled vet
you expect the people whos back you watch,to also watch yours.Many times
your life depends on them! Irish
P.S.I am a registered independant,but no matter what party you're in,that
applies to everyone!

[jseal]

Sugarsprinkles,

While the Democrats did take a serious hit in this election, I don’t see it really as a debacle, they’ll come back. The political process needs it. The American public will demand it. Incumbents are notoriously difficult to unseat, Senator Kerry knew that. Senator Daschle’s defeat was most unusual. The next year will be a time of wound-licking and reflection – and then, inevitably, there will be an opening – there always is.

I too am pleased that President Bush not only won the Electoral College for a second time (which is after all, the vote that counts), but the also the popular vote. This will mute, although I doubt for long, the critics of his policies. They now have received the stamp of popular approval, some three and a half million of them.

[LixyChick]

Well, well, well ....

I am still officially retired but being a red in a blue state, I must give a little opinion.

I did vote for GW and I do support him. Right after Sept. 11 he indicated he was going to go after terrorists, not wait for them to attack us and everyone cheered. He is only standing by his convictions. I will not make fun of Kerry for flip-flopping because if he won, I would have to support him as well. (Actually, I think that the way presidents are ridiculed in this country is deliterious to the common good. It is the most powerful position in the world and the person who holds it should be held in high regard. And, you DO NOT become president if you are a complete moron).

Anyways, there are two Americas and the people who live in red states are offended by the way the blue states push their values upon them. (News media, celebrities, etc.) Anyone that thinks that Ben Affleck is going to change someone in Alabama's mind about voting was obviously wrong. I have much more to offer but looking at the map, it seems obvious. Northeast (Boston, New York), upper midwest (Illinois, Michigan), and west coast (California, etc.) all went were blue states. The democrats need to find a way to tap into the heartland. Those people feel disenfranchised by liberal America.

Either way, I still had to go to work this morning, so I guess it doesn't matter.
Hiya CK! LTNS! *hugs*

I'm taking issue with your comments because I think a lot of folks feel the way you do and I've been dying to say something about it for a while.

The map you refer to that shows "the red states and the blue states" show more red than blue because of the electorate vote. What people fail to remember (or even study) are the numbers in the popular vote. Just because the state is in red or blue doesn't mean that there was a landslide vote for a particular party in that state. In this election, some of the numbers were pretty close. And, let's not forget the votes that were tossed out or not counted due to "sufficient" numbers for the candidate to win that electorate vote! What I think this all boils down to is...if they ask people to come out and vote, and they come out in droves as they did in this election, all votes should be counted and used to decide. I don't care for the electoral system as the final decision. It confuses people and gives them high hope on one side of the coin, or no hope on the other side. I feel like it's a way for the government to patronize us (the voters) and show us the simplified version of a complicated and detailed matter. I think most people I know can handle the big picture without the assistance of a mass vote count.

And, you DO NOT become president if you are a complete moron).
When I first read this quote from you I thought it said "mormon"...*giggle* Which brings me to another issue...the bible belt. When polled around the country after the election, the most common reply (above and beyond any other concern or issue) to "why" did you vote for Bush was...morality. "I voted for Bush because I stand behind his evangelical principals and I like that he doesn't seperate church and state in the White House"...(one example from a woman I heard interviewed, that stands out in my memory). Not terrorism...Not healthcare...Not the deficit...Not homeland security...etc. God was the answer for the majority of people polled. Of course you all know I am an atheist, but I am NOT off-put by religion or political figures who make known their particular religious affiliate. Some put it forth stronger than others. But, in the face of all that is ahead of us...the fears over the war, the unsettled healthcare issues, the faulty homeland security issues, women's rights, stem cell research, etc...this is the main concern of a large part of our nation? The seperation of church and state is there for a reason and I am saddened that the biggest issue for the majority vote was based on the bible above all other things facing our nation. I have to admit...it scares me to be under the rule of a president that takes the bible so literally. Not to mention...some of the new senators and congress persons!!!

Anyway...there's my thoughts. Nice to see ya still around CK!

[Lilith]

Lixy, Mr. Lil and I were discussing the same thing last night. I thought the people who came here on the big boat long long ago came to get away from a government/church situation. * shrugs*

[Belial]

Morals aren't necessarily an exclusively godly thing, although I'm willing to bet that most of the voters indicating moral issues to be the main decider would disagree. I say you and a few select Pixies *cough*me*cough* form the Republic of Lixy :)

[maddy]

We had this same discussion about morality the other day. Interesting, I didn't link it to religion, though I can see how you could. Maybe it's because of my church background and many of the moral issues that surface in the bible, I don't take a literal stand on.

So how do you convince people who are so bible blinded that there are much bigger issues? Or would those people argue that we are in these issues because we don't follow the bible more strictly? Interesting food for thought.

[Belial]

Well, interesting you should say that maddy, because Jerry Falwell was quoted as saying the following in reference to September 11(http://en.wikipedia.org/Jerry_Falwell/):


And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."


Falwell later distanced himself from any statement blaming any people other than the terrorists directly responsible, even though Pat Robertson agreed:


Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.


I doubt they're alone, though how widely held those opinions are I can't say.

[Irish]

There might soon be a new religious outlook on this.George Soros(sp?) said
that he would spend any amount of money,to keep Bush,from getting re-
elected.He also said that he would enter a monestary,if Bush,got re-elected.
When he enters,maybe we will have a new religious outlook! Irish

[jseal]

Irish,

It may take a while before he gets his affairs in order...

[Coach Knight]

Lixy Lixy,

Always make me smile.
I do know all about the electoral college. And I think there needs to be some compromise between that and the popular vote. Such as dividing the electoral vote according to percentage of actual votes won in that state.

I agree religion shouldn't be a main component of the presidency. Just as I think abortion and gay marriage as well. But both sides play by the same rules and would do anything to win. (Such as trotting Ashton Kuchar out on the day before the election - talk about a bad strategy.)

I could go on forever. Let's agree to disagree and wait for the real battle in 2008: Hillary Clinton vs. Rudolph Guilianni

How much money would be spent in that campaign?

See ya.

[jseal]

LixyChick,

I’m with you – sorta…

…let's not forget the votes that were tossed out or not counted due to "sufficient" numbers for the candidate to win that electorate vote! What I think this all boils down to is...if they ask people to come out and vote, and they come out in droves as they did in this election, all votes should be counted and used to decide…

I checked the Ohio Secretary of State page for the presidential race,

http://election.sos.state.oh.us/results/SingleRaceSummary.aspx?race=PP

and the vote count difference between the two candidates is greater than the total number of provisional ballots issued - at least as of this posting.

http://election.sos.state.oh.us/ProvBallots.htm

With that in mind, it does seem reasonable to declare the winner before all the provisional ballots are counted. Not that the provisional ballots should not be counted, just that even if they were all valid, and none were votes for President Bush, the results would remain unchanged. I suspect that the same is true in states like New York, California, and Pennsylvania, where, no matter how long it takes to count any and all provisional and absentee ballots, the state would still declare for Senator Kerry.

I checked the Iowa Secretary of State page for the presidential race,

http://www.sos.state.ia.us/pdfs/elections/2004/general/UnofficialCanvasResults.pdf

and it appears to be provisional, not official.


I don't care for the electoral system as the final decision.

There are many people who’ll agree with you on that one! As it will take an amendment to the Federal Constitution to change it, that will be a tough nut to crack.

[Irish]

JSeal---You mean that, I shouldn't hold my breath,waiting for Soros to enter
a monestary?
CK---I just heard on Talk Radio,that it might be Hilliary vs C Rice!They said
that,among other things,he is pro-gun control & also Pro-choice,so that they
would probably lose the religious vote.As a (former)hunter,I thought that the
goose hunt looked rediculous.So did the other hunters that I know. Irish

[Scarecrow]

How about Hilliary vs Jeb Bush????
:grin:


Lixy if the Electoral College System were not used the candidates would only have to win in 10(ten) states and the other 40 would not even have to vote. If the candidate could win the top 10 states in population they would not need a single vote in the other 40.

[Mercury_Maniac]

i was pretty disappointed with the outcome myself,

i guess i don't consider myself republican or democratic,

but see my signature for what i think of the lesser of the 2

[LixyChick]

LixyChick,

I’m with you – sorta…



I checked the Ohio Secretary of State page for the presidential race,

http://election.sos.state.oh.us/results/SingleRaceSummary.aspx?race=PP

and the vote count difference between the two candidates is greater than the total number of provisional ballots issued - at least as of this posting.

http://election.sos.state.oh.us/ProvBallots.htm

With that in mind, it does seem reasonable to declare the winner before all the provisional ballots are counted. Not that the provisional ballots should not be counted, just that even if they were all valid, and none were votes for President Bush, the results would remain unchanged. I suspect that the same is true in states like New York, California, and Pennsylvania, where, no matter how long it takes to count any and all provisional and absentee ballots, the state would still declare for Senator Kerry.

I checked the Iowa Secretary of State page for the presidential race,

http://www.sos.state.ia.us/pdfs/elections/2004/general/UnofficialCanvasResults.pdf

and it appears to be provisional, not official.




There are many people who’ll agree with you on that one! As it will take an amendment to the Federal Constitution to change it, that will be a tough nut to crack.
Thanks jseal, for the links and all the info.

As to a reform to the 12th amendment...Since it's inception, there have been quite a few tweaks/changes to it. As it stands today, and what some people may not realize is, when we cast our vote for a presidential candidate, we are in actuality voting for an electorate official to make up the slate for our particular state. In this system, we cast a blind faith vote for the person who is running for this office (Electoral College Slate), and that he/she is truly what they claim they are...be it a Democrat or a Republican. And [we] don't even know who these people are or anything about their past political views unless [we] are diligent enough to seek out who is in the running and look into their political history. They aren't the ones campaigning. It's the candidates that they claim to represent that are in our faces day in and day out.

I've never been a supporter of blind faith in any action in my life. I'm more of a scientific mindset. Maybe I should move to Missouri...the "Show Me" state! LOL!

Anyway...I see room for change...where [we] can know the names and politics of our electorate slate for each state...and vote for them first, in a seperate election. Or, better yet, get rid of the electoral vote all together. It's antiquated anyway. It was made up even before there were political parties and when there were fewer states and fewer people and no way for them to get to know a candidate outside of their own state (no mass media). We all know how bombarded we are by media coverage now. How about a bit of "blind faith" from the governing bodies that ask it of us, and trust that [we] are smart enough and informed enough to make a vote based on processed information from all candidates...not just our local yokel!!! This isn't a football game ya know! I can look outside some of my loyalties and weigh the issues and figure the balances on my own...damnitalltohell! I know...I know...Don't ask something of someone else that you aren't willing to do yourself (blind faith reference). But, there's got to be a better way...right? How bout an EQUAL amount of electorate votes for each state? It's a tweak...not an abolishment (word?...is now!)...and I can't understand why one state can walk taller and carry a bigger stick. We're all Americans!

As to the morality and religious issue...pollster's questions were like this..."In order of priority, the most crucial being number one, why did you vote for *your candidate* (insert Republican or Democratic candidate here)"...and then gave a list of issues with unspoken subtext...such as: Terrorism...Morality...Homeland Security...Healthcare...Trust...National Debt...etc. etc...and the religious votes fell under morality...whereas the cost of prescriptions would have fallen under healthcare. When further questioned, in informal interviews in the media, those who voted morality (nearly 80% of the voting population) sited reasons of church and state, such as I listed above (in my last response to this thread). The one I listed above is just one of the few that I remembered verbatim. Since there was no Religion category persay, the voters concluded/included it with morality. I wasn't the one who put it all in a nutshell...it was the other voters!

*falls off the soapbox* Eeeeeeeek!

[LixyChick]

How about Hilliary vs Jeb Bush????
:grin:


Lixy if the Electoral College System were not used the candidates would only have to win in 10(ten) states and the other 40 would not even have to vote. If the candidate could win the top 10 states in population they would not need a single vote in the other 40.
I can see the Hillary vs. Jeb thing happening, even! LOL! It's a thinker!

As to the "not using the electoral system"...

I said above...the 12th amendment has been revised quite a bit since it came into being. Why couldn't we do away with it and make ALL votes count or give all states equal amounts of electorate votes?

We've cum...er...come a long way baby!

(((((Scarecrow)))))

[Scarecrow]

I'm afraid that if we did not have the ECS that even fewer votes would not count. Say canidate A wins the poplular vote in every state east of the Mississippi he could possible win with out a single vote being cast west of the Mississippi, it is highly unlikely but it could happen.

[LixyChick]

I'm afraid that if we did not have the ECS that even fewer votes would not count. Say canidate A wins the poplular vote in every state east of the Mississippi he could possible win with out a single vote being cast west of the Mississippi, it is highly unlikely but it could happen.
Scarecrow,

I went to make dinner and got to thinking...did I mention equal electorate votes? So I came back and edited my last reply to ask that very question. Please reread aforementioned post. TY hun!

[Scarecrow]

If you have equal electorate votes then the people of Rhode Island, all 1 million of them are equal to the 33+ million in California. That does not seem fair that 32 million Californians do not count.

[maddy]

I think the way Maine has tweeked the ECS and Colorado proposed on this years ballot is a very fair way to do it. Where the ECS votes for each state are split in proportion to the actual vote of the state, thus if you have a state that votes 70% D and 30% R, then the ECS votes are split the same way. It's the best way to assimilate the popular votes and keep the ECS alive, IMHO.

[LixyChick]

I didn't move all those people to California! The gold did it I tell ya! And I didn't make the Mason/Dixon line either...lol! Matter of fact...North and South Jersey wanted succession (not that THEY have anything to do with the Mason/Dixon line...duh!). The lines are drawn...and I didn't draw them...so if you have 1,000,000 or 33,000,000...it's your state...make your vote count!

LMFAO! Good point Scarecrow...but it was just a fleeting thought off the top of my head. I know that the electorate vote is more to help than to hinder, but when you see the colors on the map...how do you ignore the ignorance of those whose candidate won, when they say from the heart, it was of the majority of the country who elected [him], and have no idea how the system works or who they actually voted for???? I give up! Anyone have any better ideas?

[LixyChick]

I think the way Maine has tweeked the ECS and Colorado proposed on this years ballot is a very fair way to do it. Where the ECS votes for each state are split in proportion to the actual vote of the state, thus if you have a state that votes 70% D and 30% R, then the ECS votes are split the same way. It's the best way to assimilate the popular votes and keep the ECS alive, IMHO.
Oh man! I like it! Someone is bound to come up with something that'll make it impossible to embrace. *sigh*

OK...so when can we see this option on a ballot? Ut oh! Who'll decide the outcome of such a vote? LMAO! Vicious circle begins! Well...let's see. How did Maine get to tweak it and how did Colorado do on the vote? How do we get this ball in motion?

[MilkToast]

I think the way Maine has tweeked the ECS and Colorado proposed on this years ballot is a very fair way to do it. Where the ECS votes for each state are split in proportion to the actual vote of the state, thus if you have a state that votes 70% D and 30% R, then the ECS votes are split the same way. It's the best way to assimilate the popular votes and keep the ECS alive, IMHO.
This is an idea that I have thought should be in place for a number of elections now. Make each of the states still have some power on their own via the electoral college, but make each of the states have to represent their populations with an actual split of the votes as they were cast by the people!

[Lilith]

Did it pass in Co.? I was going to pay attention to that but got distracted. I think it is the smart way to keep what we were given but while making necessary adjustments.

[jseal]

Lilith,

No. Colorado Amendment 36 was defeated. It sounds to be what maddy, LixyChick and MilkToast are proposing.

[maddy]

*faints* we finally found some agreement on a political thread here... please don't spank me back to reality. Perhaps after I am done with school, I'll figure out the appropriate steps to push this in my own state... and with any luck I will move just after that and then I can pester the government of a new state ;)

[jseal]

LixyChick,

So your plugging a constitutional amendment? Well, you sure can’t be criticized for setting your goals too to low! Interesting idea. You wear this soapbox well.

[dicksbro]

:rolleyes: Always remember ... no matter who wins ...




... it's still a politician. :(

[Scarecrow]

I like the idea of splitting a state EC votes also. But Colorado was only going to give the winner 5 votes and the loser 4 votes. I'd like to see a better way to split the votes. Such as the winner gets the 2 votes every state gets and then the vote tied to the number of house seats the state holds goes to the person who won that house district.



P.S. Maddy I just like to spank you forget about reallity :spank:

[jseal]

Scarecrow,

It looks to me that the Colorado Amendment 36 is proportional representation.

http://www.lawanddemocracy.org/pdffiles/COamend36.pdf

ref page 2 lines 17 through 21.

[quisath]

The Counts all in and the people of America Chose to re-elect the President. After all the Liberal Media did to Slam the President he still rose above it won. Maybe the Democrats should get rid of the Liberal agenda and force Ted and a few others into retirement. It couldn't hurt. Americans need to wake up and realize neither party gives a good cohoot about what this country needs only what THEY NEED!!!!!!!!!

[LixyChick]

Oops! I got lost...but now I'm back. Where were we? Spanking...right?

Thanks for the chatter peeps. It's really interesting to hear what everyone thinks!