|Poll: Is this guy crazy or What !!!!!!||MR_GRUMPY|
Oct 30, 2003 6:01 PM
|Is he 1) Crazy as a loon
2) Just acting crazy
3) Crazy as a Fox
5) Your Hero
|re: Poll: Is this guy crazy or What !!!!!!||critmass|
Oct 30, 2003 10:00 PM
|The people of North Korea look at him with the same reverence they did his father. That's where his strength is. A cult of personality is a powerful force and he learned it from his father who was a master at it. He has played his nuke, long-range missile, technology sales and reunification cards skillfully. Crazy is just propaganda and people who misunderstand that are fools waiting to be taken. He has shown he can play the U.S. (both Clinton and Dubya), Japan and Russia for his own purposes and succeed. Crazy, no. Intelligent and ruthless, yes.
10/30/03 Centcom: four U.S. soliders were wounded in the town of Tal Afar, just west of Mosul, when attacked by rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons.
|re: Poll: Is this guy crazy or What !!!!!!||Bill B|
Oct 31, 2003 6:01 AM
|You could describe Ann Coulters love for Tailgunner Joe and the shrub the same way. One mans dictactor is another mans fairly elected republican president.|
|Another delusional parrot||Live Steam|
Oct 31, 2003 6:10 AM
|Please show us all how Bush was not elected fairly. Last I checked there was a thing called the Electoral College (designed by our Fore Fathers so the election of a President would represent everyones vote, in each state, equally) which all prior Presidential candidates must have won a majority of the votes in for them to become President of the United States.|
|The Electoral College...||Tri_Rich|
Oct 31, 2003 6:45 AM
|The electoral college was specifically designed to prevent everyone's vote from counting equally.
The founding fathers did not think that Joe Average could be trusted with the job of selecting the president, so they set up a system in which the people elected the electors who were then given the job of selecting the president. While this was probably a prudent thing to do in the 1700's when information was not freely available to all, the system has been corrupted by the requirement by many states that electors vote entirely as the state did. This allows a situation were a single vote in a state like NY or Cal can deliver all the states electoral votes, effective negating the concept of each vote counting equally.
However since the system benefits the two party system there will not be a reform effort until enough people realize that the electoral college is outdated and flawed.
Oct 31, 2003 7:06 AM
|It was set up so that the majority of votes in CT are as equally represented as the majority of votes in CA. If you eliminate the Electoral College there would be no reason for candidates to even attempt to visit states like RI, CT, and most of fly over country. Those people would be forgotten and their representation effectively lost. They would have no voice. Your argument that one vote casts the vote for the entire state doesn't hold water when weighed against the idea that NY and CA can decide the Presidency without consideration for the other 48 states. My vote and your vote carry equal weight within our respective states, and thus as part of the greater whole, do the same.
Your idea is very disturbing. The average Joe couldn't be trusted in a government for the people, by the people and of the people?
Oct 31, 2003 9:16 AM
|Actually the idea that the average person should not select the president is not mine but that of the people who set up the system. However they did not require that ALL a staes electoral college members vote the way the majority of the state did. In fact IIRC there was originally no requirement as to who the elector had to vote for and some have gone against the candidate who garnered the most votes in the state.
However I fail to see the logic that says your vote and mine carry equal weight. Merely look at the results of 1888 (?) 2000 were clearly all votes were not equal as the electoral college decision differed from the popular vote.
Or let's make it simple; given the current situation, 1 person votes in NY thereby giving all electoral college votes to candidate A, 5 people vote in VT all for candidate B. Candidate A wins meaning the VT voters vote each count less than 1/5th as much as the NY voter.
|Actually, its sort of the reverse||TJeanloz|
Oct 31, 2003 11:28 AM
|The bias in the electoral college actually favors small states, rather than large ones. A vote in Vermont is worth much more than a vote in NY, because both states have the same proportion of Representatives / population, but VT has more Senators per person than New York, thus more electoral votes, per person.
The problem with your argument is the basic premise that the Constitutional process by which the President is elected has anything to do with a popular vote. Nowhere in the Constitution does it require the citizenry to actually vote for the President. The President is elected solely by the electoral college - there is no mention of a popular vote. The President is elected not by the people, but by the individual state legislatures, and problems with how electoral college votes go are problems of state law, not Federal law.
Why did the framers do it this way? There is a probably valid argument that they wanted their class to control the election. There were also logistical issues - conducting a national popular vote in 1789 would have been quite a time-consuming affair. And there were states rights issues - remember, the Constitution in general was set up to exist as a Federal framework while leaving states sovereignity alone. The electoral college also follows the bicameral nature of the framework, ensuring that large states don't overwhelm small states. It really wasn't as simple, and isn't as simple, as a popular vote for the President.
|Actually, its sort of the reverse||Tri_Rich|
Oct 31, 2003 12:01 PM
|I actually said the system creates a situation in which not every vote is equal, I did not say whom it favored. NY and VT were merely an example.
The president is not elected by state legislatures, but by the Electoral college voters. The fact that they are not allowed to split the electoral votes even when a state is as close to 50-50 as possible is an issue whether it is a federal law or state law.
I have no issue with the practical considerations (although the political ones are different) which led to the creation of the system in the 1700's. However I think that those concerns are no longer valid, and the requirement by many states that electors vote as the state does undermines the principle of selecting informed citizens capable of making a good decision.
Basically as it stands we have neither a situation in which the populance elects informed intellegent electors who use their judgement to elect a president, as was I believe the original idea, or a situation in which every vote counts equally.
|You still have it wrong||Live Steam|
Oct 31, 2003 2:50 PM
|Your idea that the state population elects "electors" to then cast votes for candidates they believe to be best suited to be president, was changed a long time ago. Why not look at the source for the answers? The reason an electoral college system is employed is because of the "party system" according to this article from the FEC web site.
Oct 31, 2003 1:01 PM
|"and problems with how electoral college votes go are problems of state law, not federal law"
Not according to Dubya.
The arguments over the Electoral Count Act of 1887 in Dubya's brief to the U.S. Supreme Court were that the decision should be taken away from the Florida Supreme Court and the State of Florida.
"The President is elected not by the people but by individual state legislatures"
Which individual state legislatures now choose electoral college electors?
Oct 31, 2003 1:30 PM
|All state legislatures have the sole authority to select electors. Most have delegated that authority (by law or state constitution) to a popular vote of some kind, but the Constitution grants this power to the legislature, not to the people.
I believe, but don't really remember, that the Florida recount had to do with what were effectively voting rights issues, where the matter gets somewhat less clear.
Oct 31, 2003 2:59 PM
The 5-4 ruling was about election law not voting rights. The Act of 1887 was one of the central arguments over the ruling by the Florida Supreme Court.
But then the bitter dissents agreed with you about states rights. Justice Stevens in an eloquent dissent wrote about how important it was to accept the opinions of the highest courts of the States as the final answers to their election laws. In ending his dissent he wrote: "It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by todays decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this years Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nations confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law. I respectfully dissent."
I thought since you wrote the president is elected not by the people but by individual state legislatures than you meant it. I can only respond to what people write and not what they change it to later.
Oct 31, 2003 12:49 PM
|I actually believe the "winner take all" nature of the modern electoral college makes it unlikely for a presidential candidate to visit every state. For example, when I lived in Indiana there was little advertising or visit from either candidate because everyone knew IN would vote republican. Since moving to Virginia I see what it is like (for good or bad) to be in a state where the vote can go either way.
If the electoral college would split the state vote that would go a long way toward restoring the value of the system, but as another person pointed out, that would inflict harm on the two parties. I'm not so bothered about not directly electing the president, but I do think we have the technology and means to conduct a popular vote for president. We should have something a little better than historical legacy for why we don't use a popular vote.
Oct 31, 2003 2:59 PM
|Again a popular vote would effectively disenfranchise people who live in less populated states. An election could be won by winning the majority of votes in CA, NY, FL and a few other stats of consequence without needing to or even caring about voters in any other state. Why is everyone so opposed to the Electoral College now? The Electoral College served the purpose it was intended to serve. The way the system works now, each state is important to a candidate. The article linked below explains this pretty well.
|crazy as a loon||mohair_chair|
Oct 31, 2003 7:53 AM
|He should be wearing a hat and gloves if he is going to be out in the cold like that.
Seems to me, you grow up in a Stalinist dictatorship, where everything is featureless and painted some shade of gray, and you always seem to be out of food, you are going to come out of it crazy as a loon.
I would be digging my own tunnel or carving my own boat to get the hell out of there if I had had the misfortune to be born there. I'm afraid to see what happens if that place ever reenters the world community. In theory, people living under collective insanity are not going to be the most well adjusted when you open the doors to the asylum.
|Is that background by Bob Ross?...NM||Tri_Rich|
Oct 31, 2003 9:17 AM
Oct 31, 2003 9:48 AM
|No fir trees, can't be Bob Ross||critmass|
Oct 31, 2003 11:13 AM
|But then it does remind one of those Magnificent Artist Sales at the local Holiday Inn.|
|It needs more happy little trees.....nm||rwbadley|
Oct 31, 2003 1:17 PM