Republicans... are we feeling a little desperate?

[Betheny]

Read on.


Judge Rebuffs GOP Effort To Contest Voters in Ohio

By Jo Becker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 28, 2004; Page A01

A U.S. District Court judge yesterday effectively ended efforts by Republicans in Ohio to challenge the eligibility of tens of thousands of voters in one of the most closely contested states in this year's presidential race.

Judge Susan J. Dlott in Cincinnati issued an order preventing local election boards from going forward with plans to notify challenged voters and hold hearings until she hears legal arguments tomorrow. But because her ruling means that those election board hearings cannot take place within the time frame state law requires before the election, Dlott's ruling killed the GOP effort that had targeted 35,000 voters, Democratic and Republican party officials said.

David Sullivan, director of the Democratic Party's Voter Protection Program in Ohio, praised the ruling and said the GOP was never able to offer proof that the challenged voters are ineligible. "The Republican assault on tens of thousands of Ohio voters was an unprecedented effort to intimidate voters, especially minorities, but it has backfired," he said.

Mark Weaver, a lawyer for the Ohio Republican Party, said yesterday's ruling does not prevent the party from going forward with plans to place 3,400 monitors in polling places, particularly in heavily Democratic urban areas. The challenges will take place Tuesday instead of being decided beforehand, he said.

States allow political parties to monitor polls and challenge voters' eligibility. In Ohio, the challenge is considered by a bipartisan election board.

"The ironic twist here is that now there will be longer lines [at the polls] because questions about voter eligibility will have to be decided on Election Day, rather than ahead of time," Weaver said.

A spokesman for Ohio's secretary of state, J. Kenneth Blackwell (R), who was named in the lawsuit, said he will not appeal the ruling. Election officials in Cuyahoga County, where most of challenges were filed, said they will not appeal either.

Both parties have been engaged in intense legal wrangling over election laws this year as they look for every possible edge in states where polls show the presidential race too close to call. They have fought over provisional ballots -- given to voters whose names do not appear on rolls at polling sites -- and how to determine their validity and how quickly the ballots should be counted. And they have battled over poll identification rules and procedures for early voting, a process in many states -- such as Florida -- that has already allowed more than 1.3 million people to vote in advance.

Ohio was part of an effort by Republicans in many battleground states to challenge voter registrations as Election Day approaches.

It was the second time that the GOP has lost on the issue. In Nevada, another battleground, Clark County election officials rejected an attempt this month by the former executive director of that state's GOP to challenge 17,000 voters in the Las Vegas area.

Dlott's ruling could alleviate the possibility of massive disruptions in the last days of the campaign. Cuyahoga County, where about 17,000 of the challenged voters reside, had been planning a mass hearing on Saturday.

The legal setback has not deterred GOP officials, who say that challenges are necessary to safeguard the election against fraud.

In Florida, the GOP has filed plans to place poll watchers at 5,000 polling places, spokeswoman Mindy Tucker Fletcher said. Whether those observers will challenge individual voters depends on the circumstances, she said. "If there's something blatant, we may choose to do that," she said.

In Denver, election officials said the Republican Party told them it plans to have 350 poll watchers to challenge voters there. "This is a very organized, very intense effort," said Alan McBeth of the Denver Election Commission. "If it becomes abusive, we may have to step in and say this is out of hand."

Tom Josefiak, the Bush campaign's general counsel, said in a recent interview that challenges would be conducted in a non-intimidating manner that would not disrupt voting.

Democrats, however, argue that the real aim of the challenge program is to keep voters likely to support Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), particularly minorities, from casting ballots.

Bob Bauer, a lawyer for the Democratic National Committee, said Democrats will also have large numbers of poll watchers. But, he said, "our watchers will be there to help voters, not to hinder them, to answer their questions, not to question them."

In Florida, Republican poll watchers will be disproportionately concentrated in minority precincts, according to a Democratic Party analysis of census data and GOP plans filed in five counties. In Miami-Dade, 59 percent of predominately black precincts will have at least one GOP poll watcher, compared with 37 percent of white precincts.

Although Fletcher did not dispute those numbers, she said that the party will not single out black neighborhoods, but rather heavily Democratic ones. "Those are the places most likely for the Democrats . . . to try to steal the election," she said.

Staff writer Ann Gerhart contributed to this report.

[Chadj]

Tsk tsk.. Those little Republicans are clearly getting desperate.

[Parkbandit]

According to most polling data.. there doesn't seem to be much of a reason for Republicans to feel desperate. I think this election will really show there is some serious need for campaign reform and election reform.

I personally can't wait until it's over. I'm so sick of seeing every other commercial spreading outright lies by both sides.

[Betheny]

I honestly wouldn't doubt this kind of underhanded behavior coming from both sides. It's politics, and both sides are full of politicians.

I just thought this was rather amusing.

[Back]

Electoral College, voting systems and campaign spending all need serious reform.

Think about how much the candidates spend on their campaigns and what you could really do with that kind of money. Also consider how third party candidates are essentially locked out of running. We really need more choices than the two established parties.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
Electoral College, voting systems and campaign spending all need serious reform.

Think about how much the candidates spend on their campaigns and what you could really do with that kind of money. Also consider how third party candidates are essentially locked out of running. We really need more choices than the two established parties.

Here fucking here. Write this date down folks.. I agree with everything Backlash just posted.

You can also add to this list.. Abolishment of all those groups like moveon.org and swiftboatvets.com from running TV commercials during an election.

[Betheny]

I'm of the firm belief that the electoral college no longer serves a purpose. It used to, but we have since grown past the need for it. It's now a way for politicians to minimize work but maximize the impact on their campaign. It proves that politicians do not genuinely care about their constituents, but rather worry only about being elected. Then again, that could just be a symptom of the Electoral College disease.

[Tsa`ah]

I think the one of the key problems would be political parties registering voters. This goes hand in hand with voter apathy and voters not really knowing the candidates. Couple that with some shady tactics and you have people registering with parties that really don't know what they're in for.

A few examples of this happened on the U of I campus some weeks back.

Registration campaigns from both sides were caught saying stuff like "remember to mark republican or you won't be paid" "make sure you mark democrat or you won't receive your gift certificate".

I personally think party registration needs to be abolished. You register to vote, and that's it. If you want to campaign for a party or attend conventions, that's all well and good, but party registration makes you a target.

Where would these legal maneuverings be if they had no idea what candidate their targets were voting for? It also makes me sick to think how many tax dollars have gone into these cases.

[Delirium]

I like the electoral college and think it serves a purpose. A few weeks ago even George Bush visited my lil town of about 60k people. Without the electoral college only the places with huge populations would get to see them as what would be the point of spending time in a city so small? As much as it may stink that someone can win with more votes but still lose i think the good outweighs the bad. States like North Dakota would also cease to exist politically cause there are so few people there. Why would you go there and spend any time if you could reach a lot more people in NYC or Chicago or wherever there are way too many people logjammed together.

[Tsa`ah]

Electoral votes are a direct reflection of the number State reps plus 2 (one for each senator). The number of reps (congressmen) is a direct reflection of population.

How is abolishing the Electoral College going affect the outcome at all? A state like North Dakota has 3 electoral votes. California has 55. This is due to the difference in population.

There are two logical systems that would serve the population better than the Electoral College. The popular winner in each state wins that state. 1 vote per state. The candidate that gets 26 or more states ... wins. This type of system ignores population and popularity thus has the potential to be a disservice to the majority.

The other alternative is having the outcome decided on the Nation wide popular vote. This serves the majority.

The Electoral College completely ignores the popular vote, which is the majority. The Electoral College can vote in direct opposition to the popular vote. There is only a pledge that holds each college member to vote for who the popular vote indicated. They can and have voted in opposition.

The pledge does so, but the fact that the electoral college members of each state are nominated by the winning party kinda keeps things in line.

The electoral college is needed just for the reason you stated above N. Dakota has a very small population which means it would be completely unimportant in any election. That leave the people of north dakota under the rule of the people of california who have tens of millions of people and in return would get nothing out of the candidates for the mere fact that the popular vote nullifies any and all importance they may have. Three electoral college votes though small can sway the election, so it gives them some importance and some say in the presidential vote. RI would be another very good example.

The system was set up as it is for a reson, though we may not agree with it, it is important to smaller states.

[Edited on 10-28-2004 by Dave]

[Valthissa]

Originally posted by Backlash
Electoral College, voting systems and campaign spending all need serious reform.



I agree that all these items need some reform. I think that the #1 change our polictical system needs relates to redistricting. All 435 congressional seats are up for re-election and there aren't two dozen competitive races - and - here's the part that gets me - both parties like the current system because it protects incumbents.

C/Valth

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Dave
The pledge does so, but the fact that the electoral college members of each state are nominated by the winning party kinda keeps things in line.

The electoral college is needed just for the reason you stated above N. Dakota has a very small population which means it would be completely unimportant in any election. That leave the people of north dakota under the rule of the people of california who have tens of millions of people and in return would get nothing out of the candidates for the mere fact that the popular vote nullifies any and all importance they may have. Three electoral college votes though small can sway the election, so it gives them some importance and some say in the presidential vote. RI would be another very good example.

The system was set up as it is for a reson, though we may not agree with it, it is important to smaller states.

[Edited on 10-28-2004 by Dave]

You are not understanding that electoral votes are a direct reflection of population. 55 electoral votes are greater than 3 electoral votes. A state like North Dakota already has a very small vote and the outcome of the elections are indeed decided by the outcome of states like CA, IL, FL, TX, OH, PA, and NY are key in elections simply because of the population reflecting 20 or more electoral votes.

Smaller populations equal fewer votes. The only way to give each state an EQUAL voice is to give each state an EQUAL amount of votes. This, as I explained, is a disservice to the majority.

You also missed the statement that the "pledge" given by the Electoral College does not mean each voter in the college will follow the pledge. Those votes have gone in opposition in the past. There is no guarantee despite party affiliation.

The only tally that should matter is a nation wide popular tally.

[Delirium]

Im sure they are directly relating to population. But do you honestly believe any candidate would show up in a town of 60k if there wasnt the electoral college and it was based soley off of popular vote? I dont not one bit. They would all be jumping from towns of a million plus+ as what way the state voted would no longer matter. Thats the key if they care about the smaller election in every state they have to care about other towns in each state besides just the biggest. Very few states split up the college votes and most of them are winner takes all.

Im sure some voters have voted against what they should but that doesnt alone nullify the system or we wouldnt have prisons cause some innocent people get put in there. The % of that happening i bet is very slim and for it to matter it would take a lot.

[Tsa`ah]

In today's society one does not really need candidate presence in order to be informed. With television, radio, mailings, news papers, and the internet, it is fairly easy for a voter to make an informed vote. If you need to see a baby kissed and receive a hand shake, then I don’t know what to tell you. Small town America and sparsely populated states have always been and will always be on most office seeking candidates’ back burner. Changing from electoral to popular won't make any significant impact in how politicians campaign. They will still focus on the swing states and states that have potential foot holds.

Popular determination may in fact force candidates to visit areas they normally would have ignored under the current system.

[DeV]

So people actually have a problem with a candidate being elected off of the popular vote alone? That's like saying you don't trust yourself to make an intelligent and informed decision on who receives your vote. I'm in favor of reform on all levels including the electoral college as well as campaign spending.

[Delirium]

Its not about seeing babys kissed its that they know and care(or pretend to) what its all about where i live. Different priorities in different places.

You're right small places will always be on the back burner,but if it was based soley on popular vote they would just remove the back burner completely. I think it would change quite a bit as people in smaller towns have different priorities than people in big towns. People in huge towns where people melt into the crowd tend to be more liberal,small town living where people take care of each other more tend to be more conservative.

[Sean]

I dislike the electoral college because I don't live in a swing state. My vote doesn't actually really count. Well this year is a little different since NJ is a lot closer than in the past. But if Bush hadn't gained grounds in the polls after the gov scandal, not saying theres a direct relation but it will by my conspiracy theory of the day, he wouldn't have even come to NJ because theres no point. If popular vote mattered I feel there would be more incentive for them to stop min/maxing their campaign visits.

[Edited on 10-28-2004 by Tijay]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Maimara
I honestly wouldn't doubt this kind of underhanded behavior coming from both sides.
Both parties have been engaged in intense legal wrangling :yes:
Originally posted by Tsa`ah
You are not understanding that electoral votes are a direct reflection of population. That's not entirely accurate. Electoral votes are directly proportional to population, but I'm willing to bet there's much more than 18 times as many Californians as North Dakotians (in fact, it's almost 56 times as many).
In today's society one does not really need candidate presence in order to be informed.Unless you're Bill O'Reilly. :D

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by LatrinsormUnless you're Bill O'Reilly. :D

[StrayRogue]

I can't wait for it to be over either, and I'm barely suffering a fraction of the propeganda machine over here. Actually our media has been doing a real good job of remaining bias is its approach to documenting the entire thing. Roll on election day so we can say either for another four years that American's are stupid enough to vote a tyrant back-into power after a term of evil, etc, or that Americans may be finally coming around to what is best for them and the rest of the world. We'll see.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
pb's telepathy machine at work againI'm just going by what he said on TDS. :shrug: Hold on, I've got some slacking to do. :D

[Hulkein]

<<or that Americans may be finally coming around to what is best for them and the rest of the world.>>

Hahahaha.

YEZ BUSH IS A EEVIL TYRANT OMGOMGOMGOMG.

ROFL.. Evil tyrant? Stick to your own country's politics. You just lost all your credibility.

- Arkans

[Latrinsorm]

There are parallels between the traditional Greek tyrant and the Bush family, if I'm remember Western Civ correctly. I don't think that's what Stray was talking about, though.

[Parkbandit]

If you don't live in this country.. your opinion on our election means this much to me:

.



Thanks.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
If you don't live in this country.. your opinion on our election means this much to me:

.



Thanks.

Does this go for me as well?

[Back]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Parkbandit
If you don't live in this country.. your opinion on our election means this much to me:

.



Thanks.

Does this go for me as well?

I had asked this in another thread, but I think it was over looked...

xtc, so you live there, and vote here. I was wondering. How does that work? Do you pay taxes to both countries? Also, how do you register? Which state? And how does that process work?

[xtc]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Parkbandit
If you don't live in this country.. your opinion on our election means this much to me:

.



Thanks.

Does this go for me as well?

I had asked this in another thread, but I think it was over looked...

xtc, so you live there, and vote here. I was wondering. How does that work? Do you pay taxes to both countries? Also, how do you register? Which state? And how does that process work?

In the past I have voted by absentee ballot. I don't currently pay US taxes, because of this I am limited to just being able to vote in the Presidential election only and not in other elections. My vote is registered in the last US county I lived in.

[Edited on 10-28-2004 by xtc]

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Arkans
ROFL.. Evil tyrant? Stick to your own country's politics. You just lost all your credibility.

- Arkans

Your country can plz do the same then.

Some nice little facts for you. Due to your, heh, successful occupation, a rather large force of MY countries men are going to be replacing yours up through the Xmas period. So again we get to help you clean up the shit your fantastic president has created.

But PB is right, at this point all that matters is what the voting American thinks. Not even the fact that eight out of ten countries support Kerry over Bush should disuade him.

[Hulkein]

8 out of 10 US Citizens tell you to stfu about your opinion of the US.

Doesn't stop you.

[Ilvane]

This country is hardly a majority of Republicans..if anything the last election proved there were quite a few Democrats, the popular vote went that way anyway.

I'm hoping this time the Dems have better get out the vote efforts than the Bushies.

-A

[Hulkein]

As long as they have extra sandwiches to give to the bums in the cities and tell them who to vote for, you'll get your guy in office Ilvane ;)

Guess what? We're not telling Britian how they should vote or are calling their leaders "evil tyrants". So your example holds no water at all. Dislike your countries policies? Vote that way. I won't make any comments. Don't go blaming Tony Blair's choices and some consquences they may have had on Bush. Are Brits unable to make up their own minds all of a sudden?

- Arkans

PS: There may have been deaths in Iraq, but I still believe the war was a good idea. PEOPLE DIE IN WAR.

[Ilvane]

But people don't have to die in war, if there isn't need for one.

So, how are we going to get out of Iraq again?

-A

[Tsa`ah]

Keep in mind Hulk that examples exist of either side participating in shady tactics. From offering food, liquor, cigarettes, to cash.

If you want to take that road, then it appears that the Repubs had more samiches to give out than the Dems in 2000.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Arkans
Guess what? We're not telling Britian how they should vote or are calling their leaders "evil tyrants". So your example holds no water at all. Dislike your countries policies? Vote that way. I won't make any comments. Don't go blaming Tony Blair's choices and some consquences they may have had on Bush. Are Brits unable to make up their own minds all of a sudden?

- Arkans

PS: There may have been deaths in Iraq, but I still believe the war was a good idea. PEOPLE DIE IN WAR.


I wonder if you would be as casual about people dying in war if that war was in Mass rather than Iraq. When America attacks other sovereign nations it invites International criticism and comment

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

If you want to take that road, then it appears that the Repubs had more samiches to give out than the Dems in 2000.

That would be a subjective assessment with no basis in fact..

[Tsa`ah]

As was the comment my reply was in response to.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Keep in mind Hulk that examples exist of either side participating in shady tactics. From offering food, liquor, cigarettes, to cash.

Probably... I just don't live in a rural area so I haven't seen/heard about it firsthand.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
As was the comment my reply was in response to.

Is this a new tactic? Fight unfounded statements with unfounded statements?

[Tsa`ah]

If you say so.

The irony is wasted apparently.

[Hulkein]

My original statement was said jokingly, also.

I know it happens on both sides, though I personally believe democrats get more people to do it what with the population density of cities. It's just logistically easier and more effective.

[Edited on 10-28-2004 by Hulkein]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ilvane
But people don't have to die in war, if there isn't need for one.Yeah, it sucks how we're not omniscient. Stupid God!!1

If that war was in MA? Sorry, but I'd be out there fighting, HEH. That brings up an interesting point though, do you think Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussein then?

- Arkans

[Carl Spackler]

[quote]Originally posted by StrayRogue

Some nice little facts for you. Due to your, heh, successful occupation, a rather large force of MY countries men are going to be replacing yours up through the Xmas period. So again we get to help you clean up the shit your fantastic president has created.

[/]

Stray we can all play this game too, OUR country saved yours from Hitler. Thanks for the input though.

[Ilvane]

How long will England have to live that we have "Saved" them before we will find that good enough? I mean, we are nearing good 75 years, aren't we?

I don't think anyone says they would still want Saddam in power, but I think it should have been done differently, because now we are effectively stuck in Iraq, with no plan to get out.

-A

[Hulkein]

We have a plan.

Train Iraqi forces, hold elections, build their infrastructure so they can support themselves.

We'll be out of there in a year or two, for the most part.

[peam]

Originally posted by Hulkein
We'll be out of there in a year or two, for the most part.

Care to lay a $50 on that?

[Keller]

Originally posted by Hulkein
We have a plan.

Train Iraqi forces, hold elections, build their infrastructure so they can support themselves.

We'll be out of there in a year or two, for the most part.

Let me give you a little advice. Adopt a carribean accent, get an 800 number and get sued.

Leave your unrealistic predictions to yourself.

[Lyonis]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
That's not entirely accurate. Electoral votes are directly proportional to population, but I'm willing to bet there's much more than 18 times as many Californians as North Dakotians (in fact, it's almost 56 times as many).


It would make sense if you took out the two votes each states automatically. As far as I understand the minimum number of votes any state can have is 3. So if you take the two out of California and N. Dakota that are automatic you're left with 53 and 1. That should explain the difference in population sizes. That’s just my understanding so if I’m wrong I’d love the correction.

Also Tsa’ah if you have it, would you mind posting a link to any story where someone in the electoral college voted differently then the popular vote? I never knew that was possible and I would love to read about it.

[Carl Spackler]

You diehard liberals make me laugh, because you lack the vision to see both sides of an issue.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Carl Spackler
You diehard liberals make me laugh, because you lack the vision to see both sides of an issue.

As opposed ot the diehard conservatives who are known for their objectivity?

Raven

[Carl Spackler]

I'd rather be objective than be blinded by my emotions.

[peam]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Lyonis
Also Tsa’ah if you have it, would you mind posting a link to any story where someone in the electoral college voted differently then the popular vote? I never knew that was possible and I would love to read about it.

Check out the elections of 1800, 1824,1836, 1867,1872, and 1887. 1887 being a very clear cut example.

The 1896 is an example of some electors casting no vote at all.

These off the top of my head as I was more into early American history. I had to match the Presidents to the dates, memory and all, so some may not be clear examples.

[Lyonis]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by Lyonis
Also Tsa’ah if you have it, would you mind posting a link to any story where someone in the electoral college voted differently then the popular vote? I never knew that was possible and I would love to read about it.



Check out the elections of 1800, 1824,1836, 1867,1872, and 1887. 1887 being a very clear cut example.

The 1896 is an example of some electors casting no vote at all.

These off the top of my head as I was more into early American history. I had to match the Presidents to the dates, memory and all, so some may not be clear examples.

Thanks a ton, I look forward to reading up on it.

[Edited on 10-29-2004 by Lyonis]

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Keller
Let me give you a little advice. Adopt a carribean accent, get an 800 number and get sued.

Leave your unrealistic predictions to yourself.

You think it is unrealistic for us to have more than half of our troops out of Iraq by November 2006?

[Meos]

Originally posted by Hulkein

You think it is unrealistic for us to have more than half of our troops out of Iraq by November 2006?

Yes.

[Seran]

If Bush is re-elected, then troops will leave Iraq in Spring 2008.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Lyonis
It would make sense if you took out the two votes each states automatically. As far as I understand the minimum number of votes any state can have is 3.Yes, yes it would. It can't be a direct reflection, is all I'm saying.

[Tsa`ah]

Why can't it just be popular vote? Why is there a need for an electoral college at all? The need has long since past and it's only use today appears to be for potential manipulation.

[Hulkein]

While we're getting rid of electoral college let's get rid of the ammendment barring foreign born naturalized citizens from running for president so Arnold can be in office from '08-'16.

The need for that is long past as well.

[Tsa`ah]

I disagree. The amendment was put in place to prevent foreign control. There's never been a need or reason to change it.

The Governator will just have to look for another nation to lead if he wants it that bad.

[Hulkein]

It was to prevent English or French taking control and essentially putting us under their crown in the 18th century.

That's not going to happen nowadays. The guy has been in the country for like 40 years.

[Carl Spackler]

I appreciate winning the popular vote, but heres the problem I have with that. Think about how many uninformed voters there are. So many people vote for the wrong reasons, or simply vote just because they told it's the right thing to do. Everyone here knows im conservative, but I'm all about someone sticking up for their beliefs, and if you think John Kerry should be president, then you cast that ballot. I'm against someone voting for Kerry simply because they heard someone say bush is going to do this, or Kerry is going to do that. They need to get out there and research it themselves.

[Tsa`ah]

Actually Article II of the Constitution.

I could almost be sympathetic to the plight of a person brought over as an infant or young child.

40 years as a citizen, I'm assuming you are correct, does not mean he is incapable, or anyone else, of holding other loyalties. That is the spirit of the Article. While the loyalties of natural born may be equally questioned, it is easier to track the actions of a person born and raised on US soil than it is for a naturalized citizen.

[Lyonis]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Lyonis
It would make sense if you took out the two votes each states automatically. As far as I understand the minimum number of votes any state can have is 3.Yes, yes it would. It can't be a direct reflection, is all I'm saying.

Gotcha, was my misunderstanding.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Arkans
Guess what? We're not telling Britian how they should vote or are calling their leaders "evil tyrants". So your example holds no water at all. Dislike your countries policies? Vote that way. I won't make any comments. Don't go blaming Tony Blair's choices and some consquences they may have had on Bush. Are Brits unable to make up their own minds all of a sudden?

- Arkans

PS: There may have been deaths in Iraq, but I still believe the war was a good idea. PEOPLE DIE IN WAR.

I was referring to America's policy of being the galactic sheriffs of the world. As far as my own countries politics are concerned, Tony Blair will get whats coming to him from the voting public as not only is American ass-licking ultra unpopular at the moment, but so is sacrificing more of our own troops while the American's have the xmas off.

[Tsa`ah]

One thing Blair has in his corner ... he admitted he screwed up and apologized. From that point on, I'm really unfamiliar with how Great Britain has handed Iraq.

[Edaarin]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Why can't it just be popular vote? Why is there a need for an electoral college at all? The need has long since past and it's only use today appears to be for potential manipulation.

Because the American public is stupid, uninformed, and doesn't know what is good for it.

[StrayRogue]

One word, Tsa: Denial.

He never actually admitted he lied, and stands firm my his choice to bow down and take the American cock up his ass. Its been a public relations nightmare, though support for our troops (especially for the Black Watch recently) is still strong.

[Tsa`ah]

Troop support is something common on both sides. It's rather unfortunate that some people view the protests against the Iraq conflict and the administration as attacks on the troops.

[Back]

Originally posted by Edaarin

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Why can't it just be popular vote? Why is there a need for an electoral college at all? The need has long since past and it's only use today appears to be for potential manipulation.

Because the American public is stupid, uninformed, and doesn't know what is good for it.

That used to be my feeling also, Edaarin. But my opinion has been changing. Seriously, I think the internet has been a step in the direction of mass learning and communication. Every time society has such a great step, things change. Written language. The printing press. Telecommunications. And so on.

And I don’t think that the masses are dumb by nature. They are just people without the resources afforded to the aristocracy. Ok, ok, there are definately some people out there who are just naturally stupid, but I don’t think its as many as some might think.

Is there some correlation between which states are voting which candidate?