English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000
Presidential election.

Population of counties won by:

Gore: 127 million

Bush: 143 million

Square miles of land won by:

Gore: 580,000;

Bush: 2,427,000

States won by

Gore 19;

Bush: 29

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by

Gore: 13.2

Bush: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won
was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in
government-owned tenements and living off government welfare..."

2006-09-10 05:01:27 · 18 answers · asked by kendiane 3 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

18 answers

Those are some interesting statistics.

2006-09-10 05:02:39 · answer #1 · answered by Amilucky0707 3 · 1 0

So in other words Mr Olson (and by extension you for posting this drivel) are attempting to argue that all Democrats are degenerate wellfare queens while all Republicans are morally upstanding citizens who pay their taxes on time always go to church and would never think of doing anything wrong. This is of course pure bullshit. Just look at the people who are currently leading the country.

To point out two very obvious facts:

A disproportionate percentage of Democrats live in urban areas, and cities just about everywhere have higher crime rates than rural areas.

Now I sometimes see the argument put forward that Republicans should be allowed to run the country just because more of the map is red than blue. This is pure nonsense. There are more people living in a few square miles of Manhattan than in all of Alaska-- New York City as a whole has more people than a long list of midwestern states. Should a half million Alaskans be given more political clout than a half million New Yorkers just because Alaska is a hell of a lot bigger than New York City? Of course not. The only number we should have to pay any attention to is the number of actual votes cast by real people, which curiously enough is omitted from the figures above. So for the 2000 election: Al Gore 51,003,926, George W Bush 50,460,110, Ralph Nader 2,883,105, Pat Buchanan 449,225, Harry Brown 384,516, All others 236,593. And for anyone who is interested in seeing the electoral college done away with: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/npv/

2006-09-10 05:27:41 · answer #2 · answered by Adam J 6 · 0 0

Deomcrats like to give handouts and freebe's to the economically challenged at the expense of the tax paying citizens. The Republicans want people to be self sufficient and responsible for themselves. Never will the two meet. Maybe they ought to change the law that only people who pay taxes can vote. The Democrats go to the cities on election day and tell all the poor to "vote early and often"

2006-09-10 05:10:34 · answer #3 · answered by Michael S 4 · 1 0

Although your statistics are correct. Many people have a problem with the popular vote statistics. Which, in relation to yours, show that the majority of persons in those high population counties are of the Democratic party. Which brings in the point of walfare.

The majority of people that voted Republican are just as you said, hard working, tax paying, parents, brothers, sisters, law-abiding citizens.

2006-09-10 05:13:09 · answer #4 · answered by intelect1 2 · 0 0

If you care about anything other than watching millionaires and billionaires get richer, you should vote democratic. If it weren't for democrats, I wouldn't have a job (I'm a teacher). Isn't it funny how the coasts always vote democratic and the big pile of middle America in between votes republican? The people who are completely ignorant as to what's going on in Washington, they are the ones who are voting based on non-issues like abortion, then sit back and watch the candidates they elected take their money and throw it straight into the hands of warlords. It's pretty sickening in my opinion.

Whew...that was my rant for the day...

2006-09-10 05:11:55 · answer #5 · answered by Who, me? 3 · 0 0

That shows a complete misunderstanding of the nation's large cities. New York probably has the most valuable and expensive real estate of anywhere in the country - does he expect people to own areas of it measured in acres or square miles? It also sounds like he's subtly pushing for a policy of each person's vote not counting equally, perhaps based on wealth or land-ownership. That's one of the most offensive things I've heard in a long time.

2006-09-10 05:06:19 · answer #6 · answered by hslayer 3 · 2 1

Shows you just how deceived they have the people. There is no such thing as free elections. The Illuminati control all elections, and all governments. Whom they want in power, they place in power. They can make up any numbers they want to, and say whoever they want to win, has won. What solid evidence do we have that votes are even counted? Absolutely none!

2006-09-10 05:16:43 · answer #7 · answered by oceansoflight777 5 · 0 1

What that means is that Gore was the hopeful choice to improve those people's lives. Bush was the arrogant choice.

Actually your conclusions don't match the stats you have provided. 95% of our wealth in value is in less than 2% of the land. So your claims aren't very valid.

2006-09-10 05:07:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Or course you should vote democrat.

Compare a map of bush states / gore states with a map of slave states / free states from the civil war. Bush states are slave states.

2006-09-10 05:05:33 · answer #9 · answered by Phil S 5 · 1 1

I'm votin democrat & I'm stickin with the union like Woody Guthrie.

2006-09-10 05:03:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

I would vote American Independent before I vote Dem.

2006-09-10 05:08:12 · answer #11 · answered by C J 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers