They go on and on about how Gore and Kerry won the popular vote. Why don't they realize that this makes NO difference and if it did, there wouldn't be equal representation? Liberal coastal CA would run the country every time. Hardly fair to the mid-westerners, southerners or any other part of the nation that isn't composed of liberal elitists.
I have NEVER heard an argument as fruitless and silly as this one and the democrats EAT it up...and yes, this comes from someone in a Northeast liberal hotbed.
2007-06-15 04:02:38 · 32 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Oh, the democrats think Kerry won the popular vote as well. Don't argue with the democrats. They know all!
2007-06-15 04:08:29 · update #1
I should probably cite the source I am referring to with the Kerry part:
Check out the answers Thorgirls' Master gives.
2007-06-15 04:11:20 · update #2
Sorry, but I'm a Conservative and even I don't understand the electoral college.
Explain it to me.
2007-06-15 04:05:41 · answer #1 · answered by Frank Dileo 3 · 8⤊ 3⤋
Had George Bush's brother NOT been the Governor of Texas
AND had his father NOT have appointed the Judges on the Supreme Court that Awarded the position prematerly before a "real" recount, it would have been a win in the Electorial College for Gore because as most people with any intelligence knows, he won the State of Florida too.
Enlighten yourself, and check into the votes that were thrown away, the voters that wee turned away and the votes tha were NOT even counted.
2007-06-15 04:19:20 · answer #2 · answered by Deidre K 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
To all the people who think the Electoral College is outdated and it is not "one person one vote" is just plain wrong..
The existence of the electoral college is because of states rights.
We are a nation of 50 individual states. We are not a country in the sense of other countries. The states have individual rights, states make there own laws, states have their own representation.
To take away the electoral college is to take away more state rights.
Each state gives their own electoral votes to the person running for office. To win the states electoral vote you need to win the popular vote in that state. So your vote does count. So with your vote, you determine what your state does with their electoral votes.
So again going away from the electoral college means going away from state's rights. and giving more power to the federal government, which I guess what most liberals want in the 1st place.
2007-06-15 04:23:48 · answer #3 · answered by alexg114 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not gonna get too deep here because you are right that is the system and oh well...although it was done to balance states as you suggest...The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party because most people at time were unable to learn about candidates. It was never setup as a equal rep feature as the votes are based on population.
Kerry never had popular vote and I have never b4 heard anyone say that
Gore did have popular but, coincidently in Jeb Bush's state, lost Florida because there was a "confusion" over democrate party ballots that were not counted.....i find it hard to blame people disputing that presidential race under the circumstances considering that if Florida was given to Gore he would have had BOTH popular and Electoral majority
2007-06-15 04:17:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
The Electoral College's main goal nowadays is to ensure that we keep a two party system.
They effectively water down any support for third parties so that they have no chance. They had their place, but education and communication improvements have made them obsolete. One person, one vote!
Lets say in my region that 51% of the people support Candidate A, 49% support B. It is ridiculous that all votes go to candidate A when almost as many people wanted B! We are not being represented!
Mishmash--there have been other times. Clinton never won a majority-either time.
2007-06-15 04:19:57 · answer #5 · answered by Showtunes 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
To all liberals that are still B!tchin about the 2000 election. IF Gore wins his HOME STATE of Tennessee then he would have been president plain and simple with those electoral votes. It says something about THE TYPE OF GUY AND MAN Gore IS, if he can't win his HOME STATE.
Case in Point Reagan crushed Mondale in 84 in the biggest landslide in presidential election history, but Mondale one managed to at least carry his own state of Minnesota.
Deidre, Good point than why did Gore file a suit to block all the Military absentee Ballots from overseas that came in late from our Armed Forces men and women serving abroad that were pro-Bush, shouldn't count for Bush because they were late, My ballot was one of those my friend.
2007-06-15 04:19:06 · answer #6 · answered by dez604 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
As I understand the popular vote in each state represents the electoral vote. For example the majority of voters cast their ballot for Al Gore, therefore the electoral college vote is for the Democratic candidate. As in the case of 2000, votes were miscounted, not excepted, otherwise a disaster in Florida. Al Gore had to win in Florida, but it was so corrupt (Thank Katherine Harris) and could not obtain the popular vote. Bush "won" by 537 votes.
2007-06-15 04:15:10 · answer #7 · answered by Global warming ain't cool 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I am a Democrat and I understand the electoral college very well, ty. It's outdated and should be abolished. What you fail to understand is that the popular vote is the will of the people. "fruitless and silly" is those that are not willing to except facts.
Kerry won Ohio, that is fact. The Conservative bias high court ruled against States rights and awarded Ohio to Bush, that is also fact. Now have some more cool aid.
2007-06-15 04:12:45 · answer #8 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I've never heard anyone before you say that Kerry won the popular vote. Nice way to make up things to support your position.
And when people mention that Gore won the popular vote in 2000, it is usually simply as a means of pointing out that most Americans didn't want Bush to be president, not as a way of saying that he actually won the election. We understand the difference.
2007-06-15 04:13:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Your insane contention that the Electoral College somehow guarantees equal representation is, as are so many conservative talking points, ludicrous!
The Electoral College is a guarantee that a minority of wealthy white men could control the executive branch in case the rabble ever aggregated enough power to challenge the ruling elites.
The Electoral College guarantees the inequality of individual votes. Let the notion that small states have equal representation in the Senate, but let the peoples' voice be heard in the election of the President.
If you don't like liberals running the country then get busy with your civil war preparations. Separation is the only true antidote to the poison conservatives have used to putrify the American spirit.
2007-06-15 04:17:50 · answer #10 · answered by Robert B 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
The Electoral College keeps purely regional candidates - those who receive a high percentage of votes only in a few relatively small regions of the country, with little support elsewhere, from winning the election.
Arguably, the description above applied to Gore in 2000.
2007-06-15 04:06:33 · answer #11 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 7⤊ 0⤋