Electoral College Analysis: Bush 286, Kerry 252 [Archive]

GWB

03-18-2004, 03:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]

They also have results and maps for past elections and I'm really struck by How Jimmy Carter Won in 1976 (http://www.presidentelect.org/e1976.html). It's amazing how the electoral map has changed in the past quarter century.

[/ QUOTE ]
Carter convinced religious folks that he was an evangelical, then he screwed them. Since then, they aren't so easily fooled.

No president has ever been elected by the popular vote (although they may have received it along the way) - so my election stands me in good stead there.

By the way, the last president to receive a majority of the popular vote was my Dad in 1988.

El Barto

03-18-2004, 08:21 AM

5 leaning Kerry states:
NH,PA,MI,WI,MN

5 leaning Bush states:
FL,OH,WV,IA,AR

Those of you who live in those states, please give us your assessment of the race in your state.

Utah

03-18-2004, 10:14 AM

Your grasping at straws now.

I have already started my list - The many ways to spend $100 dollars. I think i'll borrow Cartmen's idea from southpark. I am going to turn the $100 into pennies and swim in them. Oh, so much to think about. LOL

superleeds

03-18-2004, 10:56 AM

It has always baffled me why leading democratic countries use out dated systems such as the Electoral College. Britain has a similar first past the post system. These systems made sense when it took a week to deliver a letter but in a time of instant news they are antiquated. I read once (I can't remember where but it wasn't by some crank conspiracy theorist), that altho a party may lose occasionally because of the inherent unfairness of these systems, in a 2 party system it allows those 2 parties to maintain a huge lead over any of its other rivals. And that is why they don't want change.

I understand that a proportional representation system causes problems in coalition governments if there are too many view points represented, i.e. nothing gets done, but I no longer hear world news weeks and months after the fact, and the world is now a global villiage where it matters what happens around the world and not just in my own back yard. Why are my votes counted as if this is still 1700.

HDPM

03-18-2004, 11:50 AM

But the US Constitution didn't set up a democracy. It set up a republic with elections of varying kinds that utilized democratic principles. The electoral college is a necessary part of that balance and is in no way outdated. The indirect election system better divides power among the states. If anything the 2000 election showed why the electoral system was still a necessary part of our republic. In some respects the US Constitution was ruined when it was amended to allow the direct election of senators. That was a disaster. In the three branches of governemt you only had one portion of one branch elected directly- the House of Representatives. Senators were elected by state legislatures. The president was elected indirectly, and the judges were appointed by the indirectly elected president and approved by the legislature appointed senate. That balance was essential. We tipped the scales with the direct election of senators IMO, and in the long run I don't think that was a good thing.

El Barto

03-18-2004, 11:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It has always baffled me why leading democratic countries use out dated systems such as the Electoral College.

[/ QUOTE ]
The Electoral College has a lot of advantages:
<ul type="square"> Easy Recounts (imagine recounting nationwide instead of 1 state) Reduced Corruption (no incentive in one-party states to "pad" the vote) Weather - Snowstorm in one region doesn't disenfrancise all those who couldn't get to polls Federalism - no senators or house members represent people in multiple states either. Each state has different voting laws - to lump votes conducted under different laws together is problematic If a President Elect or VP Elect dies, there are real people (electors) to make alternate selection Third parties impact reduced - the choice becomes more of a consensus under the EC Nationwide Support - under popular vote a regional candidate could rack up a big margin in just one region and win (EC prevents this)[/list]

There is a lot of support for the EC out there for good reason - it works.

superleeds

03-18-2004, 12:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The indirect election system better divides power among the states.

[/ QUOTE ]

But surely Florida had a huge amount of power over other states in the last election as any marginal state in the current system does. regardless of the real count in Florida it gave its vote to GWB when the majority of the people in that state did not vote for him. This is a flaw inherent in an outdated system in MHO.

Wake up CALL

03-18-2004, 12:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
everyone knows that the popular vote doesn't really decide the winner, the electoral college does, I said that purely in jest

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should e-mail this little nugget to Al Gore and the Democratic leadership. They seemed to have all missed that week in civics class. Just yesterday the Demmies were talking about a stolen election in 2000.

Wake up CALL

03-18-2004, 12:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The indirect election system better divides power among the states.

[/ QUOTE ]

But surely Florida had a huge amount of power over other states in the last election as any marginal state in the current system does. regardless of the real count in Florida it gave its vote to GWB when the majority of the people in that state did not vote for him. This is a flaw inherent in an outdated system in MHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Superleeds on what planet are you living? Nothing of the sort which you described above occurred.

superleeds

03-18-2004, 12:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Easy Recounts (imagine recounting nationwide instead of 1 state)

[/ QUOTE ]

Whats the problem with each state giving a proportion of their votes to one candidate and propotion to other candidates. This would reflect the will of the people better. In this day and age voting and counting votes to a reasonable degree of accuracy cannot be an insolvable problem if their was a political will for the system to be changed in MHO

[ QUOTE ]
Reduced Corruption (no incentive in one-party states to "pad" the vote)

[/ QUOTE ]
I would contend the present system is more open to corruption. Florida 2000 seems to be a good example

[ QUOTE ]
Weather - Snowstorm in one region doesn't disenfrancise all those who couldn't get to polls

[/ QUOTE ]
How does the present system protect against this?

[ QUOTE ]
Federalism - no senators or house members represent people in multiple states either. Each state has different voting laws - to lump votes conducted under different laws together is problematic

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree it would be important in a new system to allow local issues to have a bearing on who you vote for and you would need representatives who have your interests at heart, but why shouldn't all states have the same voting laws. Ultimately I vote for A rather than B. This truth is the same in Utah as it is in Georgia because the president is a federal position and should not be subject to local beurocratic voting rules. To change the current system would be problematic yes, but that does not mean iy should not be done.

[ QUOTE ]
If a President Elect or VP Elect dies, there are real people (electors) to make alternate selection

[/ QUOTE ]
So let the incumbant party decide. You vote for a party idealogy not an individual.

[ QUOTE ]
Third parties impact reduced - the choice becomes more of a consensus under the EC

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes something which suits a 2 party system. I think this dilutes choice. The two major parties are not very different and again IMHO get closer and closer to each other year after year

[ QUOTE ]
Nationwide Support - under popular vote a regional candidate could rack up a big margin in just one region and win (EC prevents this)

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't the present system exposed to this far more than say a proportional representation system would be?

[ QUOTE ]
There is a lot of support for the EC out there for good reason - it works.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that it works but that doesn't mean to say there arn't better ways.

andyfox

03-18-2004, 12:56 PM

Hey, the Democrats won Florida last time, there's no reason they can't do it again. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Best regards,
Andy

andyfox

03-18-2004, 01:06 PM

The U.S. Constitution is a disaster and there ought to be a new Constitutional Convention to fix it up.

The framers had no idea what to do about electing a president. They had experiences with legislatures and with judiciaries, but none with a chief administrator. They had no idea that foreign policy would dominate the country and that, therefore, the president would become the big honcho that he now is.

When they first came up with the electoral college idea, they botched it up so badly that in 1800, the man running for vice president with Thomas Jefferson (Aaron Burr) ended up with the same number of votes for president as did Jefferson. And the man tallying up the votes was none other than the president of the senate, vice president Thomas Jefferson. When Georgia's votes came in in an improper format, and Jefferson was told this by the assistants, he simply ignored it and counted the votes for himself. If he had not, neither he nor Burr would have had a majority, and instead of the house voting for the top two people, the top five vote getters would have been eligible and Jefferson doesn't become president.

The twelfth amendment fixed this mess-up, but the electoral college is an anachromisn that should be abolished. Like it or not, we see ourselves as a democracy now (that's what we're trying to implement in Iraq, I heard W say it yesterday) and we should make our constituion more democratic.

superleeds

03-18-2004, 01:17 PM

Wake up CALL,

i found these 2 sites after a very quick look. Neither give GWB 50%+ of the popular vote. If you find a site that does please let me know

here (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/2000_USA_election.htm)

and

here (http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/08/election.president/)

[ QUOTE ]
Superleeds on what planet are you living?

[/ QUOTE ]

Earth. And you?

andyfox

03-18-2004, 01:17 PM

"The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President"

There were, in 1800, 69 elecctors, so with each getting 2 votes, there were a total of 138 votes. So 70 votes would be a majority. Jefferson and Burr tied with 73. Even though they were running on the same ticket, the Republicans messed up by not having one elector not put Burr on his ballot. (The Federalists didn't mess this up, they made sure John Adams got one more vote than his running mate.)

Now, since more than one did indeed have "such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President". So the House had only Jefferson and Burr eligible. But if Georgia's four electoral votes were thrown out, as they could/should have been, that would have given both Jefferson and Burr only 69 electoral votes, one short of a majority. And thus since then "no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President". The five highest were Jefferson, Burr, John Adams, Adams' running mate, and John Jay (who got the one electoral vote to assure Adams and his running mate didn't get the same number of votes).

The House was controlled by the Federalists and thus Jefferson does not become president.

As it turned out, 36 votes were needed in the house before Deleware's lone elector decided enough was enough (probably goaded by, of all people, Jefferson's enemy Alexander Hamilton who, though he didn't much like Jefferson, detested Aaron Burr) and Jefferson triumphed.

Beleive it or not, a stranger election than that of 2000.

El Barto

03-18-2004, 01:34 PM

Your arguments seem too entrenched in a parliamentary perspective - we are not now or ever have been a parliamentary type government. So release this bias:

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If a President Elect or VP Elect dies, there are real people (electors) to make alternate selection

[/ QUOTE ]
So let the incumbant party decide. You vote for a party idealogy not an individual.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, we vote for individuals - our primary system is based on the voters instructing the convention who to select, not having party leaders gather and choose somebody for us.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Third parties impact reduced - the choice becomes more of a consensus under the EC

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes something which suits a 2 party system. I think this dilutes choice. The two major parties are not very different and again IMHO get closer and closer to each other year after year

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, we are a 2 Party type nation - all third parties quickly die out (as far as being a major factor) or they force one of the 2 parties out. I would hate to have a 3 major party system (ie- the Tories win whenever the Labour/Liberals refuse to cooperate somewhat and lose 40%/30%/30%.)

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Nationwide Support - under popular vote a regional candidate could rack up a big margin in just one region and win (EC prevents this)

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't the present system exposed to this far more than say a proportional representation system would be?

[/ QUOTE ]
Again a proportional system is suited for other political constructs - in the US we vote for individuals and choose between 2 main parties (proportionality is worthless in our case - we don't have a Presidential council - just a single guy). Any electoral college argument that neglects this is a non-starter

sam h

03-18-2004, 01:35 PM

Kerry has been winning in every major poll in Florida since late February, albeit by small - 4-6% - margins.

El Barto

03-18-2004, 01:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Beleive it or not, a stranger election than that of 2000.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thie 1800 situation was fixed by a constitutional amendment - can't happen again.

Now the election of 1824, or 1876....

elwoodblues

03-18-2004, 01:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Again, we are a 2 Party type nation - all third parties quickly die out (as far as being a major factor) or they force one of the 2 parties out. I would hate to have a 3 major party system (ie- the Tories win whenever the Labour/Liberals refuse to cooperate somewhat and lose 40%/30%/30%.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Earlier today, I was going to start a new thread on this, but now thought I'd include it here. Why do you think we are a two party nation?

Are we a two-party nation because we tend to ask things in yes/no terms or do we answer things in yes/no terms because we are a two party system? Or, is there an entirely different reason?

HDPM

03-18-2004, 01:45 PM

A constitutional convention would be a disaster. The US is a great country and the constitution is the basis for it. People are so stupid now that most of the important provisions wouldn't make it into the constitution if we wrote a new one. My favorite the 2d Amendment would obviously be the first thing to go. But other things would go by the wayside. I doubt people would vote for the 4th 5th or 6th amendments. And the 1st amendment would probably only cover churches. The media would be regulated probably. One of the few things that could make me strongly consider being an expat would be a constitutional convention. How many Ashcrofts do you want writing the thing. Our Founding Fathers had a lot of faults. But they were wild ass whisky drinking gun toting elites. And they started a hell of a country. Now the soccer moms, NASCAR dads, religious whackos, and socialists would cobble something together and it would be awful.

El Barto

03-18-2004, 01:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Like it or not, we see ourselves as a democracy now (that's what we're trying to implement in Iraq, I heard W say it yesterday) and we should make our constituion more democratic.

[/ QUOTE ]

We always have been a democracy, but we are a Republic and a Representative Democracy - not a direct democracy. Why must we pretend that only naked votes have value? When I elect a governor in my state, I expect the President to listen to his advice on state specific issues (ie - a natural disaster), I don't expect the President to take a poll in an attempt to be small "d" democratic and let each citizen of the state have a vote first. Our country is too big and diverse for that - we have multiple levels of Representative Democracy and the Electoral College is just one of them.

Wake up CALL

03-18-2004, 01:50 PM

Superleeds the majority of the voters determined who received the Electoral votes in Florida. President Bush got the Florida Electoral votes. Seems like all you need is deductive reasoning to understand that since Al Frigging Gore is not the President that George W. Bush won the election by gettin a majority of the legally cast and counted votes.

I do not need a biased website to tell me someone else is President when I can believe my own eyes daily. If you believe we have a different President of the United States please offer some unbiased proof.

HDPM

03-18-2004, 01:51 PM

The whole idea of the US Senate and the electoral college is to give a little extra power to marginal states. That's also why we had to pass that rancid amendment to have an income tax. Before that, taxes had to be apportioned among the states. IOW, each state would owe the same amount. So the tax is limited to what the smallest state might bear. So we got rid of that sensible system and gave our federal government the power to tax us to death.

andyfox

03-18-2004, 01:57 PM

The Constitution says nothing about the electoral votes needing to be given in a block to one candidate. Why should, for example, Gore have been given all of California's 55 electoral votes when millions of people voted for Bush? In fact, more people voted for Bush in Calfiornia than in Florida.

The electoral college is anti-democratic and should be abolished, or at least modified.

El Barto

03-18-2004, 02:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Earlier today, I was going to start a new thread on this, but now thought I'd include it here. Why do you think we are a two party nation?

Are we a two-party nation because we tend to ask things in yes/no terms or do we answer things in yes/no terms because we are a two party system? Or, is there an entirely different reason?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a 2 party system lets us choose our basic political preferences without fragmenting over every issue. I choose this group that I agree with 80% of the time versus this group I agree with 20% of the time. If you fragment into small parties - you bog down the process.

I look at the US like a car - we hire Clinton to drive us for 8 years and he edges the car towards the left. Then we hire Bush and he edges towards the right. In the long run, we end up where most of us are - somewhere in the middle.

The Republicans reverse the excesses of the previous Democratic administration, and the next Democrat will reverse the excesses of the Bush administration. Surprisingly, a lot of stuff from both administrations will not get reversed simply because it was not that extreme or unwanted - and the stuff that stays becomes part of the permanent structure of our society and laws. It works pretty well - of course if you are young, it seems to take too long, but we really don't want to rotate the government too fast.

andyfox

03-18-2004, 02:02 PM

"My favorite the 2d Amendment would obviously be the first thing to go."

Good. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Actually, I don't think it would go, but hopefully the language would be clarified. Obviously, the framers intended modifications would be made to the constitution, that's why they provided the mechanisms for so doing. During the 1800 fiasco, Jefferson calmly looked forward to a possible new Constitutional Convention, likening the governmental machinery to, well, a machine, that quite naturally broke down from time to time and needed fixing.

El Barto

03-18-2004, 02:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The Constitution says nothing about the electoral votes needing to be given in a block to one candidate. Why should, for example, Gore have been given all of California's 55 electoral votes when millions of people voted for Bush? In fact, more people voted for Bush in Calfiornia than in Florida.

The electoral college is anti-democratic and should be abolished, or at least modified.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its the states that choose the winner take all rewarding of the electoral votes. And that is good. If the Federal government controlled such things, the current administration could manipulate election laws to their benefit. Now that power is spread among 50 varied states - which minimizes the potential for a corrupt Presidential election - one of the strengths of a Representative Democracy over direct democracy.

ps- I always get the willies when the Brits redistrict parliament. Are you aware how subjective this process is? The districts are nowhere near equal in population - and this is not random - national officials choose what regions of the country should be over-represented. While they may be acting with good motives now, this is a big potential weakness that can be corruptly exploited. The US system of reserving such things to the states is very good indeed.

ThaSaltCracka

03-18-2004, 02:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
George W. Bush won the election by gettin a majority of the legally cast and counted votes.

[/ QUOTE ]
this is absurd, the repblicans in Florida and washington made a mockery of the Florida election. The only legal votes counted in Florida were the ones they wanted counted.
There is not a single person who watched the election who can honestly say what happened in Florida wasn't a mess. Florida decided the election, which is even more ridiculous because Bush only "beat" Gore by 500 votes. Now if you think the electoral College works, how can all the electoral votes for one state go to the winner when he only "wins" by 500 votes.
Wake Up Call, you need a wake up call.

superleeds

03-18-2004, 02:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Superleeds the majority of the voters determined who received the Electoral votes in Florida. President Bush got the Florida Electoral votes. Seems like all you need is deductive reasoning to understand that since Al Frigging Gore is not the President that George W. Bush won the election by gettin a majority of the legally cast and counted votes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again please show me where it states GWB got more than 50% of the vote. My point is simply this, under the present system you dont need the majority of the votes to get 100% of the electoral vote - you just need to get more than your opponent. This is why I believe the present system to flawed

[ QUOTE ]
I do not need a biased website to tell me someone else is President when I can believe my own eyes daily.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are not telling you someone else is president, they are stating that he did nort get more than 50% of the vote. If you really think a British education site and CNN are hugely biased, how about this

federal election commision (http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm)

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe we have a different President of the United States please offer some unbiased proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't. I have never said this.

El Barto

03-18-2004, 02:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Now if you think the electoral College works, how can all the electoral votes for one state go to the winner when he only "wins" by 500 votes.

[/ QUOTE ]

A close election is not the measure of a bad election - in fact it shows just how vibrant our political system is. The elections you have to watch out for are those where the imcumbant wins 99%+ of all votes cast.

An election has to decide a winner, it matters not how close it is. Somebody had to win, Bush was lucky to squeak by, but you can't have a tie. The fact that he won the initial count (which was done before anyone had any idea just how close it would be) indicates he won fair and square (albeit close) since neither side knew to fudge the figures at that point. And once you know there was no gross corruption, it just comes down to who gets the river card that they want. And George got it.

El Barto

03-18-2004, 02:35 PM

There is nothing magical about "a majority".

Presidents who did not get a majority:
Bush 2000
Clinton 1996
Clinton 1992
Carter 1976
Nixon 1968
Kennedy 1960
and many more before those.

superleeds

03-18-2004, 02:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
our arguments seem too entrenched in a parliamentary perspective - we are not now or ever have been a parliamentary type government. So release this bias:

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry I'm English I don't think I can. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, we vote for individuals - our primary system is based on the voters instructing the convention who to select, not having party leaders gather and choose somebody for us.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good idea in theory but in pratice your choices are to a large extent picked by the parties

[ QUOTE ]
Again, we are a 2 Party type nation - all third parties quickly die out (as far as being a major factor) or they force one of the 2 parties out. I would hate to have a 3 major party system (ie- the Tories win whenever the Labour/Liberals refuse to cooperate somewhat and lose 40%/30%/30%.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree this is a problem. If a coalition is too evenly constructed nothing would get done.

[ QUOTE ]
Again a proportional system is suited for other political constructs - in the US we vote for individuals and choose between 2 main parties (proportionality is worthless in our case - we don't have a Presidential council - just a single guy). Any electoral college argument that neglects this is a non-starter

[/ QUOTE ]

So change the whole thing /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I'm not critising the US in particular in how it picks its elected officials. I just think we have moved on from when it was framed. When the founding fathers invented the system it was revolutionary and they framed the constitution to be dynamic and subject to change given changing circumstances. Voting systems all over the democratic world seem to have stood still. Of course JMHO.

andyfox

03-18-2004, 02:44 PM

One could argue that the winner-take-all system encourages gross corruption. Had Florida distributed its votes proportionally, it wouldn't have mattered who got 500 more votes. Similarly, the Democrats couldn't have stolen the 1960 election by taking all of Illinois's and Texas's electoral votes, state they would have lost had there been a fair and balanced recount.

andyfox

03-18-2004, 02:46 PM

And a majority would be a majority of those registered voters who voted. I'm not sure what percentage of the eligible adult population is registered, and what percentage of those registered actually vote, but I imagine the president is elected by a pretty low percentage of American adults.

El Barto

03-18-2004, 02:57 PM

You are correct that no President has ever won a majority of all adult citizens, we are talking only of those who vote.

[ QUOTE ]
One could argue that the winner-take-all system encourages gross corruption. Had Florida distributed its votes proportionally, it wouldn't have mattered who got 500 more votes. Similarly, the Democrats couldn't have stolen the 1960 election by taking all of Illinois's and Texas's electoral votes, state they would have lost had there been a fair and balanced recount.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the end it doesn't matter what system you have - you have to choose a winner, and if it is close, it is close. Closeness does not signify corruption, it only signifies a divided electorate. We can talk about "what if this procedure was in effect instead", but that wouldn't change the fact that it was close. The system in place (which works fine) resolved a close election - which is something it has to do - somebody has got to win.

Wake up CALL

03-18-2004, 03:05 PM

Please replace majority with plurality.

superleeds

03-18-2004, 03:23 PM

I'm sorry but I appear to be unable to edit your posts otherwise I would gladly comply /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Wake up CALL

03-18-2004, 03:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry but I appear to be unable to edit your posts otherwise I would gladly comply /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif LOL /images/graemlins/smile.gif Great response!! I applaud your ingenuity and wit!

Wake

superleeds

03-18-2004, 03:40 PM

Ed Miller

03-20-2004, 05:48 AM

Are we a two-party nation because we tend to ask things in yes/no terms or do we answer things in yes/no terms because we are a two party system? Or, is there an entirely different reason?

We are a two party nation because the Constitution is written in such a way as to make a third party virtually totally unviable. If we had a parliament, we'd have multiple parties just like every other country.

Ed Miller

03-20-2004, 06:01 AM

The main thing that has changed is that the South votes Republican now. It voted Democrat in every election from Reconstruction to the Civil Rights Movement. Now it votes Republican because Johnson pissed them off so much.

Carter and Clinton both picked up a few Southern states for obvious reasons.

The most loyal state by far I think is Indiana. It went Republican twenty-three times in the last twenty-seven elections. Only Wilson, FDR, and LBJ won Indiana.

sam h

03-20-2004, 01:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Now it votes Republican because Johnson pissed them off so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

While the "Southern Strategy" is associated with Nixon, the decline of the Dixiecrats and rise of the Republicans in the South really begins in the 1950s.

Race is the immediate lever, but the (re)birth of the conservative movement is the key background development.

GWB

03-20-2004, 06:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now it votes Republican because Johnson pissed them off so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

While the "Southern Strategy" is associated with Nixon, the decline of the Dixiecrats and rise of the Republicans in the South really begins in the 1950s.

Race is the immediate lever, but the (re)birth of the conservative movement is the key background development.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every President elected since 1964 has come from south of the Missouri Compromise line (southern border of Missouri stretched across the country). That's 10 consecutive elections.

Poor John Kerry lives way there up north of the line. (hehe)

By the way, the 28 previous elections (1852 through 1960) every winner came from north of the line.

I'm a big winner this year for sure.

scalf

03-20-2004, 06:50 PM

/images/graemlins/grin.gif darned yankees can't do nothing right...

keerey would f+ck up a wet dream

gl /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/spade.gif

Ed Miller

03-20-2004, 08:59 PM

Every President elected since 1964 has come from south of the Missouri Compromise line (southern border of Missouri stretched across the country). That's 10 consecutive elections.

Reagan was from Illinois. Even if you argue that he was "politically" from California, considering Cali a southern state is quite a stretch. Even by your definition, Sacramento is north of the line.

Having said that, I do not think it is a coincidence that the only two successful Dems since 1968 have been southerners.

Though, if anything, the fact that we are even discussing Bush losing shows what a weak candidate he is. Compare the way this election is shaping up to the way Nixon-McGovern, Reagan-Mondale, and Bush-Dukakis went down.

GWB

03-20-2004, 09:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Every President elected since 1964 has come from south of the Missouri Compromise line (southern border of Missouri stretched across the country). That's 10 consecutive elections.

Reagan was from Illinois. Even if you argue that he was "politically" from California, considering Cali a southern state is quite a stretch. Even by your definition, Sacramento is north of the line.

Having said that, I do not think it is a coincidence that the only two successful Dems since 1968 have been southerners.

Though, if anything, the fact that we are even discussing Bush losing shows what a weak candidate he is. Compare the way this election is shaping up to the way Nixon-McGovern, Reagan-Mondale, and Bush-Dukakis went down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get with the program, Ed. /images/graemlins/wink.gif
Of course we are talking of the political base, not where we were born!

Reagan was born in Illinois
my Dad was born in Massachusetts
I was born in Connecticut (during my Dad's Yale days)
but nobody considers our birth state to be where we're from.
I was Governor of Texas, Reagan of California.

And hey, its early. I remember at one point in 1988 some poll had Dukakis ahead of my Dad by 17 points = boy were they ever wrong!

These guys were great Presidents:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/12/29/gore/reagan.bush.jpg

Nepa

03-21-2004, 02:20 AM

Well George you have a few problems. The polls I'm looking at shows that you are behind in OH, AZ and even FLA.

see for yourself

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys.html
<font color="red"> Warning: This is a right leaning site! But i don't believe they are messing with the poll numbers</font>

GWB

03-21-2004, 08:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Well George you have a few problems. The polls I'm looking at shows that you are behind in OH, AZ and even FLA.

see for yourself

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys.html
<font color="red"> Warning: This is a right leaning site! But i don't believe they are messing with the poll numbers</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

You did read the bit about the 17 point Dukakis lead, didn't you?

It is too early to worry about polls.

Have you noticed the "Define Kerry" campaign that I have been running? By June, the whole country will think (correctly) that he is a flip-flopping skunk!

andyfox

03-21-2004, 02:47 PM

It is indeed absolutely too early to worry about polls. The polls usually change markedly after the conventions. Clinton was running a poor third to Bush and Perot before the Dems convention in 1992, then came out of it with a lead which he never relinquished.

With both candidates uttering incredible stupidities in such rapid fire, anything can happen.

Zeno

03-21-2004, 03:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
With both candidates uttering incredible stupidities in such rapid fire, anything can happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy,

I think H.L. Mencken would have been proud of your little quip.

Also, It's only going to get more shrill. Fasten your seat belt - sharp curves and cliffs ahead.

Baseball starts next month. Let's do a preview after the spring season ends or perhaps April fools day. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Best,

Zeno

Bill Murphy

03-21-2004, 09:50 PM

Expand this post & send it in as a "My Turn" essay in Newsweek, or Harpers/Atlantic Monthly-type article.

A new Constitutional Convention would destroy the country; turn us into Yugoslavia on steroids.

Gore runs the worst campaign in history, so liberals want to junk the Electoral College & rewrite the Constitution. Marcia Clark conducts the worst prosecution in history, so conservatives want to junk the jury system & rewrite the Constitution.

"You know the man you hate, you look more like him every day." - Jane's Addiction

"The Constitution is the greatest thing ever written. Too bad nobody follows it." - L.A. gang member(paraphrased), following the riots

andyfox

03-22-2004, 12:07 AM

"Gore runs the worst campaign in history, so liberals want to junk the Electoral College & rewrite the Constitution."

While I have not studied other campaigns, certainly Gore's must be considered for the distinction you give it. But I have been against the electoral college for forty years, even when it favored liberal candidates. It's an outdated anachronism, put into the Constitution because the framers had absolutely no idea what the president would do or how he should be elected.

The way we elect our president is a shame and a sham.

jokerswild

03-22-2004, 04:08 AM

Why did you let that 3rd plane hit the Pentagon listening to see spot run? A true leader would have done something to stop it (like adress the ongoing attack on the country, and order the 3rd and 4tth planes shot down). Did you tell your aides that are on record as telling you before you went in to hear the kiddies read that they were just joshing you?

jokerswild

03-22-2004, 09:27 AM

GWB

03-22-2004, 10:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Why did you let that 3rd plane hit the Pentagon listening to see spot run? A true leader would have done something to stop it (like adress the ongoing attack on the country, and order the 3rd and 4tth planes shot down). Did you tell your aides that are on record as telling you before you went in to hear the kiddies read that they were just joshing you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you criticize Kerry when he visits a school to bash my good education programs?
I don't apologize for reading to kids (remember my Mom does ads for literacy programs).

At least they don't bar me from stepping on school grounds like they do you.
Hee hee - just joshing you there. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

slamdunkpro

03-22-2004, 12:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
and order the 3rd and 4tth planes shot down

[/ QUOTE ]
And where pray tell would you have them shoot down the Pentagon plane? over Old Town Alexandria? Over NE DC? Over Arlington? These are all highly populated areas. A jet crashing in any one of these would have far exceded the death toll of the actual crash into the pentagon.

That had to have been the most asinine idea that the Fed could have come up with - to protect our politicians by sacrificing thousands of innocents by shooting down these planes. (Sorry old boy - but would you mind terribly flying straight and level over the potomac so I can shoot you down there? That's a good chap!)

slamdunkpro

03-22-2004, 12:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
A new Constitutional Convention would destroy the country; turn us into Yugoslavia on steroids.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL Every time I hear about a new Constitutional Convention I can't help but think of the movie Robocop II where Robo originaly had 3 prime directives to follow; but after everyone finished the re-program he had like 5,000. So many that he could not function.

jokerswild

03-22-2004, 03:37 PM

Your response is so inane that I'm almost convinced that it is you;let Americans be murdered in order to hear "see spot run." It must be a plank in the Cheney Administration's platform.

Bill Murphy

03-22-2004, 03:56 PM

"The way we elect our president is a shame and a sham."

I have to think going the pure popular vote route would be much worse and open the door to a California-style, paralysis by referendum, on a national scale.

Certainly, the direct election of Senators has been a miserable failure. In fact most Amendments to the Constitution, after the first ten, have been failures.

I don't see how going back/changing to: Popular vote for US House of Reps & State Legislatures; State Legs pick US Senators; US Senate(not Elec College) and/or State Sens pick Pres, could be worse than the soundbite horrorshow we have now.

But its all just bandwidth. The ElecColl and direct election of US Senators will go when Al Qaeda takes over & not a second before. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif