Your Civic Duty?

[Sean The Owner]

And you're also ignoring how the system works, here in the US. It isn't a plurality of votes that elect a president, but the electoral votes per state. I live in a state, for example, where if 100,000 more people voted for them, both Gore and Kerry would still have lost the election, since they'd already won New Jersey. What's more, Gore won the popular vote. But that didn't matter.

why would they do it by state, not total votes?

[Magrus]

why would they do it by state, not total votes?

To allow situations like the one Fable outlined to happen. To allow the ignorant masses to believe their vote is all that matters, when in fact, it does not and is simply a show put on to appease them. Bush wasn't voted in, powerful people ignored the law to push him into office. They threw some "the electoral college found that he won" nonsense out. Which is a system that most Americans do not understand. In their ignorance they went "Oh...ok. Damn that sucks. "

[Patrick]

I have registered with every politcial party in the USA , but I only vote when I feel it is worth my time. I am actually working at the elections this year. Such a chore to sit at a desk for 12 hours and wait for the people to choose their representatives. I feel asleep in the library were I workded in September, becasue I was sleep deprived and borded. I could imagine that voting in other situations may be funner, like voting for Miss America or SOme other sexy modeling agency or game show stuff, or back woods area's were in order to vote you have to make grandma's moonshine and share with the toothless folk who inhabit the local hilly regions.
Past few years I have not gave much interest in voting, because I like the nominee's a lot less than when I was a college kid, learning to social, becasue I realize the horrors of the real world by media interprataions, and wish no man a better office than me, outside of my known relatives and trusty friends and Banshee Folks, of course.......................................................................................................................................................................................................

[Lady Dragonfly]

You're forgetting that Dubya didn't win the first time around, because he wasn't elected. The Supreme Court first okayed a recount in one state that would have potentially given the vote to his opponent, and then changed its mind, closing down the recount and literally declaring Bush the winner.

And you're also ignoring how the system works, here in the US. It isn't a plurality of votes that elect a president, but the electoral votes per state. I live in a state, for example, where if 100,000 more people voted for them, both Gore and Kerry would still have lost the election, since they'd already won New Jersey. What's more, Gore won the popular vote across the nation. But that didn't matter.

So my vote wouldn't have counted, in either case.

I am not ignoring the system.
When former CBS anchor Dan Rather prematurely declared Gore the winner in Florida, GOP operatives searched every nook and cranny and mobilized conservative voters. So, while the disillusioned intellectuals stayed home and the senior citizens had a hard time punching through the right holes, Bush supporters were very active.

Florida Recount Cartoons and Election 2000 Funny Pictures

[fable]

I am not ignoring the system.
When former CBS anchor Dan Rather prematurely declared Gore the winner in Florida, GOP operatives searched every nook and cranny and mobilized conservative voters. So, while the disillusioned intellectuals stayed home and the senior citizens had a hard time punching through the right holes, Bush supporters were very active.

And the vote counting was stopped by the Supreme Court, who literally handed it to Bush. This hardly backs your argument for "get out and vote."

[Magrus]

Indeed. What we should do, is cut the power to the government agency buildings and THEN vote.

[Lady Dragonfly]

And the vote counting was stopped by the Supreme Court, who literally handed it to Bush. This hardly backs your argument for "get out and vote."

It all happened because it was "too close to call", remember? That is why we had to endure that circus with stopped recounting and with the Supreme Court appointing the President.
If more people were voting AGAINST Bush in Florida in 2000 it could make a difference; 52 to 50 would've been more than enough to send Bush back to Texas. And we wouldn't have the war and all this mess to-day.

To allow the ignorant masses to believe their vote is all that matters, when in fact, it does not and is simply a show put on to appease them. ("

You should not call the people who choose to vote "the ignorant masses", Magrus, just because you don't vote yourself. No election in any country is free from error, accidental or deliberate. I don't like the electoral college myself and I am aware of the "irregularities" plaguing the system but I would not call elections "a show put on to appease".

[fable]

It all happened because it was "too close to call", remember? That is why we had to endure that circus with stopped recounting and with the Supreme Court appointing the President.
If more people were voting AGAINST Bush in Florida in 2000 it could make a difference; 52 to 50 would've been more than enough to send Bush back to Texas. And we wouldn't have the war and all this mess to-day.

There probably *were* more people who voted against Bush in Florida, but we'll never know: with a governor (Jeb Bush, the president's brother) who swore that if Bush "lost," he'd reconvene the state's electoral college and get it to vote Republican--which it would have, having been appointed entirely by him, and it would have been perfectly legal, too--then I'd suggest it woudln't have mattered.

And as I wrote before, and you've overlooked, "I live in a state, for example, where if 100,000 more people voted for them, both Gore and Kerry would still have lost the election, since they'd already won New Jersey. What's more, Gore won the popular vote across the nation. But that didn't matter.

So my vote wouldn't have counted, in either case."

In other words, for my vote to count in those federal elections, I'd have had to move along with several million other people to states that went Republican. That doesn't make much sense, does it? No; I'm wrong. It doesn't make any sense, at all.

[Lady Dragonfly]

@Fable

Both parties won and lost elections. Both parties are responsible for the "irregularities". But you are talking about presidential elections and the Electoral College. How about November 7? Are you staying home?

Thinking (again) about the Electoral College...

"Several attempts have been made to get rid of the Electoral College, the last significant effort coming in 1989, when the House of Representatives passed 338-70 and amendment abolishing the Electoral College. The amendment died when it only received 54 votes in the Senate, 13 short of the required two-thirds. While this effort was ultimately unsuccessful, the overwhelming vote in the House shows that getting such an amendment passed is possible. Adding further proof that such an amendment is not only possible, but is favored by the great majority of Americans, a 1966 Gallup poll found that 63% of Americans favored a direct population of the president; a 2000 poll found that 61% did."

The Rest of Us :: Abolish the Electoral College - News

Perhaps we should vote for our senators?..

[Magrus]

You should not call the people who choose to vote "the ignorant masses", Magrus, just because you don't vote yourself. No election in any country is free from error, accidental or deliberate. I don't like the electoral college myself and I am aware of the "irregularities" plaguing the system but I would not call elections "a show put on to appease".

You comprehend how the system works. However, there are a number of people who do not. A very large number of people. These people refuse to educate themselves on how the voting process works, and therefore are by definition, ignorant. Why should I not call them that?

[fable]

@Fable

Both parties won and lost elections. Both parties are responsible for the "irregularities". But you are talking about presidential elections and the Electoral College. How about November 7? Are you staying home?

Certainly am, for the reasons I stated repeatedly, above. I sincerely hope the Republicans win big, and keep the Senate and House. I want the American citizenry, which is just beginning to feel the pain and get restless, to get good and mad. So they begin to actually consider the system they've accepted, and start a reasoned discourse on substitutions. This will only happen if the neo-cons, who have made a devil's deal with the conservative Republicans, continue in office for at least another 2 years: a failed Presidency, a supine Congress, a mediocre Supreme Court.

Failing that, if the Democrats take over, we'll be back to King Log. The Democrats will do next to nothing, because they're disunited (having liberals, moderates, and conservatives in one party does that to you), and the heads of the party lack fervor, conviction, and leadership. And then, when things get still worse, the Republicans will poiint to the Dems to share the blame.

No other party stands the remotest chance of any influence on the system. So why should I vote Democrat, Republican, or other? Please give me a good reason, and I'll seriously consider it. But it has to be a reason that takes into account the views I've expressed, above.

Perhaps we should vote for our senators?..

It won't happen anytime soon. The logical starting point for any real furor over this would have been following the 2000 election, with Jeb Bush according to some removing more than 50,000 votes from consideration, and threatening to have the electoral college override whatever the popular vote said if a recount was held. But the American public slumbered through that monumental crisis; so I doubt they will awaken on their own.

[Lady Dragonfly]

So why should I vote Democrat, Republican, or other? Please give me a good reason, and I'll seriously consider it. But it has to be a reason that takes into account the views I've expressed, above.

:laugh: They say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
I can express my position about voting in general (I think I did a little) but I can't give you any reason to vote for a political party you don't care for. My Persuade skill is too low and I don't care enough for any party myself to sell you the damaged goods...
Besides, you have a bad influence on me: I might consider staying home on November 7... :laugh:

[fable]

:laugh: They say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
I can express my position about voting in general (I think I did a little) but I can't give you any reason to vote for a political party you don't care for. My Persuade skill is too low and I don't care enough for any party myself to sell you the damaged goods...
Besides, you have a bad influence on me: I might consider staying home on November 7... :laugh:

Yessss! Come to the Dark Side, Lady Dragonfly, where knowledge will be yours, and all rose-colored glasses will be removed...let the soft, seductive tone of facts eat away at nationalistic preconceptions...come, come, come...!

[Lady Dragonfly]

Yes, Master...I am coming...

*Walks aimlessly like a zombie and falls into the Black Hole*

[fable]

Yes, Master...I am coming...

*Walks aimlessly like a zombie and falls into the Black Hole*

Damn. Really gotta do something about the bad paving, around here.

In any case, just a final note: for the Dems to at least have a token win in the Senate, they can't take 50 seats. They need 52. That's because with a 50/50 split, the President of the Senate casts the deciding vote, and that person is the Vice President, Dic! Cheney. If they have 51 and (as most people expect) Connecticut elects the now-Independent Lieberman, he will continue to vote Republican on almost all issues--but he will register upon entering Congress as a Democrat. This is because, in our black/white system, the only choices an Independent has upon entering Congress is to sign up for committee work as either a Democrat, or a Republican.

And if there's even a majority of 1 in any party in the House of Representatives (with its 435 members), then that party chairs all committees and all votes, and has the majority on all committees. Lieberman has already stated that if he's told what to do by the Democrats should he win the Senate, then he would switch his Congressional registration from Democrat to Republican, and swing all committees to the Republicans.

So, 52 members.

And that's not even counting the need to keep a party that goes from liberal to moderate to ultra-conservative together.