greedo626 Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 I'm not anit-American or anything, but since the 2000 presidential elections I've thought that the US's electoral system is a joke. the electoral college is so out of date and the whole thing with people coming out and saying that every vote counts is so untrue. theoretically someone could win with just 6 votes from the most populated states. you can see on the map that a vast majority of counties voted for Bush and just small pockets voted for Gore, but Gore got more votes overall and Bush still won because more states voted for him... does this make any sense? and only about 35%(if that many)American know how the electoral system works. now I'm not going to say anything like "Gore should have won because more people voted for him" or "Bush wasn't elected he was selected"(whatever that means:rolleyes: ) I just feel that something should be done to clear up this confusing system. please don't flame me, I'm not criticizing anyone or their beliefs. [edit] oh, yeah. Happy 4th of July evryone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XERXES Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 i see more red than blue...so it makes sense that bush won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightning Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 Originally posted by greedo626 please don't flame me, I'm not criticizing anyone or their beliefs. [edit] oh, yeah. Happy 4th of July evryone! i still have no idea wy you all call it ''flame'' as for the rest of your post he's won en there's nothing you can do about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shidobu Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 You have a valid point, but I think your diagram is misleading. You would seem to suggest that bush won becaues he had more square miles of support, but this is obviously an inaccurate way of viewing the election. The fact is, conservatives tend to be favored by people in rural areas[with a low population density] whereas liberals are generaly favored in Urban ceneters [High pop. density] so it would make sense that Gore would win fewer counties, because he would only win those counties with a strong urban influence. [i know, this logic is too general, but it provides a good example.] Fortunately, the states decide who their electors will vote for through a straight popular vote, i.e. each person gets one vote, we add them up, and see who wins. Thus, the urban centers which span maybe 2 counties, would have as much of a say as 10 or 15 rural counties, because the number of ppl would be about equal. But I do agree that the electoral college needs do be done away with. A straight popular vote is more representative of the people's wishes, and prevents uneven campaigning in those states with more votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 I was about to say the same thing, shidobu, both about the square-miles of support -vs- actual population, and about doing away with the Electoral College. I like the way you think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greedo626 Posted July 5, 2002 Author Share Posted July 5, 2002 Originally posted by shidobu You have a valid point, but I think your diagram is misleading. You would seem to suggest that bush won becaues he had more square miles of support, but this is obviously an inaccurate way of viewing the election. The fact is, conservatives tend to be favored by people in rural areas[with a low population density] whereas liberals are generaly favored in Urban ceneters [High pop. density] so it would make sense that Gore would win fewer counties, because he would only win those counties with a strong urban influence. [i know, this logic is too general, but it provides a good example.] Fortunately, the states decide who their electors will vote for through a straight popular vote, i.e. each person gets one vote, we add them up, and see who wins. Thus, the urban centers which span maybe 2 counties, would have as much of a say as 10 or 15 rural counties, because the number of ppl would be about equal. But I do agree that the electoral college needs do be done away with. A straight popular vote is more representative of the people's wishes, and prevents uneven campaigning in those states with more votes. yes. it's a bad system because the states decide who wins and no the people. that's why it's funny when people say that the 2000 election showed us that every vote counts. if anything it showed us that our vote doesn't count. that's why democrats is highly repuplican states don't vote. it doesn't make a difference but it should, that's the whole idea of a democracy, that the people choose their leader.but the way it is now the states choose, so it's not very democratic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shidobu Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 Originally posted by Vagabond I was about to say the same thing, shidobu, both about the square-miles of support -vs- actual population, and about doing away with the Electoral College. I like the way you think Why thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skuttle24 Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 u just realized this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkpetzi Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 I see more red than blue...so it makes sense that bush won. That's the most stupid thing I've ever read here... Example : If a country is divided in 2 parts, 1 really big and 1 really small. The big one has only 100 inhabitants (farmers who need lots of place for their cultivations). They vote red. The small one is a single city with 1000 inhabitants living gathered in buildings so they don't take a lot of place. Those inhabitants vote blue. On a map, you'll obviously see much more red than blue, isn't it ? Do you think the red should win ? I know this has already been said in a more scientific way. But I wanted my answer to be as simple as possible to show how much stupid it is. Anyway... Not a single country has the perfect political system but the one from USA is particuliarly bad (ex-aequo with France). I don't want explain why because it would be too long and because it really seems obvious... I'm with you on this one, greedo626 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyth'emos Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 USA's electoral system's a joke Thank You for pointing out somthing most of the USA has figured out years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheJackal Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 Up in Canada the electoral system is not a joke. Its the curreny Prime Minister who IS the joke. He's been around too long. His excuse: "I got a mandate from the population" no you didn't! The Liberal party got the mandate. NOT you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Divine Spirit Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 Originally posted by greedo626 [edit] oh, yeah. Happy 4th of July evryone! hahaha no that's a finishing comment! from the look of ur post i agree with you....the fact that bush became president is a show of the faults in the electorial system anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XERXES Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 That's the most stupid thing I've ever read here... dude, i was kidding...come on. Yes i know that a whole lot of the more populated areas voted gore, so that was why it was close. But dang that was a long time ago, bush won..so there. btw happy 4th everybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkpetzi Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 Ho... sorry, XERXES. I didn't get the joke. You know, some people really vote for Bush so we never know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vestril Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 I'm not convinced that the Electoral system is a joke. The average American is really ignorant about the American government. This is true, I don't think anyone is going to argue with me about it. Most people don't have time to think about the issues that are germane in an election, and the Electoral system is designed to make it so that if the people get fed a load of bull by a popular candidate, the better candidate will get elected. I honestly think that Bush was the better man. Don't look at me that way!! First of I am pretty apolitical, Democrats, Rebublicans, whatever. I liked John McCain at first, and when he fell through, I was all about Gore, mainly because Bush looked like such an idiot on TV. His campain was horribly run, and he came off looking really bad, and dumb. Then Gore gets knocked down, and if you haven't noticed, he has been acting like a real ass since then, blaming everyone else for the failure of his campaign. Bush was all set up for a do-nothing presidency, hanging out with daddy more than anything else, and then Spet. 11th comes along. All of the sudden Bush comes out and starts getting his act together, and the people give him a chance because he is the President, and he starts to do *gasp* smart things. Why? Because he's a leader. Clinton was a smart guy, and he surrounded himself with a cabinet of people who weren't that smart, presumably so he could do what he wanted without having to worry about their complaints. Bush on the other hand has surrounded himself with the best people, and what does that leave him with? The best advice. I think he is a person who doesn't know how to do everything, but he does know how to ask, and who to ask when he's out of his element. So basically the popular vote would have voted the smart-assed jerk who looked nice on the screen, while the better candidate was the dyslexic guy. I consider myself pretty smart, but I have trouble getting words out myself, and I don't think that I would come off much better on TV than Bush did, so it makes me think, in hindsight, that I was being manipulated by the Media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shidobu Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 I try to avoid discussing this past election, because the Repubs and Dems have essentially converged to the point where they are almost the same. If you watched the debates, Gore and Bush had to struggle to find a point they didn't agree on. If I were of voting age, this alone would have driven me to vote nader [although this truly is throwing my vote away.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obi Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 You think Florida people can't count? You outta see um drive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 Hmm.should I join this thread or not.... *see's Spy with his spiked board running at him* Gotta go!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPY_jmr1 Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 since the US goverment has desided I am not a person for--- lemme look... 1 and a half more years... so as to politics... stick me in the "WHO GIVES A FLYING **** ANYWAY!!!!" slot.... you guys do the latin origin of the word "politics" dont you? if you dont, just ask... i'll tell. ya got that right ty!!! *YAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old_Ben Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 Originally posted by shidobu I try to avoid discussing this past election, because the Repubs and Dems have essentially converged to the point where they are almost the same. If you watched the debates, Gore and Bush had to struggle to find a point they didn't agree on. If I were of voting age, this alone would have driven me to vote nader [although this truly is throwing my vote away.] You should watch the show Hanity and Colmes. Ones a Republican and the other's a Democrat and they argue about everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vestril Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 this alone would have driven me to vote nader Oy vay. He was the only candidate that I was certain had no business being president. Ugh, did you listen to him? He would have had both parties set against him in about 4 months, and would have been impeached right quick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCanr2d2 Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 Originally posted by TheJackal Up in Canada the electoral system is not a joke. Its the curreny Prime Minister who IS the joke. He's been around too long. His excuse: "I got a mandate from the population" no you didn't! The Liberal party got the mandate. NOT you! That is not exactly the right approach to it either. A party, especially these days, are headed by a well known figure, who in most cases is the reason voters go for a certain party. So in a way, he is right!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Krayt Tion Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 All of the sudden Bush comes out and starts getting his act together, and the people give him a chance because he is the President, and he starts to do *gasp* smart things. You approve of what he has done domestically? With the budget and with the environment? With education? Taxes? Big business? There is more to government than bold and flashly foreign/war policy. War time peoples are easily sheperded... but things will come home to roost eventually, provided we aren't distracted by another war against the "Axis of Evil." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunClown Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 In the last federal government elections in Australia the Labour party got more votes than the Liberal-National coalition but the Liberal Coalition is the one that got in power. So it can happen. Our country is divided into electorates of roughly equal population (so the borders do change). To win you have to get the most electorates to form a mandate. Is this like the American system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCanr2d2 Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 Fun clown, it is more like that if we had parties voted in by Victoria chosing who won the most seats in there as to who to give the "Electoral College" votes to, and other states did the same. So, in that example, you would only need to win 3 states to win the election, with the three largest populous states being given the most votes.... The electoral college removes the independence of each electorate to vote who they think should be president, or head of state, as whatever is the case. Each electorate only votes to see what majority is gained in each state. Then according to the weighting of each state, ie how many votes they can give, you may only need to win a minority of states to win an election... In Australia, we never vote directly for our head of state.... We have ours basically based on the Westminster system, originally from England, with their Houses of Parliament based in Westminster in London... And even we can have scandals with our politicians too..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.