DescentBB

Alright, I was curious today and went to see how many people made Bush win. I wanted to know if it was that millions supported him, or just a few thousand more. I found out that while in 2004, he won by about three million voters (three million stupid people.)

BUT: Apparently, look who won the vote in 2000!

George W. Bush 50,460,110 47.9%
Al Gore 51,003,926 48.4%

NOW HOW DID HE WIN!?!?! HE LOST, BY HALF A MILLION! HOW IS HE IN OFFICE FOR CHRISTS SAKES!?!!?!?

Did anyone bring this up, or question this? I was only 7 in 2000, so I can't remember, but how did Bushite get into office?!?!?!

You need to learn how this country works with votes. Go take a government class.

I am glad Al Gore didn't win OR Kerry. I'm affraid these elections were a choice between the lesser of two evils.

They don't teach us a flying crap how it works, they just tell the history, and then talk about how all the other countries suck in their own way.

So what makes it so the loser gets to be president?

You just have to get the right people to vote for you.

You've honestly never heard of the electoral college before?

Here's the simple version: each state has a certain number of electoral votes equal to the combined number of its senators and representatives (so basically, it's the number of representatives plus 2). The smallest states have three electoral votes, while the largest have a few dozen. There are a few different variants, but the vast majority of states grant the total of their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. There are state elections for \"electors,\" but as I said, the position is usually just a formality, since the votes are almost always automatically granted based on the outcome of the popular vote. The candidate who wins a majority of electoral votes wins the election and the presidency.

The reason that the whole recount debacle in Florida in 2000 was so important is because the outcome of that state's popular vote would have given either Bush or Gore the outright majority win in the electoral college. The entire election hinged on the outcome of that particular popular vote, which turned out to be historically close. In a similar, though far less controversial, manner, the 2004 election came down to the state of Ohio, although in that election, Bush won a clear majority of the overall popular vote. In case you're wondering, 2000 wasn't the only time when a candidate won the popular vote but lost the election; as this page shows, it happened in three other presidential elections.

Edit: This page gives a nice summary of the whole process. HowStuffWorks FTW again.

Yeah, a freshman in HS could've told you that... It's not a election based on opoular votes so...

You know the one thing about both those elections that always roused my interest...the secretaries of state for the two states that clinched it were on Bush's campaign team. I was going to college in Florida during the 2000 election, Harris was doing everything she could to seal the deal before Gore could challenge it.

Obviously, the electoral college if flawed. It would be worse though, to go with the popular vote but the problem is that the electoral people vote for who they want, not for the way the people want.

Wow...... and my school never taught us about this......

Now your vote doesn't really count now! For my life I thought it counted. But no, it is up to these electoral college assholes to decide who they want, instead of what the people want.

Seriously, why is this stupid ass system still here?!?!?!

Dakatsu wrote:and my school never taught us about this.

What DO they teach them in the schools these days?! -Professor Kirk.

Dakatsu wrote:I was only 7 in 2000

I am SO old...

Dakatsu wrote:Seriously, why is this stupid *** system still here?!?!?!

The founding fathers, while real gung ho on democracy, were also just a LITTLE bit afraid to hand the entire thing over to the people.

The electoral college is a dinosaur that should be done away with. It servers no legitimate useful purpose

HOWEVER, much as I hate Bush, questioning the legitimacy of the Electoral College in no way questions the legitimacy of the 2000 election results. Both parties went into the election knowing how the game was played. The rules were unquestioned, and no one tried to change them in mid stream.

We most certainly SHOULD change this system in the future, but until we DO change it, thems the house rules.

K, I don't think you understand Dakatsu. Your vote still counts. It only counts toward who your state ends up voting for.

Xaminder wrote:K, I don't think you understand Dakatsu. Your vote still counts.

Sorry, I wasn't directing my "However" at Dakatsu. My bad. I was attempting to fend off the inevitable "You are trying to deny the legitimacy of the election" posts that I expected to follow MY post.

I don't like the electoral college. I'd gladly see it go. I also don't question the legitimacy of the 2000 election.

They don't teach us a flying crap how it works, they just tell the history...

Even that's debatable.

Kilarin wrote:

Dakatsu wrote:I was only 7 in 2000

I am SO old...

arent we tho, dayum I was 40 in 2000

The electoral college is a dinosaur that should be done away with. It servers no legitimate useful purpose

actually what the electoral college was designed to do and does very well it is keep 2-3 states from deceiding the outcome of elections. if you went by popular vote alone, then it would be theoreticaly possible for NY, Cal and Ohio to control the election by population alone, the college was desined to prevent that

CUDA wrote:if you went by popular vote alone, then it would be theoreticaly possible for NY, Cal and Ohio to control the election by population alone, the college was desined to prevent that

And with the EC, we instead have Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania controlling the election! j/k

As has been stated, both sides knew the game. At least Kerry didn't throw a tantrum and demand recounts and drag the whole thing out.

I find it interesting that immediately after the election, numerous politicians and pundits made noise about abolishing the EC, but that hype took about 5 minutes to disappear. So apparently the EC serves the government's purposes quite well (both parties). This means, to me at least, that it probably serves the public quite poorly.

And now for some liberal venom: Why did Cheney declare the 2004 election results to be so overwhelmingly in Bush's favor that they constituted a "mandate" from the people? I call shennanigans on that one. See below.

The ostensible justification for the "mandate" was that Bush won more votes than any other candidate in US history. Wow. I wonder if US population is larger than it's been in the past. And then we have the point of this thread: that Bush lost the popular vote. How can that possibly be construed as a mandate?

You've also got to wonder why the media picked up this "mandate" story and ran with it. Considering the story is an obviously reverse spin on the truth, why was the "liberal" media so happy to tow the Republican party line?

We now return you to your regularly scheduled position at the bottom of the pyramid.

Well... I learned something today.

Our election system is fucked up! I seriously don't believe that this system is fair. Not only can the electoral bastards vote for whom they want, even if they voted for who they were supposed to. If candidate won with 51% for their state, it shouldn't be the same as someone winning with 85% for their state. I believe that Bush did win the 2004 election fair and square, but the 2000 election was total crap.

Dakatsu wrote:Well... I learned something today.

Our election system is **** up! I seriously don't believe that this system is fair. Not only can the electoral bastards vote for whom they want, even if they voted for who they were supposed to. If candidate won with 51% for their state, it shouldn't be the same as someone winning with 85% for their state. I believe that Bush did win the 2004 election fair and square, but the 2000 election was total crap.

The electoral college members can technically vote for whomever they want in some states, but in others, they are obligated to vote for the winner of the popular vote in the state. Party affiliations also come into play, as the article I posted mentions. However, even in states where there's no obligation to vote, I'm almost positive that it's a very rare thing for an elector to go against the popular vote.

The whole idea of the electoral college ties in with that of the federal system; it's a way for the states to exercise individual control in electing the leader of the executive branch. As someone mentioned earlier, it's also a way to spread the vote total around, instead of just solely relying on two or three states. It may not be the most clear-cut system in the world, but here's the thing: for 200 years, by and large, it's worked the way it was intended to. There's a lot to be said for that. Introducing a straight popular vote for the presidency could open up a new can of worms that would make 2000 Florida look like a cakewalk; why change what already generally works?

Also, major props to Kilarin for the Narnia quote.

Cuda wrote:actually what the electoral college was designed to do and does very well it is keep 2-3 states from deceiding the outcome of elections.

I see it as having the opposite affect. If we went by popular vote, then the the dangling chads in florida would not have mattered, the votes would have been split up to fairly represent what the people wanted. The dangling chads mattered because a win by 3 votes erases the votes of the other half of the state and the winner takes all.

I'm from Texas. I voted against Bush. My vote didn't get counted at the federal level. Winner takes all means that ALL of Texas's electoral votes went to the winner. And that makes Texas a VERY important state in the election. If you we had been going by popular vote, Texas would have sent 59.30% of its votes to Bush, and 37.98% of its votes to Gore. Thats still a win for Bush, but not anywhere NEAR as big of a win.

The electoral college causes nothing but trouble.

Top Gun wrote:major props to Kilarin for the Narnia quote

C. S. Lewis is one of my FAVORITE authors.

And now for some liberal venom: Why did Cheney declare the 2004 election results to be so overwhelmingly in Bush's favor that they constituted a \"mandate\" from the people? I call shennanigans on that one. See below.

because Bush garnered more votes than any prsident in history. and if memory serves the 3million vote gap was also the largest in history. I might be mistaken on that last point tho

the electorial college, for all its faults, does give the US a chance of picking a winner in a single vote.

god forbid what would happen if the US went to run offs.

CUDA wrote:because Bush garnered more votes than any prsident in history. and if memory serves the 3million vote gap was also the largest in history.

Hey, I need a *woosh/over your head* emoticon right about now.

Yea Bush also had the most people vote AGAINST him as well in history.....so....

Genghis wrote:

CUDA wrote:because Bush garnered more votes than any prsident in history. and if memory serves the 3million vote gap was also the largest in history.

Hey, I need a *woosh/over your head* emoticon right about now.

No I got what you were saying, you asked a question, I answered it. I didnt say I agreed with Cheney's statement. just pointing out why he said it

Zurich, Ya I know he had the most votes against him also. but why would Cheney want to spin that?

Interesting comment I read this morning from Ryan Seacrest. More people voted for the American Idol last night than the president of the united states. Anyone else kind of saddened by this?

Zuruck wrote:Interesting comment I read this morning from Ryan Seacrest. More people voted for the American Idol last night than the president of the united states. Anyone else kind of saddened by this?

that is actually incorrect. 60 million people total voted during American Idol. 52 Million voted for GW alone and another 50 million for Kerry. plus during Idol voting you can vote multiple times, you cannot do that ( or not supposed to ) do that during a presidential election. Seacrest lied

Ok good, that's one thing that I'm glad I'm wrong about.

Ha, how bout those Enron boys huh? I'd be a favor of the death penalty if they got it, how many lives did they ruin?

Zuruck wrote:Interesting comment I read this morning from Ryan Seacrest. More people voted for the American Idol last night than the president of the united states. Anyone else kind of saddened by this?

At first I thought it was sad that a TV show could promote an unknown person to such instant popularity contrasted with the same audiences concern for picking their president. But then I considered the two parties we're talking about and it occured to me that if the politicians ever send us someone as talented, genuine and sincere as Taylor Hicks then they might see the same kind of support Taylor got.

For me I think hell froze over sometime ago in the music industry, like just before the Backstreet Boys hit it big and the fact that a guy like Hicks can win American Idol tells me that hell might be thawing out again and there is hope for the future of american music!!
I wish I could say the same for the future of our representative republic....

And Prince was pretty cool last night I have to say. That guy has really got a unique kind of cool.

It'd be a show if they wrote and sang their own songs. It's easy to make Elvis's songs sound good, they ARE good, but these people have nothing more than pretty looks and a good voice. Talented? Yes. Idol? Hell no, I'd rather go see an aging dinosaur in Robert Plant than any of the finalists on any show.

I always thought the \"winner take all\" part of the elctoral college votes system was downright fucked up. That's NOT proportional representation!

You could have 51% vote for REP and 49% for DEM and ALL electoral college votes for to REP. That's fucked. Frankly.

Even splitting the vote, like 3 states already do is pretty lame, because you can't split 51/49 in a meaningful way if you have 4 votes.

The whole system stinks.

And the worst stinkiest part of it though, is that Diebold decide who is going to govern, not the American people. It's a shame really, how you allowed your once proud democracy to turn into a sham.

It's no wonder the USA would not allow foreign election officials to observe the US elections in 2004!

Sadly I have to live in Florida, it is like Texas, except no cowboy hats and the girls are actually cute. Jeb Bush also has to govern this place. This idiot state had it's election fall off a truck, literally.

Dakatsu wrote:except no cowboy hats and the girls are actually cute.

Ah well, try not to feel too bad about the girls. I know it doesn't quite compare to Texas' exquisite, gorgeous and ravishing women, but cute isn't so bad.

Mobius wrote:I always thought the "winner take all" part of the elctoral college votes system was downright **** up. That's NOT proportional representation!

You could have 51% vote for REP and 49% for DEM and ALL electoral college votes for to REP. That's ****. Frankly.

I agree on the state level, but in the overall picture, it kinda washes itself out. I mean, Texas goes all republican by a 60/40 margin, but then California may go democratic by a 75/25 margin- resulting in (about) the same number of people's votes being canceled out. I do think that it could be improved by standardizing- either forcing all states to do winner takes all, or making all states go with the vote splitting situation. That being said, I think the EC is a good thing. It gives rural America a little bit stronger vote, while still making it close to a popular vote system. I agree with rural America having a slightly stronger vote, because I think that otherwise they would end up getting under-represented.

snoopy wrote:I think the EC is a good thing. It gives rural America a little bit stronger vote, while still making it close to a popular vote system. I agree with rural America having a slightly stronger vote, because I think that otherwise they would end up getting under-represented.

I've heard this argument before and I find it troubling. Try saying the same thing from the other direction: "The EC is a good thing because it devalues the votes of people who live in cities"

The US was founded on the principle of one man (person now), one vote. How can we think it is a good thing to say that people's votes should have different values depending on where they live? Who decided that urban citizens should have a smaller vote and rural citizens should have a larger vote? On what basis did they make that decision? And where will we next attempt to "adjust" the vote?

According to the 2000 US census, women outnumber men slightly. Should we try to dilute womens votes somehow? Same census shows that slightly over 75% of US citizens declare their race as white. We could have government agents record your race along with your vote, then we could throw out one of every, say, four white votes. Many people would agree with giving minority America a slightly stronger vote, because otherwise they would end up getting under-represented.

No, I am NOT trying to say you are a racist in any form or fasion, I am just using the extremes to illustrate where I feel this argument logically leads. If we can deliberatly devalue the votes of ANY group of Americans because we think some other group needs better representation, then there is no logical limit in place to stop some other group from claiming THEY need better representation as well.

The fair system, and the one I think quite logical, is to vote for president based on the popular vote only. I can see fliptw's point that runoffs can be messy (although they might also have some advantages), but that is easy enough to deal with. WE just use the same laws that are already in place to choose a president if the Electoral College can't make up its mind. Although those methods could probably use some improvement as well.

You have a good point, Kilarin. I agree mostly because of my Republican tendancies, and because I know that a popular vote would (slightly) help the Democratic party. I think it was a better thing years ago, when more of America was rural, and there was a larger difference between rural and urban ideology. These days rural America is just as screwed up as urban America. so, now that you call me out on it, I recant my statement.