Which is completely irrelevant to the discussion?

It's not anymore "true" than an opinion on procedure can be. Also, you're damn right I want it changed, and, surprisingly, that is why it's a tired argument to me. I'm sick of that argument being thrown around when it carried a lot more weight in the 18th century than it does now.

You find it amazing that I like option a. more than option b., yet I am opposed to both? I find it amazing that you find that amazing. What I want to know is, how the hell could you possibly be opposed to what Colorado is doing? How could anyone argue against a more democratic election? This ought to be good.

Because it corrupts the system, either way, when only some states divide their electoral votes. All states should do it or none unless you want to see even more problems.

Oh, but what of your beloved state sovereignty?

Hell, I agree with you. To be brutally fair one way or the other, it should be consistent. Even so, I like what Colorado and others are doing, because it seems more democratic to me.

Are we back to debating over the merits of the EC again?

jEDIkIRBY started it.

hehe heheHA HAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, I know. Hell freezes over. Pigs fly. All manner of chaos ensues.

You can't make that statement based on the map. If you knew the voting tendancies of the more liberal, more densely population urban counties you'd also know that your statement isn't true as a whole. Urban counties voted for Gore in much higher percentages than Bush. The races weren't even close. It's flipped for rural counties. Furthermore, more than 50% of the US population lives in urban areas now.



Flawed in one state. One state got all screwed up. Not the entire nation. It jsut so happened that that one state was the keyto the election. No one would have cared if it had been a landslide one way or the other.

You know, I would have been content to let the argument settle then and there after Wookie and I came to an uneasy truce, but you had to rile me up, didn't you, Avenger? :p



You're right. I couldn't make that statement based on the map alone. However, I was armed with a little extra key knowledge about the outcome of the election that did allow me to draw that conclusion: the outcome of the popular vote.



Theoretically, the 110,000 votes that Gore won by came from every state in the country. In practice, I understand it came down to Florida because of the procedure. To say that it was one state's mistake is a little misleading. Florida's EC protocols are very similar to just about every other state in the nation. I guess I'm of the mentality to fix the underlying problem with the system, rather than dealing with specific instances when they come up.

As for your comment about no one caring if it was a landslide; I disagree. I care about the system regardless, for two reasons.

1) Whether it's a landslide or not does not change the fact that I feel it needs to be changed.
2) Whether a landslide or not, there is a battle for every individual state's votes. Since nearly ever states uses the all-or-nothing approach, the ramifications of the EC system come to light whether or not the election is a landslide.

Actually I disagree that Florida was key to this election.

First, any of the three electoral vote states were arguably far more important than Florida. Turning just one, let alone two or three, would have changed the election. Alaska was the key to winning this election!

Second, the problems in Florida were mostly manufactured. First a polling firm starts calling voters in that county that used the butterfly ballot to inform them that they may have mistakingly voted for Buchanon. This generated a controversy. Then as votes were tabulated some counties decided to manually recount votes and then began to interpret the intent of the voter. Then a court orders a corrupt (in my view) state wide recount and disregarded it's own laws. The legal process in the state was out of control and that, contrary to popular belief, is what the Supreme Court shut down.

Many things went wrong in Florida but that state was no more key than any other in the election and also had nothing to do with the electoral college. It should also be pointed out that not only did Bush win every recount that the state conducted before the end of the legal process but also the complete recount conducted after the election.

I slept a little later than usual and felt left out.

I agree that there ought to be some reforms in the EC system to make it more representitive, like Colorado is doing. It would makes things very interesting

What a minute....those numbers in the map have to be wrong. 270 million people didn't vote in the last election. That was the population of the United States back then(someone correct me if I'm wrong on that). Then you have to take away all the people who are ineligible to vote(mostly children, which make up more than 20% of the population). And than you have the low voter turn out that the US has. Only 105,405,100 people voted in that election. That map has vastly wrong numbers. Or am I just missing something? (edit: okay, I get it now. The map wasn't showing voters from each county, it was showing the population, which is unnecessary information and misleading. It makes it look like Bush won the popular vote.)

State's rights have nothing to do with the election except the people telling the state electors who they are going to vote for.

I would like the system where electoral votes from states were split up. Wouldn't change who won in nearly all elections, but it would have a better sense of legitimacy. I don't like the popular vote because I think recounts would be way too chaotic. In EC, you have recounts limited to individual states. In the hybrid you would have recounts limited to states too(unless you gave out electoral votes according to district popular vote instead of state popular vote, but EC like that could be disasterous with gerrymandering and having recounts in so many counties in so many states). I don't like the popular vote because a recount in that situation would require a nationwide recount. God knows that would slow down and make more chaotic the election process even more than it is already. With the hybrid theory, you get pretty good representation with quite a bit of efficiency as well.

Those numbers are the total population of the counties. I'd have to agree that the map is pretty misleading.

Liberal media? What liberal media?


We don't know if he won or not. We never got to find out, because the supreme court appointed him before the answer was found.


See my response above.


He had every right to try to get the playing field leveled.

I am sorry, but that just made me laugh.

Yeah well, us liberals need control of something when the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of the federal government are overrun with conservatives. :p I'd say the media is a fair deal.

Media: the fourth branch of the government

Sorry, Frog, but now that I know who you are I'm torn between disappointment and disgust. I thought you were [ad hominem]

Typo. I meant liberal agenda, but the US media still has a liberal bias.




No. Just no. From the Supreme Court Decision :



The legislature makes laws, not the courts



What constituted a vote varied from county to county. There was no state standard.





All the Justives agreed that there was a problem. That includes the liberal judges. That tells me they voted based on the law, not their own opinions. You can keep spouting off nonsense all you want now because the decision itself, is all the explanation necessary. If that's not enough to change your mind, you're nothing but a liberal, fanatical conspiracy theorist who's claims have no merit what so ever. Unless, of course, you can find some sort of documentation that prooves otherwise.

Except you've got the media all the time, except Fox

..."liberal media" is such a stupid phrase. I hate it. I despise the phrase "liberal media".

You want liberal media? Noam Chomsky is liberal media. Dan Rather is liberal media. The New York Times is not liberal media. CNN is not liberal media. Oh, somebody printed an article that went against the Repbulican party? IT DOES NOT MAKE THEM THE LIBERAL MEDIA.

The NY Times isn't liberal media??

This is still Earth right?

It's not as liberal

Tracer, wtf? Your editting posts because of errors in logic? For gods sake, if he called him a douche bag or something, edit the post and say there are no insults. Editting because someone has an error is logic is just wrong, especially when you only do it to those who disagree with you.

I edited it because he said "I thought you were smarter than that" (or words to that effect, I don't remember exactly), which I thought was insulting. Ad hominem is an argument based on a judgement or attack on someone's character, so I was being kind of flippant but my reasons stand.

I'm glad you liked it. I always got a good laugh from 2+2=4.


We don't have the media either.


The liberal media thing is just part of the conservative's persecution complex. Just because they're not Faux News doesn't make them liberal.


The recounts weren't illegal. Florida law said that recounts could be held if there were major discrepancies, which there were.
I don't see why you say my logic is fanatical. Are you afraid?


That's not as blatantly ridiculous, but I still don't think it's true.


Right, so according to them the difference in standards meant that not all votes were treated the same, so it violates the 14th amendment. So instead, they chose to disregard all of the undervotes. That sounds logical to me!
The way the 14th amendment was used is unprecedented and wrong.
This article makes the same point I'm trying to, but it does a much better job.


I could say the same thing about you and your claim the the US media has a liberal bias.
I've been making my point from their decision too. It's a ridiculous decision. If all seven justices said there was a constitutional problem, then the two liberal judges are idiots too.


Actually, the New York Times has recently admitted they're a liberal newspaper, or so I hear. Otherwise, you're right on.

That pretty much sums it up right there. I need not say another word

Hey Karl seemed like a decent guy in "That's my Bush" so why dont yall lay off him?

Intelligence isn't simply based off what you know, like math, science, etc.. There's many forms of intelligence.

You're more intelligent than I am in philosophy.

But I'm more intelligent than you are with Film, Historical backgrounds of certain figures, Sports, Martial Arts, Sex, etc.

Does that make me smarter than you? No. I just happen to know a little bit more about certain things than you do, and you vice versa.

That doesn't make my opinions or your opinions wrong.. People that like to think that they're right all the time because they're smarter on one aspect of something than the next person, aren't that smart. Because truly intelligent people, don't think that way.

IM SMARTER THAN YOU NANANANANA...

Right.. Kiss my ***.

Woah... this got out of hand for a while there. Hey, the least one can say is that I affect people on an emotional level

It's funny that everyone in here (except for Freelancer - thank you) thought I was insulting them or something.

I did say that I think most Americans are uncritical, which is definitely true. I'd love to take back my words, but it's true, so why do that then? Note that I didn't say the rest of the world is any better. It's just a plain fact that people are insanely, insanely uncritical, to the point of being DUMB. STUPID. This is definitely the case when it comes to authority. Damn, I'm getting worked up thinking about it: we're morons.

This is also why I mentioned my studies, something that brought up a lot of pissed of responses. Do I think I'm better than any of you by saying I'm doing psychology/philosophy? NO.

It's just that... I read and reread the studies and statistics on blind obedience to authority, of mass movement, which is actually what is being displayed in the entire world, but this period really focuses on what's going on in the US.

Seriously, out of the millions of eligible men in the US, Bush is the best we can get out of it? Maybe if there was some strange ****ed up gene pool in the US, which only produces morons, but I know that that's not true. There are hundreds of thousands of smart, competent, charismatic, sincere American men out there... so why choose Bush then? He doesn't have any of the characteristics I mentioned.

He is N-O-T fit to be a president. Objectively.

I think what happened now is some sort of insane backwards rationalization. He's in the White House, so he must be a competent president. I think I should consider voting for him.

But look at how he got where he is. There's nothing there: he's empty.

You say things like that, and yet don't expect to be called on the over-the-top arrogance and pure balls required to say something like that? Saying "I don't like how the President runs things and I don't think he is a very good President" is a rational opinion. Saying "The President sucks as someone to run the country, and that's a fact" is a falsely authoritative, blatantly opinionated, and very subjective, statement. YOU don't get to decide who is fit or unfit for running the country. Everyone as a whole does. Get off your high horse.

:/

I don't think you really read what I wrote... I don't blame you though, the quote you lifted from what I said really jumps out. Cats ignore the non-shiney things too when there's one shiney thing in the heap... Man I love cats. They're all furry and shiney-oriented and stuff...

:/

So, I'm gonna write what I already wrote again. If this modus operandi (****, Latin - my horse just got a little bit higher) offends you, please PM either me or one of the admins, and it'll be deleted ASAP. Better yet, flame me and make comments about my balls, and it just might be deleted EVEN FASTER!!!

Yes, George Bush is objectively unqualified to be president. Judging by your reaction, saying this obviously pisses you off madly, because you think it implies you need to review your ideas of concepts like 'absolute democracy', and the Right of the Majority. Still, George Bush is objectively unqualified to be president.

If you're still conscious and at peace with the universe, read the following sentence: George Bush is OBJECTIVELY unqualified to be president.

I listed a few characteristics that the president of the arguably most powerful country in the world should have. You say I am opiniated, subjective etc... but dude, there are standardized tests to determine stuff like intelligence. I agree that a deviation in results is possible, and the grading system in actual scores is ridiculous, but do you or do you not agree that it's possible to roughly determine if someone is superintelligent, highly intelligent, smart, mediocre, etc... objectively?

I'll just assume you want to keep your credibility and assume you said 'yes, I agree'.

Now, Would you dare to look if his IQ test score was computed? Would you plug your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and start singing a song to block out the verdict of the team of neutral PhDs? You know what the verdict would be?

-Below average-

Objectively.

You could reply this score would be based on assumptions, but you know this just as well as I do: Big B is not a bright man. AT ALL.

The question you should ask yourself now, as I actually already wrote I think: out of an immense population of American men, a population that contains highly smart, educated, charismatic, motivated, hard working, sociable, friendly, warm men (women? Can women become president?), do we really want to select Bush of all people to become our leader? The leader of the Free World® for Christ's sake..

I'm not just attacking Bush on his intelligence here. His history doesn't really show any political achievements or qualities that make him stand out. His present is lacking. His political connections are top, though.

P.S.: I am TEN times smarter than all of you ... COMBINED!!

P.P.S.: George Bush is OBJECTIVELY unqualified to be president.

Speak for yourself.

The best? No. But, then, "best" is a completely subjective statement. What you think is "best" may not be "best" for Rosalita over there, or Xan Wang, or John Smith, or Mary-Susan.

I'm charismatic, competent, smart, and sincere, but I don't want to be president. It's an extremely stressful job being the leader of the only remaining superpower in the world, and not one that all can manage.



By saying that he is not fit, you are saying you believe he is not capable of running for office. You can't state an opinion as fact and call it objective.



Intelligence doesn't necessarily mean that someone will make a good or bad president. I have a friend who's a member of Mensa. Would he make a good president? Not in the least.



How asinine of you to say that.



Yes, women can become president. See above: a man can possess those qualities and still not be a good president.



Wow. Well, good thing Kerry has those purple hearts. I mean, if we ever need to organize a rescue mission, he'll be spearheading that operation. A lack of military commendations and political history don't necessarily mean someone is unqualified to be president.



Whoa, man. Ego saturation reaching critical levels.



Subjectively. Pick up a dictionary sometime.

Who cares? I'm ten times stronger than you are, wanna get your *** kicked?

The point is, nobody really gives a damn if you're smarter or not. You may be smarter politically, or philosophically, or whatever. Either way, there's many different ways to measure "smartness". You just happen to be smarter at one thing, that doesn't really make you special. It just makes you....Smarter at one thing.

Haha... yep, that statement was too shiney to let go. You go get em kitty... you get all the female kittens, you tiger you. Tigers also do not apply to social psychology; they're above it.

RAAAAAWR.



OK man, you want to talk about subjectivity: how many people, out of a lineup of say 100,000 of America's best politicians, and Bush for some reason being included in that group, would choose Bush out of it as their 'best'? What qualifies him over the others?

**** man, the guy can't even pronounce simple words correctly. How many books do you think he read in all of his life? How much hours of study did he do? How much field work, working hard to climb the political ladder?

If Bush is president over the other aspiring guys, who DO have all the qualifications and ideas, then what does that mean about your utopic democracy?

This subjectivity thing is really going too far. By your subjectivity logic, I have as much the right to be in the White House as anyone else?

Ummm... yeah, because it's the people's opinion that counts, and the people know what's best. Democracy prevails.

That's BS man, and you know it. I'm insanely, OBJECTIVELY incompetent to do the job. I don't have the mental knack to do stuff like politics. I didn't do the studies, and don't have the aspirations to do them. I am NOT qualified.

Why don't they let pathologically overweight guys in top secret military squads, like Delta Force or something? Because they're objectively not qualified. Saying he should get a chance is BS. Fat guys should get screened out, else a lot of mission factors will be at risk. Come back when you're thin. Sounds hard, but that's how the world works.

That's also why they don't allow guys with bad eyesight into the airforce. Not qualified. Objectively.



No man, of course. But lack of intelligence DOES necessarily by default objectively empirically verifiably mean that someone will make a bad president.

I'm actually quite shocked that you seem to acknowledge the sub-par intelligence of your president, but that you still think he should be allowed to be in office? Is that acceptable? Even if the people should say en masse let the dumb guy be president, which is what you're saying I think, then I'd put in my veto. Sorry dudes, but I will not allow dumb, and thus incompetent guys to run 250 million (?) people. The people are wrong.



What... do you disagree? Challenge that statement man. Do it. Do it within the next 16 hours, cause I won't have access to any computer for long. Really, what was the motivation behind saying that? ...?



Note that I'm not defending Kerry, I'm just attacking the idea of incompetent guys in a position of immense power. In this case this means voting Kerry because he's less incompetent I think.

Also note that Kerry actually went through the politcal ladder.

And political achievements is definitely the most important factor, by definition of 'politician'. Please clarify why you said this.

Edit: lol... someone actually took the ten times smarter thing seriously.

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmm ???

Also, my penis is at least ten times longer than all of you guys' tralalas combined. (With the notable exception of Wookie, who's tigerpenis is insanely large. That's why all the kitten's love him. He's like dude, I have the tigerpenis, I don't even have to try making a point anymore.)

If you don't mean it, then don't say it. Especially when most people think you're already a pompus ***.

"Tigerpenis"?


This thread is intensely frightening.

You're entileted to your opinion, Tenshu. Most people are going to respect your opinion. However, the way you present your opinion leaves a lot to be desired. Claiming to be smarter then everyone and using such to justify your opinion as fact is what people are jumping all over.

That said, I have no respect for you because of your poor attempt at elitism