Alaska for Obama?

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
Tom, could you explaine that, please? What corruption?

Dave



lessee.....vote suppression, bogus counting process, a few other things.
And, for the record, such corruption of popular vote goes on in countless
ways, nationwide, all the time. In 2000, in Florida, it just allowed the
elected officials of Florida(GOP) to 'declare' victory of a candidate under
dubious circumstances, with the Supreme Court maintaining the state's right
to do so.
Tom

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:41:09 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

lessee.....vote suppression, bogus counting process, a few other things.
And, for the record, such corruption of popular vote goes on in countless
ways, nationwide, all the time.

Probably does. It was said that JFK (whom I voted for) won Chicago
and therefore Ill. because of voter fraud.

In 2000, in Florida, it just allowed the
elected officials of Florida(GOP) to 'declare' victory of a candidate under
dubious circumstances, with the Supreme Court maintaining the state's right
to do so.


Have you read the supreme's decision. It simply affirmed that the
State of Florida could not change the voting laws post facto. There
were, what, 5 recounts with Gore losing all of them. The law stated
that the results had to be in by Jan 1. The Florida Supremes tried to
change that law with their own Chief Justice recusing himself because
he knew they couldn't do what they tried to do. Apparently he was the
only honest justice on the Florida supremes. BTW, ALL the supremes in
Florida were appointed by Democrats. They did recounts and recounts
and recounts, with Gore losing every one. The Dems wanted to only
recount one district - heavily Democrat. Was that the correct thing
to do? Yeah, if you wanted Gore to win.

So, are you saying that they should have kept up the recounts well
past the day the president was to take office, or until Gore won a
recount? I will guarantee that if Gore won just ONE of the recounts
the Florida Dems would have declared him the winner. Just ONE. Bush
won ALL the recounts. Dimple chads, pregnant chads, hanging chads ad
nauseum..... Gore LOST. Get over it.

Dave

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:46:11 -0600, rw
wrote:

riverman wrote:

I'm opposed to one-man-one-vote also, but not because all men are not
equally infomed, but because I am a rural denizen, and would find it
dispicable that the more populated urban centers would *always* rule
the vote.

I'm a rural denizen, as well. About as rural as you can get -- Custer
County, Idaho.

I'm also a liberal or progressive or whatever term you prefer. So is the
majority of my community of Stanley, population 100 as of the last
census. In 2004 Stanley went for Kerry three to two.

Idaho is a solidly Republican state, of course. My second congressional
district is even redder than district one. (Idaho only has two
congressional districts.)

Simply put, that means, under our current electoral system, that my vote
and the votes of like-minded voters in Stanley, count for nothing.

See - the Founding Fathers DID know what they were doing...

Seriously, though, I suspect you know that your idea is unworkable in
any group as large as the eligible voter pool of the US and IAC, doing
so would require a complete restructuring of the _United_ _States_.
Furthermore, there is no actual "popular vote," nor one intended, but
rather, an informal adding-up of the votes cast totals of 51 distinct
elections - no one "wins" or "loses" it because it doesn't exist. The
election is for the President of the _United_ _States_, not the
President of Each and Every Citizen Officially Residing in Any of the
States or Other Locales and Eligible to Vote, regardless of the bull****
the candidates spout about wanting to the president of all citizens.
Also, no law or other such restriction prevents you from moving to a
location in which you feel your vote would count (or count more).

Under a simple popular-vote system they would count.

In a true democracy, there would be no party primaries as now (each
party could make an unofficial recommendation, endorsement, etc.). Each
voter would get, basically, a piece of paper with the name of the office
and a blank line as a ballot upon which voters would indicate their
choice for each office, but I'm sure the ACLU and similar would say that
was unfair to some group or another. As it stands, even if the POTUS
election itself were "a simple popular-vote system," if a voter wants
their vote "to count," they must choose between McCain or Obama because
no other candidate can actually win, and those two were chosen by
systems that in no way resemble a "simple popular-vote system." IOW, a
"simple popular-vote system" in the election wouldn't really be much
more "democratic" than the EC system.

You don't like democracy because the urban majority does things you
don't like. I dislike anti-democracy because the rural majority does
things I don't like. It cuts both ways.

I say let's have democracy, and let the chips fall where they may.

Are you volunteering to be the lamb among the two wolves...?

Or Ken can be dictator. :-)

Not likely - more proof the FFs knew what they were doing...

TC,
R

wrote:

Simply put, that means, under our current electoral system, that my vote
and the votes of like-minded voters in Stanley, count for nothing.


See - the Founding Fathers DID know what they were doing...

Seriously, though, I suspect you know that your idea is unworkable in
any group as large as the eligible voter pool of the US and IAC, doing
so would require a complete restructuring of the _United_ _States_.

WTF are you taking about? In every presidential election in my memory
the press has reported the popular vote. It's simply the sum of all the
popular votes in all the states. What's so hard about that?

Furthermore, there is no actual "popular vote," nor one intended, but
rather, an informal adding-up of the votes cast totals of 51 distinct
elections - no one "wins" or "loses" it because it doesn't exist.

So when the press reports a popular vote they're just puling it out of
their ass? Baloney.

The
election is for the President of the _United_ _States_, not the
President of Each and Every Citizen Officially Residing in Any of the
States or Other Locales and Eligible to Vote, regardless of the bull****
the candidates spout about wanting to the president of all citizens.
Also, no law or other such restriction prevents you from moving to a
location in which you feel your vote would count (or count more).

Under a simple popular-vote system they would count.


In a true democracy, there would be no party primaries as now (each
party could make an unofficial recommendation, endorsement, etc.). Each
voter would get, basically, a piece of paper with the name of the office
and a blank line as a ballot upon which voters would indicate their
choice for each office, but I'm sure the ACLU and similar would say that
was unfair to some group or another. As it stands, even if the POTUS
election itself were "a simple popular-vote system," if a voter wants
their vote "to count," they must choose between McCain or Obama because
no other candidate can actually win, and those two were chosen by
systems that in no way resemble a "simple popular-vote system." IOW, a
"simple popular-vote system" in the election wouldn't really be much
more "democratic" than the EC system.

More bull****.

In the next election a voter can vote for Obama, McCain, Nader, or Barr,
and maybe a few others -- anyone who met the qualifications to get on
the ballot. (Is Lyndon LaRouche running this time?) The way the parties
run their primaries is their business, although I'd hope that they'd run
them according to democratic principles.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Aug 1, 10:20*am, wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:46:11 -0600, rw
wrote:



riverman wrote:

I'm opposed to one-man-one-vote also, but not because all men are not
equally infomed, but because I am a rural denizen, and would find it
dispicable that the more populated urban centers would *always* rule
the vote.

I'm a rural denizen, as well. About as rural as you can get -- Custer
County, Idaho.

I'm also a liberal or progressive or whatever term you prefer. So is the
majority of my community of Stanley, population 100 as of the last
census. In 2004 Stanley went for Kerry three to two.

Idaho is a solidly Republican state, of course. My second congressional
district is even redder than district one. (Idaho only has two
congressional districts.)

Simply put, that means, under our current electoral system, that my vote
and the votes of like-minded voters in Stanley, count for nothing.

See - the Founding Fathers DID know what they were doing...

Seriously, though, I suspect you know that your idea is unworkable in
any group as large as the eligible voter pool of the US and IAC, doing
so would require a complete restructuring of the _United_ _States_.
Furthermore, there is no actual "popular vote," nor one intended, but
rather, an informal adding-up of the votes cast totals of 51 distinct
elections - no one "wins" or "loses" it because it doesn't exist. *The
election is for the President of the _United_ _States_, not the
President of Each and Every Citizen Officially Residing in Any of the
States or Other Locales and Eligible to Vote, regardless of the bull****
the candidates spout about wanting to the president of all citizens.
Also, no law or other such restriction prevents you from moving to a
location in which you feel your vote would count (or count more).

You're missing the point. RW lives somewhere that his vote counts
more. I'm sure an Idaho voter counts 2x a California voter...or some
other such nonsense.

But Idaho doesn't vote the way RW thinks it should, so it's unfair to
him. :-)

Note that he's complaining about Alaska being unfair, but that's only
because it doesn't vote the way RW thinks it should.

It's the whiner's problem. "X" is the worst system in the world
because
I personally don't benefit under it. "X" may be better than "Y" in
general,
but "Y" benefits me more so "X" is obviously wrong.

It's a compromise between the large and the small states. It was
designed that way and it's still working that way.

...and yes, Gore lost, get over it already.
- Ken

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:45:55 -0600, rw
wrote:

wrote:

Simply put, that means, under our current electoral system, that my vote
and the votes of like-minded voters in Stanley, count for nothing.


See - the Founding Fathers DID know what they were doing...

Seriously, though, I suspect you know that your idea is unworkable in
any group as large as the eligible voter pool of the US and IAC, doing
so would require a complete restructuring of the _United_ _States_.

WTF are you taking about? In every presidential election in my memory
the press has reported the popular vote.

Ah...OK, so Steve Barnard can be listed as favoring Fox News to certify
the vote...

It's simply the sum of all the popular votes in all the states.

There is no "popular vote" in all of the states, either.

What's so hard about that?

A phrase with which you are doubtlessly familiar, but it is considerably
more difficult than you appear to realize. There is simply no legal
method for a national Presidential election, which is not to say there
could not be one. But doing so would not be simply adding up the vote
totals from each state.

Furthermore, there is no actual "popular vote," nor one intended, but
rather, an informal adding-up of the votes cast totals of 51 distinct
elections - no one "wins" or "loses" it because it doesn't exist.

So when the press reports a popular vote they're just puling it out of
their ass? Baloney.

In a sense, yes, they are. While it is generally fairly accurate, it is
not exact, and often, because it makes no difference, the national media
doesn't cover the _exact_ certified totals - IOW, if the media reports
California voters as having cast 15,323,462 votes for Candidate A and
12,562,021 for Candidate B and declares A the winner, but A actually got
500,000 less and B 500,000 more, it's not national news because it
changed nothing - A is the winner - under the current scheme.

The
election is for the President of the _United_ _States_, not the
President of Each and Every Citizen Officially Residing in Any of the
States or Other Locales and Eligible to Vote, regardless of the bull****
the candidates spout about wanting to the president of all citizens.
Also, no law or other such restriction prevents you from moving to a
location in which you feel your vote would count (or count more).

Under a simple popular-vote system they would count.


In a true democracy, there would be no party primaries as now (each
party could make an unofficial recommendation, endorsement, etc.). Each
voter would get, basically, a piece of paper with the name of the office
and a blank line as a ballot upon which voters would indicate their
choice for each office, but I'm sure the ACLU and similar would say that
was unfair to some group or another. As it stands, even if the POTUS
election itself were "a simple popular-vote system," if a voter wants
their vote "to count," they must choose between McCain or Obama because
no other candidate can actually win, and those two were chosen by
systems that in no way resemble a "simple popular-vote system." IOW, a
"simple popular-vote system" in the election wouldn't really be much
more "democratic" than the EC system.

More bull****.

In the next election a voter can vote for Obama, McCain, Nader, or Barr,
and maybe a few others -- anyone who met the qualifications to get on
the ballot.

Er, no. There is no "ballot," there are 51 distinct ballot_S_, as well
as...well, here's a hint: how does one promote their campaign to be a
write-in candidate in, oh, say, South Carolina?

(Is Lyndon LaRouche running this time?) The way the parties
run their primaries is their business,

Primaries? I thought you wanted a democracy...

although I'd hope that they'd run
them according to democratic principles.

Well, **** into one hand and hope into the other and see which fills up
faster...

HTH,
R

wrote:

But Idaho doesn't vote the way RW thinks it should, so it's unfair to
him. :-)

That's not true and it's not fair.

I cited both California (a blue state) and Texas (a red state) as being
served poorly by our electoral system. It's a matter of principle,
efficiency, and fairness; not partisanship.

I used Idaho merely as an example to counter Riverman's whining :-)
about urban voters trumping rural voters.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
Probably does. It was said that JFK (whom I voted for) won Chicago
and therefore Ill. because of voter fraud.

that's pretty must established fact, not hearsay. If you want to generalize,
the Dems get out the vote from the deceased better, the GOP has fraudulant
absentee balloting down to a science.

It simply affirmed that the
State of Florida could not change the voting laws post facto. There
were, what, 5 recounts with Gore losing all of them. ..... Gore LOST.
Get over it.

not my point, David. Something was clearly up with turnout and votes for
Buchanan in a lot of districts. No investigation was done by the GOP-led
state government.
It was a very fraudulant, crooked election from a notoriously fraudulant,
crooked state. And, it affected the national election, in that case. You
will note, however, that I defended the electoral college system, as I feel
it's purpose of evening out the importance of densely populated and rural
areas serves the country well. As for getting over Gore losing, hell, I
wasn't surprised that he lost in the first place, so nothing to get over
here......
Tom

wrote in message
...
On Jul 30, 1:58 pm, rw wrote:

You've touched on another problem with our electoral system. The
state-by-state winner-take-all system concentrates campaign effort and
money into a few "swing" states, while the candidates all but ignore the
voters in solidly red or blue states. This isn't good. It holds our
politics hostage to small, highly motivated constituencies in the swing
states.

So we should go back to locally elected electoral college members who
will considerately cast their vote for president? ;-)

Jon.

They were not locally elected. The Federal founding Fathers left it up to
the states on how they picked the voters in the Electoral College. And the
reason Alaska gets the minimum is they have 2 Senators and only one
Representative.
EC set up for just this reason. Did not allow the big states to run
roughshod over the small states.

"riverman" wrote in message
...
On Jul 31, 12:55 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Apparently you want to use those numbers to claim that Alaskans have
three times more clout in the electoral college than Californians.
Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. Alaskans have over ten times *less*
clout in the electoral college than Californians and over ten times
less clout than Texans with their 34 electoral college votes.

I'm saying, and consistently have been saying, that an Alaskan has three
times the voting power of a Californian and a Texan, not that Alaska AS
AN ENTIRE STATE, has three times the voting power. Can't you ****ing
read?

You're making a spurious argument. You want to claim that because
1 electoral vote is split between 600,000 Californians but only
between 200,000 Alaskans that an individual Alaskan has three
times more "voting power". It's like arguing that because 3 people
split an orange somebody else has more apples.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Besides, several states have Alaska beat for a few number of voters
per electoral vote.
Alaska has 218,478 per EV
North Dakota has 211,455 per EV
Vermont has 207,131 per EV
DC has 184,507 per EV
and Wyoming has 168,843 per EV

In fact, a single Wyoming EV represents almost four Texas EVs. I'd
think, with the propensity of Texans at high levels of our government
in recent years that the EV system would have been changed if they
felt the system was biased against them.

--riverman

And California being a winner take all state, disenfranchises about 75% of
the people by geography. SF and LA are a majority of the people and the
rest of the state is fairly conservative. The Conservative sections never
get a resonable say. In neither state or national elections. The
Gerrymandering of the state gives us a legislature that is much more liberal
than the state is as a whole. The district covering Sunnyvale and the
Silicon Valley also goes over highway 152 in a 2 mile wide section for 100
miles to gather in Livingston in the Central Valley. And the very liberal
leadership of the Legislature promised us a fair redistricting before we had
elections to force just that. They lied, and after the election where the
measure failed because of the promise. They have ignored their promise.
All public officials should serve two terms. One in office and one in
prison.