Do you agree with Bush, this war was worth it?

Jarod said:
Dumb da dumb dumb...

The Democrats, mostly composed of liberals, did not elect Bush. That was the Republicans and some independents. All of us are the American people. And the American people did not elect Bush twice, only once....

The electoral College elected Bush the first time, without the backing of the majority of American voters.
Click to expand...

The electoral college elects the President everytime.
 
Funny how all the Cons disappeared for about a year, only to return when they had a new canidate they could pretend was not as bad as they last. One they could make the same old arguments about.
 
Jarod said:
Funny how all the Cons disappeared for about a year, only to return when they had a new canidate they could pretend was not as bad as they last. One they could make the same old arguments about.
Click to expand...

I've been on this board every day for a year Jarod and so have the others who are here now so I don't know who you are talking about.
 
gonzojournals said:
It was with the support of the people that gave the votes.

You are just misunderstanding the electoral system.
Click to expand...

The people who voted for Bush, yes, but the majority of voters did not vote for Bush... more voted for Gore, who was the better choice.
 
Jarod said:
True, and usually with the support of a majority of the American people.
Click to expand...

To explain further, it is illegal in all but twice states (I believe) for the electoral votes to go for any candidate other than the one the state voters selected.


Thus, Bush earned every single one of the electoral votes he received from the States, even if he did not get the majority of the votes from the nation as a whole.

The reason it is done this way is so that a huge state cannot elect a president on its own.
 
Jarod said:
Funny how all the Cons disappeared for about a year, only to return when they had a new canidate they could pretend was not as bad as they last. One they could make the same old arguments about.
Click to expand...

You have been saying McCain would be 1000x times better President than Bush and now you are claiming conservatives on this board are pretending McCain is better than Bush. How does that work?
 
gonzojournals said:
To explain further, it is illegal in all but twice states (I believe) for the electoral votes to go for any candidate other than the one the state voters selected.


Thus, Bush earned every single one of the electoral votes he received from the States, even if he did not get the majority of the votes from the nation as a whole.

The reason it is done this way is so that a huge state cannot elect a president on its own.
Click to expand...


I understand the electoral college... However, the majority of the American Voter did not elect Bush.
 
Jarod said:
The people who voted for Bush, yes, but the majority of voters did not vote for Bush... more voted for Gore, who was the better choice.
Click to expand...

The majority of people voted for Gore, but the majority of States voted for Bush.


Let me make it more clear for you (though this is oversimplified):

There are almost 36 million people in the state of California.

Now, let's pretend that all of those people have the ability to vote.

In recent elections, about 50 million votes or so wins the election.

That means that if the entire state of california voted for a candidate, that candidate would only need roughly 15 million more votes to win the ENTIRE election...which gives California an overwhelming power in politics.

However, with the electoral college, California is only able to force its electoral delegates to vote for the candidate it wants--- which enables the other states to do the same thing, and so each STATE's population's WILL is represented.
 
Jarod said:
I understand the electoral college... However, the majority of the American Voter did not elect Bush.
Click to expand...

In 2000 you are correct. In 2004 Bush did win a majority. Remember Bill Clinton never won a majority. I believe he had 43% in '92 and 49% in '96. I guess a good majority can give you a mandate but short of that all you have to do is beat your opponent based on the electoral college to become President.
 
Jarod said:
I understand the electoral college... However, the majority of the American Voter did not elect Bush.
Click to expand...

No, but the will of the majority of the STATES did.


Alabama and California have different values-- should Alabama's population's will be ignored because California has more people?
 
cawacko said:
In 2000 you are correct. In 2004 Bush did win a majority. Remember Bill Clinton never won a majority. I believe he had 43% in '92 and 49% in '96. I guess a good majority can give you a mandate but short of that all you have to do is beat your opponent based on the electoral college to become President.
Click to expand...

No, it was ok for Clinton to win without a majority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top