Whoever wins the popular vote should win the election. The electoral college is an anachronistic leftover from the days of the land owning squires choosing who would run things, and should have been abolished long ago.
Stop the recount, and never mind if some Gore supporters in Florida are too dumb to find the right hole in the ballot.
This has gone on long enough. Gore is a pompous, self righteous, stuffed shirt who has picked up the bad habit of prevarication from associating with bad characters. However, he is the twit of choice for the majority of the room-temperature-IQs who actually took the trouble to find their way to the polling place, and the country will survive four years of his foolishness.
Plus it makes Bush and the Republicans look like statesmen.
The populare vote is only relevant on a state by state basis, so trying to determine a president from that number is as arbitrary as choosing a president based on shoe size. Heck, Bush won 6 times as many counties througout the country, 2400 to 600. Based on that overwhelming number, Gore should concede, apologize for being blown out so badly, and then offer to never run for office again since so many counties voted against him.
Gee ** Mullinator** that’s the second time I’ve seen the “Bush beat Gore in # of counties” item.
Since historically, our country has counted the votes of human beings vs. land masses (even with the electoral votes, they’re humans, not acres), your claim is, um, interesting, but no more relevant than “how many green ballots were for Bush vs. Gore”.
Shodan, love it or hate it we do NOT elect our president based on popular vote. Calls for Bush to concede are simply ridiculous. The only reason Gore hasn’t conceded is because the ELECTORAL votes are in question. Otherwise, he would have conceded already. Popular vote or not, the guy with the most electoral votes wins the damn election. And unless we amend our constitution (hint: that ain’t gonna happen), that’s the way the proverbial ball bounces.
And let me remind you, they both knew, and presumably agreed with, the constitution before they ran for President.
PEOPLE vote, not “counties”, and more PEOPLE voted for Gore. Keerist…
Anyway, Bush can’t “concede” anything, he’s in no position to do so. Although at this moment he is the loser of both popular and electoral vote, it’s not up to him to “give” it to Gore. It is not his to give. The votes aren’t in. The only one in any kind of position to stop this is Gore, because he is the one presisting in the recount. If he declred he didn’t want to persue it, they could accept the count in FL and give it to Bush.
Folks – there are plenty of overseas ballots still coming in. There is no guarantee that Bush won’t be winning, even if slightly, by the time all the votes are counted. But, in any case, I won’t bother pointing out for those of you who barely passed your junior high civics classes that we don’t live in a democracy. Sorry, but it needed to be said.
I am not saying counties are relevant in determining president. I am saying the number of counties won is technically as relevant as the total number of popular votes won. Popular vote only matters on a state by state basis. The nationwide popular vote is irrelevant to determining a president so basing who should concede on an irrelevant number doesn’t fly.
Perhaps wring and Stoidela think it’s easy to dismiss that residents of 80 percent of our country’s land mass want Bush to be president and not Gore, but I don’t think it’s so easy.
And it’s precisely the reason why the electoral college is still relevant and still necessary. I don’t want New York City, L.A., Boston and Chicago to pick our every president, and I don’t want all issues designed around catering just to big-city residents. The electoral college makes that less likely to occur.
To those who want the electoral college shit-canned: Do you want to do the same with the U.S. Senate? Why not? Alaska has two senators, just like California. Don’t you think that’s unfair?
From CNN’s front page, the popular vote has Gore 222,880 votes ahead of Bush. And there were a total of almost 100,000,000 votes cast. And more votes are still awaiting to be counted. Really, when you think about it, a 222,880 votes lead is kinda piddley, out of a hundred MILLION total votes cast. So, Gore has a slight lead in popular vote, and that could change (still more votes being counted.)
So, Bush leads Florida (so far) by 388 (super piddley) and Gore leads the popular vote by a relatively piddley amount too. Let’s not make this sound as if some vast majority of people prefer Gore in the popular vote. This is a flat-out dead-heat.
As far as the Electoral College goes, sure, a popular vote sounds dandy if you live in L.A., New York City, Chicago, or some other highly populated urban area. But if you live in Hooterville, Wyoming, or Elk Jaw, Alaska, your town’s and states’ interests don’t compare when it comes to voting numbers. Why would a presidental candidate try to “woo” your little rural state, where there are few voters, when they can concentrate on highly populated areas of the US, where all the votes are? All they’d need is the ever-important popular vote, it wouldn’t matter what parts of the country these votes came from.
I used to not understand why the Electoral College was important, but because of this whole mess, I get it a little better. I don’t think it’s fair that states with little population (like Wyoming) should be shuffled under the rug when it comes to elections.
Democracy is fine in a perfect world, but in reality leads to mob rule. Which is to say, a country where the leaders are decided by ignorant people (many of whom don’t even know what their system of government is) because of appeals to their base emotions, rather than their intellect. Sound bites and 30 second ads, government boondoggles and pork, are just a few examples, not to mention campaign finace issues. IMHO, we should go back to the original system where the Senators were appointed by the legistlatures of the states rather than the people who basically vote for the guy who has the most money in the bank. But, the constitution was ammended 80+ years ago because people at the time thought people would never be that stupid. The electoral college is one of the few good ideas left and if you got rid of it, be ready for never ever hearing from your government again except to take your money and send it to California, New York, Flordia, and Texas. Because those people will control the rest of the country. Maybe a few crumbs for Boston, Detroit, and Chicago for good measure.
Of course, if we wanted to start over and redraw some state boundaries in a way that might be sane, I have no problem with that.
I’ll say it again - the margin in both popular vote and electoral vote is in the range of ‘noise’ - it’s inside the error margin for the election. Therefore, it’s impossible to say that either candidate has ‘won’ anything. Whoever takes the White House will get there on a fluke, better legal wrangling, etc.
Of course, whoever wins will claim that he was the choice of the people.
Good grief ** Milo**. I’m reminded of Michael Douglas in * War of the Roses* “I’ve got more square footage”.
“residents of 80% of our country’s land mass” ?? What I am saying is that a person has a vote. Not an acre. Not a county. The States have electoral votes, which are still people, representing other people. I’m sure they covered this in your high school government class.
Or, are you really trying to claim that for example, Wayne County MI, with it’s 2,029,353 people (according to 1998 #) should be considered EXACTLY the same as Cheboygan County MI, with it’s 21,780 people??? If so, you’ll need yet another set of court challenges and re-writes of existing laws to make YOUR scenario go.
FTR: I’m not wanting to change this past election’s rules. I believe that we should go with whomever wins the electoral vote. I don’t believe we should “revote”. But I do think we should expeditiously count all the votes that WERE cast. and count them as individual votes, regardless of how much land mass surrounds the home of the voter ( :rolleyes: }
This isn’t about square footage, it’s about the interests of little states with less population, vs. states with a dense, urban population.
Should lightly populated farming states (for instance) have almost no “voice” during the election process? Should the densly populated urban areas have almost all the clout during an election? Because if we were to go with a popular vote, that’s what would happen. Anyone here from a sparsely populated state? Do you think this is a dandy idea?
wring: I’m not trying to say one-person, one-vote isn’t a crucial component of the electoral process. I’m saying the electoral college is, too.
The fact that this race is a 50-50 draw is a good example of why it’s important. Gore carried virtually none of rural, middle America. Take away the electoral college, and that fact would be moot. But because those little states and their few electoral votes count and add up, it cost Gore the election (or, at the very least, is really making him sweat).
Take away the EC, and this country’s presidency will be attained by campaigning in and making promises to about five U.S. cities.
And for those who support abolishing the electoral college, again I ask: do you also want to abolish the U.S. Senate? If not, why not?
I, too, beliee it is absolutely irrelevant which candidate has support from the greatest acreage. Both counties and land mass should be irrelevant to the process of choosing a President. Luckily, they are.
States, however, do count. The electoral college makes sure of that. Only identification as a state is important, not land mass. If it were the other way around, Alaska would have many times more influence on the election than Rhode Island.
I am NOT advocating the demolition of the electoral college.
OTOH. I’ve been voting since 1972, and never before has anyone bandied about the “number of counties” somebody won. and now in this election, I’ve seen two posters here assert this very obscure thing. Irrelevant. Completely.
number of states matters ONLY as it appears as number of electoral votes. square mileage, number of counties, number of left handed voters, number of voters with hair longer than 5 inches long - all may be interesting numbers to come up with, all irrelevant.
The ONLY reason I think that the total popular vote should even be looked at, is NOT to ‘decide’ the winner (we have a system for that), but as a cautionary note to whomever lands in the office - that a significant percentage of the people did NOT want you there.
and, I also think the process should be allowed to continue in the legally proscribed manner, with, god help us, a minimum of rhetoric from BOTH camps.
As a Canadian, I’d suggest that you not underestimate the importance of geographic representation.
One of the things that should not happen in a democracy is a complete disenfranchisement of whole sectors of the population. That’s what happens in a pure democracy - the ‘Tyranny of the Majority’.
The problem with proportional representation is that the interests of urban workers often differ quite significantly from the interests of rural farmers. You may think it’s irrelevant that the huge vast midwest votes completely different from the urban coastlines, but if their needs are not met as well you’ll fracture your country.
Have a look at Canada. This country has been under the threat of breakup for the last 30 years for exactly this reason. Various areas become completely disenfranchised at various times, and it raises tensions. Alberta almost left Canada over 20 years ago because the popular government (totally unsupported by Alberta) ruled that we must give the eastern cities our oil at heavily discounted prices, while manufactured goods from the east had to be purchased at world market prices. This was grossly unfair, but that particular government was elected before the votes in Alberta were even counted, and thus we had absolutely no say in the government.
i’m not against the electoral college. And I thank God that the founders were the elitists that they were, and that they designed our government entirely around the idea that majority rule is the equivalent of mob rule.
Also, for the record, I find it HILARIOUS that anyone can make LAND MASS an issue in value of votes. If 100o voters occupy a square block, and another 1000 voters occurpy 100 square miles, I don’t give a rats ass and neither should anyone else. I’m flabbergasted that this discussion is even happening.
And finally, in my completley unhumble opinion, I think it is extremely significant that Bush carried the rural areas and the South, and Gore carried urban areas and the North. But I’m not gonna be rude and make any of those sweeping generalizations I’m known for. As to why I think its meaningful, use your imaginations.
Hell, you don’t even have to. Just look up the stats on why people voted for whom they voted. The reasoning on both sides is enlightening.
And finally, the collective vote for the center-left/left (including Ralph) was something like 54%, the greatest percentage since Lyndon Johnson. Again, looking at the “whys” of how Bush got as much as he got, it’s pretty safe to say that a good majority of this country is happier with left-leaning policy than right, even if they don’t adore Al himself.
Bush is the presidential equivalent of Carter: a reaction to a president that alot of people dislike. It doesn’t say squat about what the people think about the real issues of governance.
Aren’t anybody else’s fingers getting tired? (not to mention their eyes and brains and hearts)
