Bush strength going into convention- Page 3

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/18/04 at 8:12am

y'know folks, this wasn't the first time a president was elected who lost the popular vote. hell tilden beat hayes by almost 300,000 back in 1876 when the total population was about 39 million. that's be almost a 3 million margin today. amazingly enough, the republic survived elections for another 124 years after that one without scrapping the formula. we might consider that when we go squealin' 'bout changing the constitution willy nilly.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/18/04 at 11:25am

That hardly changes my stance, papa. But, I'm glad to see that you are firm in your opinion despite that the electoral college is what is giving Kerry the big lead right now.

[ckeaton]

Posted: 8/18/04 at 2:21pm

I've been quietly watching this thread, because papa's better than me at defending this side of the fence (I don't need Namo to point it out again) and he so expertly espouses my opinion on this matter, that I can remain somewhat silent.

I do not like the people that show up, and all they can muster up is ANYONE BUT BUSH 2004!. I should think that if you can't contribute to the debate at hand, you should remain silent.

... realizing the hypocrisy in this message,
CK

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 8/18/04 at 2:27pm

How can you say it disenfranchises half the state? Does anyone really know what that word means?
"To disfranchise; to deprive of the rights of a citizen."

It doesn't deprive the rights of a citizen. Now, the accusations that registered voters were being somehow hindered from reaching the polls to vote, that's disenfranchisement...but saying that the electoral college is somehow tossing out the opinion of voters is incorrect.
Again, I point out to you that the founding fathers created the electoral college so that the power to elect the president would lie in state hands. Seriously, guys, I keep saying it but no one seems to believe me. America is not a democracy in the truest sense. The bulk of our government and its operation is founded on the model of the Roman Republic.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/18/04 at 2:59pm

bway, while we surely disagree on a lot, you're doing a bang-up job 'splainin' this. don't worry that some folks seem to either willfully not hear you or dismiss your carefully constructed arguments out of hand.

if we tossed out the electoral college we'd be opening up the old wounds that led to the civil war all over again in a way. you could have a president elected basically by seven states: ca, tx, fl, ny, oh, pa, and il would control 66% of the registered voters. i know lotsa folks don't really care about those little states with few people in 'em, but this is kinda just like writing 'em off, ain't it?

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 8/18/04 at 3:19pm

Thank you, Papa. That really is what it's about. That's why the Senate maintains a balance of two reps per state and the House is unbalanced, with states gaining seats by total population...and that changes each time there's a new census (like Louisiana lost a House seat last time, from 8 to 7, I believe).
While I don't always agree with the electoral college (after all, it is rather ridiculous that a president could win the popular vote and lose the election), it is vitally important that states maintain some measure of power, especially in the face of decreasing state individuality and a progressively more massive central government.

Thank you for the compliment, Papa. :)

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 8/18/04 at 5:31pm

I disagree - I think individual states get their say in the Senate. The electoral college idea was put in place when states were more equal in terms of size. I think for the presidential race it should go to one person - one vote with the winner decided on by who gets the most votes. But since that would usually benifit the Democrats that will never happen.

After all, if the majority of the people in Washington DC were republicans that would have been made a state a long time ago. But thats another issue.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/18/04 at 7:18pm

just passing this along since i don't get the cook report and don't know anyone who does.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_08_15.php#003289

[Sunfish]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 1:11am

You do get around, Papa! It's a very interesting page, I read several entries. Laughed at the Obama/Keyes situation, and enjoyed the latest entry regarding the military records of one of Swift Boat tale-tellers and what HIS Bronze Star citation read regarding that day.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_08_15.php#003294

*kiss*kiss*

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 7:59am

lol, sun, that's really why i posted this because tpm is one of the more liberal or as the kids are saying today, "progressive," blogs around, so if he's quoting charlie cook it's worth reading for both sides. i don't often agree with josh (ok practically never) and he often makes me wanna toss my monitor through the wall, but if you're not reading all sides of things you're just being lazy.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 9:22am

There's a very interesting book out there that debunks the Electoral College, putting it into perspective of why it was important then but not so much now.
I'm sorry. I saw it on a display table at a bookstore yesterday and now I can't remember the name. IT looked like a good read, though.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 11:04am

You know--just because I disagree with something doesn't mean that I didn't read, nor misunderstand what was said. I quite fully understand--I went to college, too. I just disagree. So what?

[Sunfish]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 6:23pm

Papa, how do you have time to keep up with everything? I try, I really do, but it's exhausting!!

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/19/04 at 6:37pm

lol, sun. i don't sleep and am mostly bionic at this point. (insert six million dollar man theme song here)