100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Bush's Legacy | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I feel that we need people to quit voting for the person that their church tells them to vote for and take the time to study the candidate's platforms and make their best educated decision based on that information. Churches can't tell people who to vote for, else they lose their tax exemption status. But I agree with you. It goes beyond churches though, the worst is the Bolshevik mentality the majority of Americans have when it comes to Republicans and Democrats, who strangely enough, don't disagree on much in the abstract!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
November 6, 1860 Republican Abraham Lincoln wins the Presidential election with 39.7% of the vote, defeating Stephen Douglas, John Breckinridge and John Bell.
There were 4 candidates that year, and Even though 39.7 % was not the majority of Americans, it was still the majority of the popular vote! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't so much referring to the popular vote as much as I was the electoral college. The point is that the electoral college is in place for a reason, and a very good reason at that. And Fanta is right, however, it depends on what you mean by "popular vote." Lincoln only had about 28% of the vote in his reelection year. There's only been a handful of times any president in this country got a majority of the votes, George W. Bush in 2004 being one of them. EDIT: Also the popular vote has been driving American politics for quite some time. I don't really know how you can say otherwise. That is not true, Bush would not have gotten in office in 2000 if popular vote counted so there would not have been 8 years of his bull. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That was 1860, not 1864.
Majority =/= plurality. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
November 6, 1860 Republican Abraham Lincoln wins the Presidential election with 39.7% of the vote, defeating Stephen Douglas, John Breckinridge and John Bell. There were 4 candidates that year, and Even though 39.7 % was not the majority of Americans, it was still the majority of the popular vote! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't so much referring to the popular vote as much as I was the electoral college. The point is that the electoral college is in place for a reason, and a very good reason at that. And Fanta is right, however, it depends on what you mean by "popular vote." Lincoln only had about 28% of the vote in his reelection year. There's only been a handful of times any president in this country got a majority of the votes, George W. Bush in 2004 being one of them. EDIT: Also the popular vote has been driving American politics for quite some time. I don't really know how you can say otherwise. That is not true, Bush would not have gotten in office in 2000 if popular vote counted so there would not have been 8 years of his bull. Er, I didn't say that the popular voted counted in 2000. It never does. I said the popular vote has been driving American politics, and I think that's pretty evident given THE LAST 30 YEARS OF ELECTION CYCLES. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A state electorial college delegate's vote,
all but twice has went according to the popular vote of that state!! Its a good system, and I wouldnt want it any other way!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel that we need people to quit voting for the person that their church tells them to vote for and take the time to study the candidate's platforms and make their best educated decision based on that information. Churches can't tell people who to vote for, else they lose their tax exemption status. But I agree with you. It goes beyond churches though, the worst is the Bolshevik mentality the majority of Americans have when it comes to Republicans and Democrats, who strangely enough, don't disagree on much in the abstract!! Churches do tell how people to vote. I have witnessed a Pastor telling the church how to vote with regards to stem cell research. I was shocked. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ahh, now a pastor. That's a different story from a church. The pastor can endorse whoever he wants personally. Can't do anything about that, unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is exactly my point. The last thing America needs is more dumb Americans voting. If anything, I'd encourage LESS stupid people to vote, and MORE informed people to cast ballots. Such is the two-edged sword of a free society, I suppose. so..how do you feel about your voting privileges? 
really man, everyone that is an american is free to vote. if idiots vote an idiot in, so be it. if the majority of the country becomes a bunch of alien worshiping weirdos and elect someone like that, so be it. our nation is about "majority rules", there is no excluding the stupid or odd. i have a hard time reading your opinions on such matters, it comes off very antiamerican |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't so much referring to the popular vote as much as I was the electoral college. The point is that the electoral college is in place for a reason, and a very good reason at that. And Fanta is right, however, it depends on what you mean by "popular vote." Lincoln only had about 28% of the vote in his reelection year. There's only been a handful of times any president in this country got a majority of the votes, George W. Bush in 2004 being one of them. EDIT: Also the popular vote has been driving American politics for quite some time. I don't really know how you can say otherwise. That is not true, Bush would not have gotten in office in 2000 if popular vote counted so there would not have been 8 years of his bull. The country is not populated evenly. A National popular vote, (electorial college is based on a States popular vote) would favor Regional interests more than individual states interests! The NE and Calif. would be the only areas of concern to the candidates. The rest of the country's interests would largely be ignored! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A state electorial college delegate's vote, all but twice has went according to the popular vote of that state!! Its a good system, and I wouldnt want it any other way!
I think that it works well also. I have questioned the electoral college in my time but through researching it have found it does work how it was meant to work which is to coincide with popular vote most of the time anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rather than join the Nation
it would serve to seperate us!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't so much referring to the popular vote as much as I was the electoral college. The point is that the electoral college is in place for a reason, and a very good reason at that. And Fanta is right, however, it depends on what you mean by "popular vote." Lincoln only had about 28% of the vote in his reelection year. There's only been a handful of times any president in this country got a majority of the votes, George W. Bush in 2004 being one of them. EDIT: Also the popular vote has been driving American politics for quite some time. I don't really know how you can say otherwise. That is not true, Bush would not have gotten in office in 2000 if popular vote counted so there would not have been 8 years of his bull. The country is not populated evenly. A National popular vote, (electorial college is based on a States popular vote) would favor Regional interests more than individual states interests! The NE and Calif. would be the only areas of concern to the candidates. The rest of the country's interests would largely be ignored! Understood but if people vote as they should, it still coicides with popular vote anyway. Of course popular vote is not a large margin these days anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so..how do you feel about your voting privileges?
really man, everyone that is an american is free to vote. if idiots vote an idiot in, so be it. if the majority of the country becomes a bunch of alien worshiping weirdos and elect someone like that, so be it. our nation is about "majority rules", there is no excluding the stupid or odd. i have a hard time reading your opinions on such matters, it comes off very antiamerican Oh hilarious. You come in here and say that our nation is based of off "majority rules" (a blatant misconception and ignorant thing to say), and then in the same paragraph have the gall to say I come off as "anti-american"? What are you smoking? It's quite clear you have no concept of political systems, let alone the foundation of our nation, which is NOT BASED OFF OF DEMOCRACY. No, not every American is free to vote. Felons can't vote in a lot of states. Voting restrictions are still in place today; for example, you may not vote in a state which you are not a resident of. This may seem trivial, but it is hugely important when we talk about politics in America because we have states, not some European-styled unitarian system. Also, I'm glad you find it hard to read my opinions. The founders would be ashamed of you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its close!
It could go either way though. Thats mostly why twice the electorial vote beat out the popular vote! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Tue 03/25/08 05:23 PM
|
|
so..how do you feel about your voting privileges?
really man, everyone that is an american is free to vote. if idiots vote an idiot in, so be it. if the majority of the country becomes a bunch of alien worshiping weirdos and elect someone like that, so be it. our nation is about "majority rules", there is no excluding the stupid or odd. i have a hard time reading your opinions on such matters, it comes off very antiamerican Oh hilarious. You come in here and say that our nation is based of off "majority rules" (a blatant misconception and ignorant thing to say), and then in the same paragraph have the gall to say I come off as "anti-american"? What are you smoking? It's quite clear you have no concept of political systems, let alone the foundation of our nation, which is NOT BASED OFF OF DEMOCRACY. No, not every American is free to vote. Felons can't vote in a lot of states. Voting restrictions are still in place today; for example, you may not vote in a state which you are not a resident of. This may seem trivial, but it is hugely important when we talk about politics in America because we have states, not some European-styled unitarian system. Also, I'm glad you find it hard to read my opinions. The founders would be ashamed of you. Have you ever heard the terms pompous and presuptuous 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have you ever heard the terms pompous and presuptuous
Have you ever heard the term ignoramus? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have you ever heard the terms pompous and presuptuous
Have you ever heard the term ignoramus? ...the complete ass backwardness of your thinking |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have you ever heard the terms pompous and presuptuous
Have you ever heard the term ignoramus? ...the complete ass backwardness of your thinking Please, enlighten me. Since you were so courteous to come on here without any hesitation and simply chastise me as a nut because I said something YOU didn't like, why not also take the time to explain why my thinking is so "backwards?" Or rather, tell me, why exactly is the idea of freedom so "backwards?" Or is all you're going to do is make completely non-substantive posts here? |
|
|
|
|
