Where is the common sense? Are you not getting the big picture? - Recount (2008) Discussion

[–] Citizenright1 16 years ago

Quit whining. Bush won, Gore lost. Electoral college, get it?

Where we are 8 years later is just fine. Ups and downs, child. That is what you can expect in the world. Your parents should have clued you in.

You know, if Gore had been a better candidate he might have won his own state and that would have put him over the top. Wonder what happened there, eh?

reply

[–] KCScreenWriter 16 years ago

Typical Republican rhetoric.

reply

[–] ABN-Para 16 years ago

"I'm neither a democrat or republican."
*beep* Why are you not jumping up and down because Clinton got more votes than Obama? Hmmmm? Whiny elitist scum.

reply

[–] cameursault 16 years ago

That statement, while technically correct, is intellectually dishonest. This is a rather simplistic statement, devoid of any sort of nuance or depth. Votes in Michigan, where Obama was not even on the ticket - yet, for all intents and purposes, probably received the lion’s share of the 35% uncommitted vote- are included in that tablature. Clinton broke her promise to remove her name from the ballot, thus the lopsided margin of victory in Michigan. Second, practically the same situation occurred in Florida. These two states, had they run their traditional primaries would have certainly tipped the balance for Obama.

More importantly, you entirely ignore the nature of the Caucuses. Might I remind you that Obama won most of the nation's caucuses (i.e. Colorado, Iowa, Alaska, etc). Now, where your dishonesty and empty rhetoric really crumbles, is the fact that many of the caucuses don't have a simple vote. For example, Iowa's is based on whom the delegates will pledge to after a negotiation.

In sum, you're intellectually shallow and Obama rightfully won the primary - both in delegate count and, by extrapolation, vote count.

reply

[–] Horizon684-1 16 years ago

Clinton never promised to remove her name. What she promised was that she wouldn't campaign there, and she didn't. If you're going to argue facts then you need to set yours straight. I'll also have you know that Obama hasn't come very far in winning over the Clinton supporters.

reply

[–] cameursault 16 years ago

I'm sorry you are absolutely correct - I was conflating a few things (her saying it shouldn't count at first, then trying to argue for Michigan's inclusion). Either way, her name on the Michigan ballot greatly contributed to her 'winning' the vote total in the primary and my overall point is still valid.

I have no knowledge whether Obama is winning the Clinton supporters, but considering his 85+% support amongst Dems and overall massive lead, I'd say he either A. it doesn't matter if bitter Clinton suppoerters go for Obama or B. They actually are supporting Obama.

reply

[–] derlowen 16 years ago

Won't it be interesting when dems recover the white house, there will be bones falling out of every closet. I'm sure that George Bush will be brought up on war crimes among other charges, that's why he plans to run to Paraguay and his 98,000 acre ranch. Too bad Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Abramoff and Rove did'nt think to do that. They'll all need hideouts in the near future too, I wonder if Bush has any spare rooms down there in South America (former haven to Nazi war criminals)? 128 days and counting. No whining here, only jubilation.

reply

[–] RParmly-3 16 years ago

"No whining here, only jubilation."

Well, you can lose that one too. People had the same "Finally!" attitude when George H. W. Bush lost to Clinton in 1992, hoping that the details of Iran-contra would finally be brought to light and those responsible be brought to justice. Nope. Bush issued presidential pardons for any and all people connected with the affair, and that was the end of it. (Oliver North went on to make a lucrative career as a Tom Clancy wannabe and a political commentator on Fox News, and even ran for office).

Sorry to disappoint, but there's no reason to believe anyone in the Bush administration will be held responsible for anything at all. Scooter Libby leaked the name of a CIA officer to settle a score (high treason in every jurisdiction of which I am aware), was convicted for it and had his sentence promptly commuted by Bush in person. Why should anyone else be any different?

"Sorry. I meant drop dead, comrade."

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] spmcevoy 16 years ago

"That is despite all that the GOP did to supress voting in areas that they knew they were weak in." Hmmm. Kind of like the Democrats did when trying to suppress military absentee ballots? Or by encouraging the media to call the state for Gore long before the polls had closed, thus causing who knows how many people to not vote, because NBC already said the vote was over?

And by the way, what makes you think that Gore would have won that particular recount? What numbers are you pulling that from, aside from your own wishes? There WAS an official recount, and Bush won! There had already been an official recount before the Supreme Court stopped the LATEST recount. I'm sorry, but how many recounts do you want? If Gore fianlly won on the seventh recount, would you have said that this was the official count? Or would you have allowed the Republicans do demand their won seven recounts? No, there was one count, and one recount, both won by Bush.

reply

[–] brianetg 16 years ago

Pardon my Irish ignorance on this matter, but why doesn't the US simply have a run-off; abandoning the electoral system so that whoever wins more votes wins the election ?! I mean republic comes from the Latin term res publica (rule of the people). Surely if more of the electorate votes for one candidate, then that candidate deserves to win (regardless of the contest actually; presidential or otherwise). Does it not seem a little strange that a candidate gets less votes and yet wins anyway ?!

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cartoonvhs 16 years ago

Where we are 8 years later is just fine. Ups and downs, child.

You're seriously minimizing Bush's eight terrible years even though there's been multiple screwups? Are you kidding? These are not simple "ups and downs" as you put it. The man put us at war with the wrong country! He has a history with the Bin Laden family. He's clearly not very intelligent, and the entire world sees him as a complete joke. America's reputation has been greatly tarnished because this idiot has been leading us for eight years. Thousands of our military have been killed because of his nonsense.

The OP was pointing out the ridiculousness of the Electoral College, and it should now be abandoned. It's incredibly stupid and clearly not accurate. Most votes should determine the winner... period.

reply

[–] jayc-8 16 years ago

Remember in Farenheit 911 when we learned that every company that GWB was involved with was either gone or in bankrupcy, well add another one -- The USA!! Let's hope we can pull ourselves out of this w/o a lot of damage, my retirement 401K just tanked. Its supposed to be worst than the Great Depression. He should have never been elected.

reply

[–] Mobitz1 16 years ago

Listen... This was doomed to happen from the beginning. Thomas Jefferson (our greatest president) said of the electoral college "it's a blot on the constitution".

The Electoral College is a flawed and unfair system.

So don't blame anybody except our founding fathers (with the sole exception of TJ) for the predicament we're in right now.

Life. Loathe it or ignore it, you can't like it. - Marvin

reply

[–] kiddo-15 16 years ago

I'm rather surprised! I'm not from USA and I don't live there, so I can't say how things are really there, but half of our newspaper can only talk about it, so one thing or two I know, and what's surprising me is that I find here so many people who actually realizes the corruption in the Bush administration.
I mean, most of the times anyone talks in the news or in documentaries (regular people that is) they say how they trust their president and talk, well, pretty much like Citizen.
I knew there had to be people against it, but I'm surprised and glad that there are so many.

reply

[–] cameursault 16 years ago

There is a movement afoot to change this. Unfortunately, we cannot ever eliminate the Electoral College, but we can alter the way it awards votes. A successful California business man (and Repub. if that matters at all), has proposed a bill in several state legilatures. It would require their Electoral College to award votes based on the overall popular vote, and not the state's vote. Obviously, this faces federalism hurdles, but the bill itself is Constitutionally vald. Fortune mag featured a story on this guy in the second week of september (it was their venture capitalist issue).

reply

[–] zamboni30000- 16 years ago

Interesting... so instead of all of California's electoral votes being awarded to Kerry in 2004, they would have been awarded to Bush. So despite how Californians voted, their votes should've been counted for the opposition?

I think that it's dangerous to mess with the system. Once we alter it after one disappointing election, it becomes so much easier to alter it every time we don't get our way.

The system was set up as it was for a reason. If we eliminate it, all a candidate has to do to win is be popular in the top 5 to 10 most populous areas in the country. The rest will never see the candidate, and the he or she will never have to consider their desires. It might work out for your party this year, but what about in 20 years... 50 years?

The system has it's faults, but it also has its benefits, and it is, after all, the system set up by those who founded the country. If enough of us do not like it, they also gave us the method to change it. I hope that we think long and hard about it, not just as a knee jerk reaction to a single unpopular election. I think we would find just as many things to disappoint us any other way.

reply

[–] Pistolpete332010 16 years ago

Thomas Jefferson (our greatest president) said of the electoral college "it's a blot on the constitution".

First of all, I love Jefferson immensely. I'd say he's top 3 material, top 5 at the very least. Greatest is bold, but he was quite a man. Unfortunately, what you fail to mention is that Jefferson already had so much reason to hate the Electoral system. He was tied with Burr, which he eventually won the presidency to in 1800 but had to work alongside him. He had ample reason to dislike the system. I'm not here to say that the electoral system isn't flawless, but every system is flawed. It's quite an intricate system that works quite effectively. The Great Compromise (Connecticut Plan) helped give the Senate equal proportion in Congress but the House based on population. Our system, our whole way of government is quite complicated and truly exceptional. Of course the criticisms on the Electoral College are somewhat valid, but like I said before any system is flawed. I suppose the simplest way of having just an election based on population works, too, but that has it's share of criticism and problems. Gotta look at both sides of the coins.

Now, what Jefferson hated about the system was also for other different reasons. The people voted but "elite" electoral votes only counted, and they took the publics views in mind. It was until 1800 when the masses voted for the president, and the electors were merely labels to vote for the people.

Don't push it. Don't push it or I'll give you a war you won't believe. Let it go.

reply

[–] emusiac 16 years ago

Funny how consciousness of politics and its processes only really rise about the snooze level for most of us during contentious campaigns. I am a Republican, one ashamed of the moronic behavior of the party, but also a citizen ashamed of the even worse idiocy of Congress. Had we elected Gore, things might well have been even worse - history shows that with the same party in power in Legislative and Executive branches, even less gets done (hard to imagine, no?). I really don't think I'd have been happier, given the ineptness of our lawmakers.

Maybe there was corruption, but the Gore campaign got the recount they asked for, and by the criteria of that method, Gore lost in FL. Letting an assassin select a president is a lot worse. The Supreme Court definitely overstepped the bounds of their powers under the Constitution; a huge shame.

There are, BTW, good reasons why we don't use the popular vote to pick the winner, and there's nothing inherently wrong with the winner losing the popular vote in a republic comprised of states such as ours.

Good for you, to think about the political process. We get the government we deserve, and the more conscious citizens the better.

reply

[–] youngian67 16 years ago

There is a lot of very predictable posts from angry Conservatives arguing that this is a liberal Michael Moore type polemic about how the rich republicans stole the election, but that is not the main point of this remarkable piece of work.

I'm not an American and what came across is the absurd farce and inadequacy of the presidential electoral process when it verges into unchartered waters.

It was a film about electoral procedure and both sides came across as sharp political street fighters just doing their job.

reply

[–] coxm-1 16 years ago

"Had we elected Gore, things might well have been even worse"

Or they would have been, much, much better. At least Gore wouldn't have invaded the wrong county and he would have caught Osama.

reply

[–] juhumba 16 years ago

Gore also believes in stem-cell research and global warming so we could be doing miraculous things in this country, not just cleaning up a mess left from the Bush era.

reply