so why do you keep posting?

 

ummm....actually Bill Clinton did win the popular vote both times he ran. True it wasn't above 50% but he had a larger percent of the popular vote and the electoral vote than any of his competition.

In 1992 Bill Clinton had 44,908,254...his Main Opponent: 39,102,343...winner of popular vote in 1992 Bill Clinton.

In 1996 Bill Clinton had 45,590,703...his Main Opponent: 37,816,307...winner of Popular vote in 1996 Bill Clinton.


My question to you now is Who was your teacher in Government 101?

 

Awww... that's cute.

Ms. Luck. Hermitage. 1996. All the other instruction was received at Georgia College in Milledgeville from 1992-1996, but it primarily centered around State governments. Which brings me back to my original point.

You get to vote on who your electoral college is in the Primary Elections. Don't try to dodge that (but I expect it).

You're young, but you'll figure it out. I voted for Bill Clinton like a dumbass. Then I grew up.

Edit: Opps, Sorry Ms. Tuck. Mrs. Luck was my 8th grade art teacher and she was a hottie.

 

I understand how the Electoral College works. But if the majority of people vote for Gore(I'm using last election as an example) and Bush becomes president....then is that who the people of the united states want as their president? No, it's who the Elite minority want as their president, the Electoral College. Bottom line this is a country for the people. And the people don't get to choose who their president is. No matter which way you look at it. For good or bad, right or wrong, the people should decide. The majority. Not the elite.

 

This also brings me full-circle to the ignorance part. I don't want people who are too stupid to vote in the primaries... deciding who are commander and chief is only once every four years. PERIOD. It's for our own good.

Lets not forget the election hasn't happened yet. The electoral college has not cast their votes. If you want that banned before they get a chance to vote on Kerry, then it sounds to me like you should be more worried about the Democratic party's choice for a candidate than you are about the election process.

 

See I'm the opposite. I believe that the majority of people are not ignorant. Therefore a majority vote will elect a competent leader. Because of that when the popular vote goes one way and the electoral vote goes the other it is because at the time there appears to be two competent choices and it's not right that the one the Electoral College voted for becomes president. Because of the position those in the Electoral College are in their needs and wants may be very different than the average American. Therefore the average American can get screwed and not have a say in it.

I think we have probably taken this arguement as far as we can take it. We might just have to agree to disagree. But if anyone wants to continue debating it I wont be able to respond until tomorrow morning because I am going to work now.

 

I just wanted to say before I ran off to work that it has been fun debating this with you. I'm glad it turned out as respectful as it did and it didn't get personal

 

Just go vote with your gut in your local primaries.

If what works for everyone else reflects your personal vote, then you will be heard. Politicians are paid to make EDUCATED decisions, and their paycheck is on the line if they don't succeed. Just remember that 3/4 people in this nation have conservative views whether they're democrats or republicans. Kerry's record is self-explanatory, and he's not capable of uniting this country in any way. Ask his comrades and fellow senators.

 

Same to you. Seriously. This stuff is more important than anything when it comes to our future.

 

Just like he did last time around, right? :rofl:

Sorry. I just thought that was funny.

And ya know what? The majority of people being stupid/ignorant/etc, sure, that's definitely the case, but they're reasonably well distributed across both sides that to me it's not so much a factor. The way I see it, for every "down with the man, man" quoting hippie, there's another "bring on them A-rabs" war hawk.

As for Zell Miller, he's right in a sense. There's no longer any such thing as a "conservative Democrat" and if he were to run for reelection then he should hypothetically run on a Republican ticket. The reality of a two-party system is that as time goes by each side will gravitate more towards its base and have less of a continuum of viewpoints represented by that particular brand of politics. Whatever bit of liberalism that Senator Miller engages in, it is no longer enough to really be congruent with the Democratic party.

And yes, he's right that most Democrats view our forces in Iraq as occupiers rather than liberators. He's too caught up in the right wing sensibility that soldiers are somehow better citizens than the rest of us and those whom for whatever reason choose not to serve are less entitled to act counter to right wing views. He can talk about that all he wants with his new Republican buddies, because he's a Republican too. He's been a Republican for the last year or so since he endorsed Bush, and really the fact that he's a "Democrat" giving an anti-Kerry speech holds no more water than if it were any of the other Bushies that he hangs out with in dark bars near Capitol Hill.