This post has been edited by reiner: 06 February 2008 - 09:30 AM
US Elections All-Encompassing
#152
Posted 06 February 2008 - 11:03 PM
its indeed a true lifesaver
it prevents american voters from placing wrongful candidates in the position of commander in chief
because as presidential history has shown us, its much better to live than to be active in the oval office and be loathed by many
...you would never know when an unsuspecting sniper lurks in the shadows with you in their crosshairs.
4 years is a long time to plan for a sniper(s)
#154
Posted 06 February 2008 - 11:16 PM
#157
Posted 07 February 2008 - 06:50 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/romney
Romney's out! Such a relief.
Here's a funny tidbit from the article: "If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," Romney told the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.
#159
Posted 12 February 2008 - 08:45 PM
Quote
#160
Posted 14 February 2008 - 01:01 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2...ref=mpstoryview
Not only is it an electoral college just to nominate the blues properly, if that fails, their electoral college has its own electoral college. Did I mention that the superdelegates have no obligation to how voters of their state voted, and this has already cost candidates elections in the past? Where the fuck is the popular vote? The more I learn about this country's idiot political system, the more disgusted and fed up I get.
#161
Posted 14 February 2008 - 02:15 PM
The democrats have that percentage thing, and if it's not a good enough majority, it's fucked up. But the republicans have a winner take all thing. Which is good in some ways - there's no question of majority and so whoever wins, wins - but also, it can screw over candidates in other ways; such as if McCain barely wins a state with a large number of delegates, he gets all the delegates and Huckabee gets none, whereas under the democratic system, Huckabee would have a better chance because he'd get some of those candidates.
Talk about a run-on sentence... Sorry.
#162
Posted 14 February 2008 - 04:45 PM
If it was a total vote system, you could get closet republicans and independents vote for the weaker canditate, basically some one who has a greater chance of losing the presidential election for the democrats.
#164
Posted 14 February 2008 - 05:03 PM
Honestly, though: think about how easily so many people are swayed by the media, or somesuch. Many people just follow along with whatever, picking opinions based on friends or what people tell them is right or their church or whatever. So giving the presidency to the popular vote might just really be more of the same - the politicians tell you what you want to hear, they pay the media to tell you who's the better candidate, maybe pay off the pope or something, I dunno.
This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 14 February 2008 - 05:05 PM
#165
Posted 14 February 2008 - 05:16 PM
Exactly. I'm not sure Liberal Americans would want this either atm. Since conservitives still have huge numbers, popular vote might not be such a good thing.
As I said in my thread that every one ignored, save JM, it doesn't matter who you vote in to power. Republican or Democrat are still bound to the glue that holds this country together, the corprautocracy. We all know it's true.
This post has been edited by Jordan: 14 February 2008 - 05:17 PM