On my way to the supermarket, i was listening to WTOP 1500 AM here in the DC area where they air the Democratic responce around 11am-ish. I wasn't really paying attention until the dude mentioned that the Demo's are starting an initive called "Every Vote Counts" because:
"We learned in the 2000 elections that every vote does indeed count."
wrong...your presidential vote only counts if the vote is close in your state.
Maryland is a Demo state. They always get about 60-70% demo votes easy. I am a Whig, so I don't really care what i do with my vote because the Demo will win anyway. I think I voted for Nader last go around.
Anyway, what do you think this "Every Vote Counts" thing will accomplish?
I don't know why, but it just bugs me that just because the vote was close in Flordia, that "Now your vote REALLY matters" even though in most states it wasn't really close at all.
Even If i did vote Bush, that 1 vote would not sway it towards Bush because he lost Maryland anyway.
One doesn't have to win the majority of the votes, just the majority in the states that hold the majority of the eletorial votes.
And that just pisses me off...
That's just my 2.403 Yen "Smeg off, Hot Lesbian Action." Dave Lister from Red Dwarf "The Nazis had pieces of hot lesbian action that they made the Jews wear." Peter Gibbons from Office Space "What's the name of the cat?" "Annoying Hot Lesbian Action." Randel Graves from Clerks showing off his people skills
I think the real reason a vote doesn't matter is because whomever is in the white house at any given point doesn't really make a difference. Tell me, whose lives would really be different if Al Gore were president instead of Bush? The gut instinct would be to say the filthy rich and the dirt poor because, but even that isn't true. The rich would still be rich, and the poor would still be poor. Obviously the two men have different views on certain issues (i.e., the environment), but really the only decision either can make that has much of an impact on people's day to day lives is anything regarding social security. That and maybe military actions, which would of course affect military families. How is your life changed because of what a president wants to do to the Alaskan wilderness?
The reason this is so is because people are afraid of anything different. Any presidential candidate can't be too different from any other for fear of scaring people.
Mean Gene: "You know, I don't think it's a question - Goldberg, I don't think it's a question of who's next, I think it's a question of who's left?" Goldberg: "No, see, that's where you're wrong. It ain't who's left, it's - WHO'S NEXT?"
"Just how hardcore am I? Well this morning, I drank milk that was two days past the expiration!" -Norman Smiley
Of course, if we're going to be THAT nihilistic, we may as well light up all the nukes right now and set the whole shooting match off, because at this rate, nothing's EVER going to change, because they're all so afraid of being different. Good talking with ya.
Well, I'm pretty sure they tell us every vote counts because there are so many people out there, much like yourself rikidozan, who think it doesn't matter and therefore might not even bother to vote. If enough people actually went out to vote it might help even it up a scosh to make it actually matter. Then again, I'm a democrat and an avid voter and it just gets my goat when people say it doesn't matter and choose to give up a right like that. Oh well.
Rikidozan being a Democrate in South Carolina I can understand your plight but voting is still worth doing we actually split kinda close 60-40 and thanks to that vote there is a lot more Democrate campaigning so next year it could be closer.
But TheBucksFan I have got to call you out on if there would be a difference if Gore had won. For one thing would we have lost the entire surplus our country had going in thanks to the Tax Cut. And would Gore had submitted that education bill that the teachers union who were staunch Democrat suporters hated. I will admitt some huge issues like prescription drugs and health care will never be solved by either party .
If you cann't see the differences between two presidental canidates you need to call your local campaign headquaters and hear the party lines from both. They will be happy to tell how they differ from the compatition and what they hope to accomplish. But for God sakes don't say a president cann't make a difference in your life I happened to have enjoyed my Tax check I bought myself GTA 3 and that has made me a happy man.
(edited by rabidzebra on 15.9.02 0855) Enough is Enough
If Gore was allowed to win the election, John Ashcroft would, at most, be another talking head on Fox News and little more than "the guy who lost to the corpse". I think that's enough difference right there.
"The only difference between lilies and turds are those humankind have agreed upon, and I don't always agree." ---George Carlin
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." ---Anon.
OK, no name calling. Or whatever that was (I think you called him his name. ha).
This is really kinda sad. Obviously you have no faith in our electoral process. Which surprises me. Because if what you say really was true, then we'd always have a president from the same party, as all states would allways fall the same way. Of course, we know that's not true.
Oh, and RabidZebra, check your spelling. Once is bad, but twice?
Marty doesn't need surgery. This is a great day. I almost feel like I can say, I don't care that the Steelers lost
Florida wasn't the only State that was super close. New Mexico ended up being decided by triple digits. Wisconsin, Iowa, Oregon, and maybe some more were in the "decided by 1% or less" catagory. The Washington Senate race ended up being decided by a few thousand votes. It was a super close election. My personal belief is that these things probably come along once every 100 years, and that your vote indeed probably doesn't count a whole lot usually (except in Municipal Elections, which have a lot more direct bearing on your life anyway). The problem is, you never know if this election is going to be that 1 time in 100.
My main problem is with the logistical problems of voting. It's the dumbest thing in the world that it's not a holiday, or at least on Saturday. And if you are going to have it be on a working day, at least let people vote close to their work. Heck, maybe even try that mail-in stuff they do in Oregon.
It's a cost/benefit problem. The fact is that, in general, 1 person's vote hardly ever makes a difference, so why should someone miss work and have to shlep around to do it. Make it either a) easier (less cost) or b) more impactful (more benefit), and more people will do it. And making it easier is something that can be done and controlled, whereas making it more impactful is somewhat random.
EDIT: you can add New Hampshire to the "1% or less" states. And you can check out the entire results here They're from CNN though, so maybe they're "biased." But I'm sure Fox News has the "fair and balanced" numbers for all you conservatives out there.
(edited by MoeGates on 16.9.02 1701) Expressing myself EVERY day - but especially on July 22, 2002!
Please remember this though. Your vote does count because there are lower level races in every election, from governor down to school board, which your vote has a much greater effect upon.
My personal preference is to go to the winner take all system they have in Nebraska and Maine. In it, the Presidential candidate with the mst votes in each congressional district gets that district's electoral vote. The two senate votes go to the candidate who wins that state's popular vote.
If this were in place in 2000, the recount wouldn't have been necessary because Bush would've had over 300...
This is neat little article about the mathmatics of the electoral college, including which candidate in 2000 would have won under various different ways of doing the electoral college, and if small states have more influence than big states. Check it out, it's pretty neat and not too dense. I have a 12th grade math education and I understood it perfectly.
My personal favorite system would be to do the thing Grimis suggested, expepy without the additional 2 electoral votes per state, just with the C.D's. I don't know who would have won under that scenario.
Expressing myself EVERY day - but especially on July 22, 2002!
Of course, none of this matters whatsoever, since Bush LOST the election but was given the presidency as a gift from his dad's buddies in the Supreme Court ... (read Michael Moore sometime, quite enlightening)
As for things being better or worse if Gore was President right now ... well, I think Gore would at least have had the decency not to use Sept. 11 to push his political agenda. But they ARE virtual copies of one another ... look at how many times they agreed with one another during the Presidential Debates. Personally, I think both are dipshits, but I'd rather take the pothead over the coke-fiend.
"Master! Sir! Did you see my MAD SKILLZ?!?" -Hammer, Xenogears
Originally posted by NotAWrestlerOf course, none of this matters whatsoever, since Bush LOST the election but was given the presidency as a gift from his dad's buddies in the Supreme Court ... (read Michael Moore sometime, quite enlightening)
I always think of "Michael Moore" and "enlightening" to be mutually exclusive terms. Especially considering the mere existence of the Electoral College made the arguments moot.
Originally posted by NotAWrestlerAs for things being better or worse if Gore was President right now ... well, I think Gore would at least have had the decency not to use Sept. 11 to push his political agenda.
That's a laugh and a half. The only thing Gore would have done was to promise to put the terrorists in a lockbox...
They're starting this nonsense to hopefully appeal to the idiotic masses who somehow think "democracy was screwed in Florida" last election, by those damn dirty evil Republicans. That's the motive for anything in the media, really, showing something supposedly evil and claiming it's all the fault of the damn, dirty, demonic Republicans.
So a troll is ok, as long as he's kind of on your side?
This is the thing that drives me nuts about how people "think about" politics. It's not like rooting for the damn Steelers or something. It's supposed to be about peoples' lives and what is fair and right. It seems like people on both sides would rather "have their side win" than evaluate situations objectively and come to the most reasonable conclusion. Of course, if you truly DO believe that "the motive for anything in the media [is] showing something supposedly evil and claiming it's all the fault of the damn, dirty, demonic Republicans", then whatever. Personaly, it strikes me as an incredibly hyperbolic overstatement not worthy of serious thought. Even if you think media bias towards the left does exist, you don't have to agree with that rant, and really shouldn't if you are a thinking person.
Three Faces of Dean: Teenage Riot, T.R., and now this guy
You see this? You see how my body's glowing like that? Yeah... a lot of people can't do that. Come get some of this glowing. Oh, okay, you. You want some. You want some of the glowing. Look, man... your soul... I'm going to totally floss with it and chew on your spirit. I read that somewhere. But I'll do it.
Guru--You make some good points. I tend to agree as most Americans are largely media-fed and thus won't take the time to read and research anything, trusting instead the re-read reports of their local news anchors that are written by others.