Everything I have heard about this show said that the winner would not necessarily actually run for President... it is for entertainment purposes only. Though after the show is over, who knows?
Athens was an actual Democracy, as well as many of the City-States of the time. True Democracy, at this time, is virtually impossible on such a large scale, but with the internet, who knows what can happen?
Craig Reade "Pool Boy"Detroit Lions! 0-3! On the road to 0-16!
Originally posted by MoeGatesIt's very easy to win a Presidential election with less than 49% of the popular vote, look at '92 when Perot took 19% of the vote, and Clinton was in the mid 40's.
Ah! How can I mention a crazy rich guy in one sentence and then forget about our OWN crazy rich guy from 10 years ago in the next? Sorry, I meant to say that it's statistically impossible to lose a popular plurality by more than 2% and still win the electoral college. If we didn't have our two-party system (which the founding fathers never banked on, by the way), the whole electoral college thing would probably be a whole lot more interesting. I know Wallace carried some states in 68. Any other 3rd party candidates?
No free country ever hits 80 or 90 percent. Those are numbers usually reserved for places like communist Yugoslavia and Hungary.
I think this depends on whether you're counting % of eligible voters or % of registered voters. As you can see here, there's a lot of free countries that get way up there, even over 90%, when it comes to % of registered voters. I'll try to find something for % of eligible voters.
Of course, maybe you aren't counting places like Sweden, Belgium, and Australia as "free" because they have a National Health Care Plan
The two cases where the electoral college really came into play because of multi-candidates were 1824 and 1860. 1824 showed the real fun that can happen when you don't win the majority in the electoral college, and Congress is trusted to select a President (insert every scary scenario imaginable there). Slight tangent on that point, how scary would it have been if Andrew 'I hate national banks and end up on the 20' Jackson had access to nuclear weapons? 1860 of course shows what happens when a person receives 0 votes from a large section of the country, but the split vote in the north and west gets the person elected.
(edited by redsoxnation on 25.9.02 1808) Thank you Mr. Wanz for the check, now you get an AWA World Title Reign. But be careful, my boy Greg is a heat machine.
I could be wrong, but I don't think this will do squat for FX; The Shield is the only thing that IMO warrants watching on that network.
Plus, after all is said and done, I've got two words for ya:
"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."— George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
Originally posted by DMC"As both the Democrats and Republicans found out over the last ten years, small parties may not put up winning numbers, but ignore them at your peril..."
Or you can steal their thunder and then ignore them. This is basically what the Democrats did in 1896 by adopting Populist Party ideas into their platform, thanks in part to the oratory skills of William Jennings Bryan. The election was then set up in the media as "poor farmer and worker" Democrats vs. "capitalist" Republicans, and the Populist Party was totally marginalized.
Yeah, and we all saw how well Bryan's done in Presidential elections.
Oh, and I heard the winner gets Murdoch's money. I'm going to go run and hide. The only question is how are they going to get their target demographic when no one from that demographic is old enough to run.
I live here in North Carolina just north of the Triangle, and I am curious to know from the Republicans here on the board why my vote should go to Bush. Now, of course this thread wouldn't make much sense if I didn't explain myself.