Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mac Con Ulaidh who wrote (69694)	11/11/2000 12:12:59 AM
From: Mighty_Mezz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

The GOP's Popular-Vote Hypocrisy In the days before the Nov. 7 election, Republicans feared that Vice President Al Gore might win the Electoral College while Texas Gov. George W. Bush could win the national popular vote. The expectation then was that Green Party candidate Ralph Nader might siphon off millions of votes from Gore nationwide, but not enough in key states to keep them out of Gore's column. That could allow Gore to amass the 270 electoral votes needed for winning the presidency while blocking a Gore plurality in the popular vote. To stop Gore under those circumstances, advisers to the Bush campaign weighed the possibility of challenging the legitimacy of a popular-vote loser gaining the White House. One article describing the Republican thinking appeared in The Boston Herald on Nov. 3. It quoted Republican sources outlining plans to rally public sentiment against Gore’s election if he won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote. “The Bush camp, sources said, would likely challenge the legitimacy of a Gore win, casting it as an affront to the people’s will and branding the Electoral College as an antiquated relic,” said the article by Andrew Miga. “One informal Bush adviser, who declined to be named, predicted Republicans would likely benefit from a storm of public outrage if Bush won the popular vote but was denied the presidency,” the article said. The article quoted the Bush adviser as saying: “That’s what America is all about, isn’t it. I’m sure we would make a strong case.” The Nov. 7 election turned out differently, however. Gore appears to be the popular-vote winner by a margin now standing at about 200,000 votes nationwide, while Bush contends that he is the Electoral College winner because he holds a tiny lead in Florida, which would put him over the top in electoral votes. Gone is the Republican talk of challenging the Electoral College as an anti-democratic relic. Gone is the principled stand in defense of the expressed will of the American people. Gone is the outrage over a popular-vote winner – now apparently Al Gore – being “denied the presidency.” Instead, the Bush campaign is denouncing the Gore campaign even for questioning voting irregularities in Florida, though these acknowledged errors likely cost Gore a clear majority in Florida, too. Though that Florida vote count still is not complete, with several thousand overseas ballots to be tabulated, Bush -- apparently untroubled by his defeat in the popular vote -- is moving forward with his transition to the presidency. consortiumnews.com

To: Mac Con Ulaidh who wrote (69694)	11/11/2000 12:20:07 AM
From: Carl R.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Yes, Bush should do the same. Absolutely. As for the popular vote, what difference does it make? Do you determine the winner of a football game by time of possession? Or yards gained? No, you determine it based on the points scored because that was what was agreed on in advance. Here the method agreed on was the Electoral College, and not the popular vote, so the popular vote while interesting is completely irrelevant. In any case, if the popular vote did mean something it is too close to call without a recount of the entire country, and we don't need that. I am not supporting either candidate at this point. I will support the one who wins after the absentee ballots are counted. I have very mixed emotions about allowing more recounts of votes because each re-count introduces additional opportunities for fraud. I find it curious that Gore's vote increases almost all came in heavily Democratic areas of the state. In particular I find it curious that after Gore's votes increased substantially Palm Beach County there are now more ballots than certified voters. Where did these extra ballots come from if not from certified voters? We obviously need to wait for the absentee votes, but I guess I am opposed to continually recounting votes until you get the result you want. On the recount my understanding is that they were counted three times, and thus they have been counted at least 4 times already, and that should be more than enough times to be accurate. Carl

To: Mac Con Ulaidh who wrote (69694)	11/11/2000 3:41:04 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

What's this "One person One vote" slogan of yours? Where's the beef? The founding Fathers hashed out all the concerns 100s of years ago, and they decided wisely. My State (State of Washington) has had its electoral votes go to the Dems in the last three Presidential elections including the one that was just held on Nov. 7th (I voted for the Republican Presidential candidate in each of those). The biggest reason why a straight popular vote is a bad idea is because of the less populated states and the smaller towns and cities. If we went with a popular vote the Presidential candidates would focus their message soley on the most populous states and the largest cities. Citizens of New Mexico, North and South Dakota, Wyoming, Nevada, Montana, Rhode Island and all the other less populated states would feel like seceding from the Union, since their opinion would never matter to a Presidential candidate. The rural citizens in every State would be an alien life form to the President both during the campaign season and after the election. This is why there is two legislative houses, and why the Senate has equal representation from each State (nod to the less populated States), and the House consists of representatives who are greater in number from the more populous States and lesser in number from the less populous States (nod to the people, or the "one person one vote" concept). As for Presidential voting, the electoral college system combines the two concerns, and does so very gracefully, simply, and effectively.