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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (177566)	12/9/2005 11:52:46 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I am arguing for changing future rules, not past. "Did it ever occur to you that the Bush campaign could have mined more votes out of Texas and his other safe states if he was concerned about the national popular vote?" And Kerry could have mined more votes in CA and NY that might have increased his popular vote. Yes the rules are the rules but 2000 and 2004 point the way for a period of many political hurricanes to come. Popular vote solves this problem so maybe we should go to it rather than antiquated EC. By the way imo, republicans are more vulnerable than the dems. Kerry lost by 4 million votes but a shift of 40k in ohio would have made him president against bush who won 51% of the vote. That would be a disastrous outcome for the system and worse than gore v bush where nader was the real cause of gores defeat and there was a much smaller margin.