Some interesting facts on the 2000 election>

PatPatriot · Feb 16, 2004

Sunday, Feb. 15, 2004 10:45 p.m. EST
Red States Are the Real America, 2000 Election Facts Show

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minn., points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent presidential election:

Population of counties won by:
Gore=127 million
Bush=143 million

Square miles of land won by:
Gore=580,000
Bush=22,427,000

States won by:
Gore=19
Bush=29

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore=13.2
Bush=2.1

D2bets · Feb 16, 2004

Yes, Gore typically won the more densely populated urban areas while Bush won more sparsely populated rural areas. What's your point? Why does that make it the "real america"? How about if you somehow broke it down by econimic activity in the areas won by each? Repubs love economics.

jimbutorac · Feb 16, 2004

To me the higher murder rate shows that Dems aren't the pussies that Repubs always makes them out to be.

PatPatriot · Feb 16, 2004

mudbone I'm glad you put a smiley face after that remark..otherwise it would be outLanderish.

xpanda · Feb 16, 2004

One man = one vote ... thus, the number of individual votes won should be how democracy works. Unfortunately, neither of our systems works quite like that.

MrTanaka · Feb 16, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by xpanda:
One man = one vote ... thus, the number of individual votes won should be how democracy works. Unfortunately, neither of our systems works quite like that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely. Unless you happen to live in a swing-state you have no voice in the "democracy".

It's kind of funny because the point of the current system is basically to keep the power out of just certain areas of the country. However, we have EXACTLY that problem as the only votes that really count are in those states like California, New York, Michigan, Florida, etc.

jointpleasures · Feb 16, 2004

We have a republic, not a democracy.
Kinda seems like all the losers conglomerate together. Mini prisons I guess. That's a good thing. Split the country in two is what I say. Let the demis have there counties and run them the way Kerry wants and lets the Bush counties have Bush. I love that data Patriot. County wise, land wise, and state wise - it's BUSH country!!! Get the hell out if you don't like it.

PatPatriot · Feb 16, 2004

X....US is a Consitutional republic if your suggestion of a pure democracy were in place.That would mean that legitlation for Harlem would apply to people in Kansas...NY City and Los Angles would have say over the 48 other "fly over" states....How many canidates would give a hoot over the price of wheat in Nebraska or the tax on milk in Iowa.

KMAN · Feb 16, 2004

Interesting info.

Not surprising, but interesting.

D2bets · Feb 16, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Patriot:
X....US is a Consitutional republic if your suggestion of a pure democracy were in place.That would mean that legitlation for Harlem would apply to people in Kansas...NY City and Los Angles would have say over the 48 other "fly over" states....How many canidates would give a hoot over the price of wheat in Nebraska or the tax on milk in Iowa.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it doesn't have to mean that. States rights and separation of powers and all of that could remain even if the Prez were elected by majority vote. Hard for us to sell democracy and the right vote throughout the world if we ourselves don't really have 'majority rule'. Iraq can go ahead and set up a system whereby a minority can control through a system based on provinces but since all the Shi'ites "idiots" congregate together their vote can be diluted. Your rationale is dangerous. 1 person, 1 vote.

jointpleasures · Feb 16, 2004

D2bets posted:

"Hard for us to sell democracy and the right vote throughout the world if we ourselves don't really have 'majority rule'"

We have more Catholics in this country than any other organized religious group, so by your logic the Catholic church should rule.

PatPatriot · Feb 16, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> No, it doesn't have to mean that. States rights and separation of powers and all of that could remain even if the Prez were elected by majority vote. Hard for us to sell democracy and the right vote throughout the world if we ourselves don't really have 'majority rule'. Iraq can go ahead and set up a system whereby a minority can control through a system based on provinces but since all the Shi'ites "idiots" congregate together their vote can be diluted. Your rationale is dangerous. 1 person, 1 vote. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The president has to sell an agenda...if he runs on a platform to say Tax all the farmers and everyone in NY and California get free welfare then that canidate would win every election or in other words President Kerry.

[This message was edited by Patriot on February 16, 2004 at 12:33 PM.]

PatPatriot · Feb 16, 2004

Funny thing about it it has been like this since the begining...yet democrat politicians disengenuiousley would howl about getting more votes when the game has always been electoral votes...this would keep their dumb democrat constituents dumb,instead of educating them on the facts....The argument is so fxckin ridiculous it almost pathetic.
By the way shouldn't the Red Sox have won the penant last year because they had more hits than the Yankkes??.

D2bets · Feb 16, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jointpleasures:
D2bets posted:

"Hard for us to sell democracy and the right vote throughout the world if we ourselves don't really have 'majority rule'"

We have more Catholics in this country than any other organized religious group, so by your logic the Catholic church should rule.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, did you miss the point. There are lots of sub-groups of majorities. Majority rule means 1 person, 1 vote, period. If somehow Catholics were 51% and they all managed to decide the vote exactly the same, then yeah I suppose they could elect whoever they wanted. And when I say 'majority rule' I think you mistook that to mean legislatively do whatever they wantt. No. I'm simplu using the phrase in reference to being elected with the most votes. That's all.

PatPatriot · Feb 16, 2004

..By the way the reason why it was set up this way is so that no segment of society would be more powerful than another which I would think you libs would embrace.

xpanda · Feb 16, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jointpleasures:
D2bets posted:

"Hard for us to sell democracy and the right vote throughout the world if we ourselves don't really have 'majority rule'"

We have more Catholics in this country than any other organized religious group, so by your logic the Catholic church should rule.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all, since the Catholics aren't running for office. If a Catholic Priest got up there and made himself a candidate, and the majority picked him, then on you go.

If the defense of your current electoral system is that it's "not really a democracy anyway" then why have a foreign policy who's mandate is to both protect and spread democracy everywhere? The democracy, it would seem, in US-led propaganda wars, is in truth only a metaphor, at best.

I favour decentralised government, personally, but believe that both of our electoral systems need to be reworked to build up fair and equitable representation, especially at the federal level. In truth, I've never fully understood how the American system works. I've just been taught that ours is better.

PatPatriot · Feb 16, 2004

X.. the real truth of the matters it wouldn't be even an issue if the tables were turned.
Another thing is this way of voting helps prevent voter fraud because there are a maximum amount of electoral votes that can come from one district or state.
Another reason why democrats are in favor for 1=1...because voter fraud is much more prevalent in democrat sectors....see florida.

xpanda · Feb 16, 2004

Speaking of Florida, exactly what is the rationale behind prohibiting former convicts from voting? From where I sit, the individual has supposedly paid their debt to society, have they not?

PatPatriot · Feb 16, 2004

I didn't hear that one??

MrTanaka · Feb 16, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by xpanda:
Speaking of Florida, exactly what is the rationale behind prohibiting former convicts from voting? From where I sit, the individual has supposedly paid their debt to society, have they not?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I think it only applies to those currently in prison.

The official language is:
"not have been convicted of a felony without your civil rights having been restored pursuant to law"