Text 7658, 92 rader
Skriven 2007-12-08 00:03:00 av Janis Kracht (1:261/38)
   Kommentar till text 7634 av Ross Cassell (1:123/456)
Ärende: George W. Bush
======================
Hi Ross,

>>>>> It wa the citizens of the US that elected GWB. ... Twice...
>>>> NOT the majority of the citizens!
>>> The POTUS isnt selected by popular vote..
>> Get a clue, Sherlock, that's no news to me.  The POINT is that the
>> majority of CITIZENS in the USA did not vote for BUSH! And even less
>> support him NOW than did then!
> Which is irrelevant to what you said..

The fact that even less support him now, yes, that is irrelevant to this
discussion (though fitting given the horrendous things he's done to the rule of
law, and Habeas Corpus in this country!!!!).  BTW, Did you see that today they
are selling a 1297 version (there were many) of the Magna Carta???? Do you know
what that is and why it's such an incredible document?  And what we are now
heading towards in ignoring it??

However, the fact that the popular vote did not support Bush IS relevant, and
that is what I'm talking about.

> Get the electoral college abolished, 2000 is not the first time in written
> history in which the EC awarded the Presidency to the person with the lesser
> votes.

Of course not, it happened in 1876 when Samuel Tilden got more votes than
Rutherford B. Hayes.  Hayes won the electoral college vote when 20 disputed
electoral votes were all awareded to Hayes in a comprimise that allowed the
South to _disenfranchise_ Black people through GrandFather clauses and other
patently _illegal_ methods.

Maybe you could benefit from a little history of the electoral college Ross..
(sorry to my International friends about going on here, but dammit, this is
important, sorry to say).

Ross, You seem to be in need of understanding more about the electoral college?
:) There were people in the Constituional Convention who did not trust the
common people, and didn't want them electing the president. They were open to a
system where the people voted for electors who then elected the president. And
if you look at the constitution those electors are not bound to vote for the
candidate who got the most votes in their state. Another factor was the small
states desire to offset the voting power of the larger states. So Elecoral
representation does not perfectly reflect relative populations of the states
but rather the combined house and senate totals of the respective state. By
virture of that the small states have greater impact in the election of a
President than their population alone would allow for. Basically a series of
comprimises... and tied in with that is the 3/5's rule that allowed slaves who
were NOT citizens and could not vote to be counted ... every 5 slaves counted
as three citizens when determining Congressional representation. And you ended
up getting a temporary alliance of small states and slave states that led to a
senate in which every state, regardless of size, had equal representation and
an electoral college where small states and slave states had representation far
beyond their voting population. If you want to know more about this, you should
read this book: "_The Summer Of 1787_ (The Men who invented the Constitution)"
by David O. Stewart.

Another interesting thing you holy republicans might like to know is that the
Founding Fathers whose names come most easily to mind were almost all Deists,
NOT christians.. they believed in a god who was more like a watchmaker God...
who made the watch, wound the watch and just let it go.

Do a little research and let me know how often Washington, Jefferson and
Franklin went to church, huh?

>>> But if they were, did you know that Clinton got only 48% in 1992 and
>>> 50% of it in 1996?

>> Who's talking about Clinton?  I am talking about Bush. Quit changes
>> horses midstream to confuse the issue.

> I wasnt changing horses, I was broadening your perspective.

No, you are comparing a two person election with a three person election.. you
know, we call that "apples and oranges".


> If you want to bellyache about popular vote, then you need to cite more than
> just the 2000 and 2004 elections.

No, I don't.  It's all out there for anyone to see.

> I know you liberal democrats have genetic limitations that curtail the oxygen
> to your brains, but time did not begin in the year 2000.

So because the facts are totally against you, you choose to insult... How
incredibly adult (NOT).


Take care,
Janis

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)