Gore had decided endorsement in September 2002

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

Hahaha.

Look, would I like a Dem in office(well some not hillary, lieb, or Clark)? Yes.

But is this why I think the EC should be changed? Heck no.

Look if the dems lose that's how it is, we lost, that's democracy people. I don't always get what I want, so if the majority votes for Bush than fine I can accept that. To further support what I'm saying about being nuetral is no ones saying Bush himself has to do it, so he still has his chance to win and redistrict every freaking state if he chooses(although that'd be ****ed up), but it is something that should be looked and changed in the future.

And we haven't been a real republic for a long time in many senses. Where's all our state militias to keep the govt in line? Oh yeah the federal government took over and made the National guard. How can someone who takes his orders from the federal government be partial to the state? Yeah it was nice of the fed govt to give the state some control of the NG but in the end they're a federal entity.

Anyways though yeah it's off topic but I'm just trying to do something I dunno.

Anyways states they may be but the president is representative of all the people of the US, state, county, voting district should have no difference on the impact of ones vote.

[FearMeAll]

Anyways states they may be but the president is representative of all the people of the US, state, county, voting district should have no difference on the impact of ones vote.

he he.. ya gotta remember I'm a conservative, so for me if it ain't broke don't fix it. The system of the electoral college has worked rather well for a long time and there have only been about 2 or 3 (Bush/Gore election included) instances in American history where the President loses the popular vote but wins the electoral vote, and to me that's not enough instances to warrant a change in the system.

I agree that some of this voting district business can open the door to unfair play, but this is exclusively in city/county elections where gerrymandering happens all the time to keep incumbants in power. This is happening in my own city where the mayor is very corrupt and his redistricting doesn't even allow my county to mean anything in the election.

However Gerrymandering is not an issue in statewide presidential elections, the borders are there and remain there.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Lierberman is a Republican with a (D) next to his name, and dragged down Gore's ticket in 2000 more than the running mate should.

You can take a look at his website to see what issues he prioritizes:

Security

Economy

Environment

Health and Social Policy

Faith, Family, and Values

Education

Governmental Affairs

Anybody who lists security as the top issue is playing the fear card in my books.

[Aaron Veteran]

Stop looking at the country as a bunch of states and as a freaking country dangit.

If 51% of Americans vote for a candidate then that candidate should win, no matter what state they're in.

This isn't rocket science here it's numbers and ensuring every citizens vote counts the same no matter where they live.

It means that a republican who lives in a predominately democrat district vote will count, instead of being thrown out because his neighbors voted against him like the current system.  It means an end to stupid tactics from which ever side that controls the state at that time of rigging future elections by redistcricting.  And mostly though it's just a more common sense approach than the electoral college.

You couldn't be more wrong. We are the United States of America. We are a unified group of states. With each having equal (Senate) and proportional (Representatives) say. This is why each state casts it's vote for President. It has work relativelt fine for 200+ years, you don't jsut change something because you don't like what has happened right now. If it continues to be an issue then revise it.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

because, as i said large states such as Cali and NY would decide every election, why would people in South Dakota or Rhode Island even bother going to polls? the electoral college ensures every states voice counts, not just those with the largest population.

The Canadian parallel is that Ontario pretty much controls what Federal government is elected in Canada.

Our western provinces will often complain that if you can win Ontario the rest of the country doesn't matter much.

[Fotix]

You couldn't be more wrong. We are the United States of America. We are a unified group of states. With each having equal (Senate) and proportional (Representatives) say. This is why each state casts it's vote for President. It has work relativelt fine for 200+ years, you don't jsut change something because you don't like what has happened right now. If it continues to be an issue then revise it.

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/e...ollege/faq.html

Why do we still have the Electoral College?

The Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution. It would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system.

Note that the 12th Amendment, the expansion of voting rights, and the use of the popular vote in the States as the vehicle for selecting electors has substantially changed the process.

Many different proposals to alter the Presidential election process have been offered over the years, such as direct nation-wide election by the People, but none have been passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification. Under the most common method for amending the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the States.

What proposals have been made to change the Electoral College system?

Reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years, over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral College as "archaic" and "ambiguous" and its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored abolishing it in 1987. But surveys of political scientists have supported continuation of the Electoral College. Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981.

I thought that was interesting, and somewhat surprising.

[Aaron Veteran]

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/e...ollege/faq.html

I thought that was interesting, and somewhat surprising.

Interesting indeed, I didn't know that, thanks. With respect to the lawyers, though, they are a very leftish leaning bunch because of tort reform issues, so their opinion means about squat to me. I wonder why if so many have been proposed, not one yet has been approved?

[OrangeSoul]

Fact: the US supreme court is 90% republican

it was 100% republican in 2000

it was the supreme court which ordered the stop of counting ballots which could have made gore president because the difference was 152 out of 200,000. 152!!!!!!

[Fotix]

Fact: the US supreme court is 90% republican

it was 100% republican in 2000

it was the supreme court which ordered the stop of counting ballots which could have made gore president because the difference was 152 out of 200,000. 152!!!!!!

Well, it's made up of 7/9 (78%) Republican President's appointees. And on Dec. 12, 2000, it was 5/4 (56% in favor) to hand it to Bush II. Call me a nitpicking nutter, if you wish, just this once. :yes: