homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums   » Other Geeky Stuff   » Ask a Geek!   » A question about America. (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: A question about America.
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 05, 2004 12:34      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bush lost the popular vote but won in the Electoral College...but by some very suspicious means. Electors are decided by the popular vote in each state, and each state has a certain number of Electors according to its population. In 2000, Florida had the deciding number of Electors, and at first glance the popular vote went to Bush. However, there were some technical difficulites with the way those votes were counted, and also with how voter eligibility was decided. A recount was demanded, and then halted by order of the Supreme Court. An unofficial recount was still carried out for research purposes, and sometime in the winter of '00 and '01 it was very quietly announced that Gore had won the popular vote in Florida by the slimmest margin imaginable. To the further annoyance of many, Bush marched into the oval Office acting like he'd been given a mandate, which, in an election as close and fscked up as his, he most certainly did not have, and then turned oput to be much more of a hardline conservative than people expected (which is why Senator Jeffords left the Republican Party and became an Independent).

On an interesting side note, while the Electoral College itslef is laid out by the constitution, the methods by which Electors are appointed is not. In this day and age, every state assigns its Electors to vote for the leading cnadidate in the state. In the past, it was more of a mix. Some states assigned Electors proportionately to the percentage of people who voted for each candidate, while others had their legislatures tell the Electors what to do (which probably went over like a lead balloon with the public). Not sure when it changed, but my state, CO, is looking to change their system of appointing Electors back to the more proportional method. Neither the Dems nor the GOP are particularily thrilled with this plan, but it's a public referendum on the ballot this November. And the politics involved are not something I really care to go into.

One last note: the Electoral College has nothing to do with elections on the state level. Senators and Congressmen are appointed by straight up popular vote (though Senators used to be appointed by the state legislatures).

All that said, I'm going to vote Novemebr 3rd, but I'm not looking forward to it.

--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
GMx

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1523

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 05, 2004 13:29      Profile for GMx     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's kind of ironic that the last time an election was contested and decided in the Supreme Court (or was the House of Representatives?) was between Samuel Tilden and Benjamin Harrison. Tilden should have actually won, but Harrison became president after making some deals. Immediately after the election, Resconstruction was ended and all Northern troops were pulled out of the South, leaving them free to enact Jim Crow laws, poll taxes and other discriminatory legislation. Makes me wonder what kind of deal Bush made.
Posts: 5846 | From: S-4, Area 51 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tut-an-Geek

SuperFan!
Member # 1234

Icon 1 posted September 05, 2004 23:43      Profile for Tut-an-Geek   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GMx:
It's kind of ironic that the last time an election was contested and decided in the Supreme Court (or was the House of Representatives?) was between Samuel Tilden and Benjamin Harrison. Tilden should have actually won, but Harrison became president after making some deals. Immediately after the election, Resconstruction was ended and all Northern troops were pulled out of the South, leaving them free to enact Jim Crow laws, poll taxes and other discriminatory legislation. Makes me wonder what kind of deal Bush made.

are you sure you don't mean rutherford b hayes vs. sam tilden (1876)?
Posts: 3764 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
SpikeSpiegel
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1452

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 06, 2004 05:21      Profile for SpikeSpiegel     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
also not the last contested election i think, wasnt there some controversy about the party bosses in chicago doing elicit stuff during JFKs election?

--------------------
its been a while

Posts: 3090 | From: Boston | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
GMx

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1523

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 06, 2004 06:32      Profile for GMx     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tut-an-Geek:
are you sure you don't mean rutherford b hayes vs. sam tilden (1876)?

Uh, yeah. I'm too lazy to Google. [Wink]
Posts: 5846 | From: S-4, Area 51 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
GMx

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1523

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 06, 2004 06:34      Profile for GMx     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SpikeSpiegel:
also not the last contested election i think, wasnt there some controversy about the party bosses in chicago doing elicit stuff during JFKs election?

Yeah, because JFK's former bootlegging father's connections.
Posts: 5846 | From: S-4, Area 51 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
The-Tech
Geek
Member # 2506

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 06, 2004 09:38      Profile for The-Tech     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GMx:
quote:
Originally posted by SpikeSpiegel:
also not the last contested election i think, wasnt there some controversy about the party bosses in chicago doing elicit stuff during JFKs election?

Yeah, because JFK's former bootlegging father's connections.
Yeah something about JFK getting 100% of the deceased voters in Illinois

--------------------
God not only plays dice with the universe,
he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen
--- Stephen Hawking

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject -- Winston Churchill

Posts: 128 | From: Third Stone from the Sun | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
The-Tech
Geek
Member # 2506

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 06, 2004 13:53      Profile for The-Tech     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
Bush lost the popular vote but won in the Electoral College...but by some very suspicious means. Electors are decided by the popular vote in each state, and each state has a certain number of Electors according to its population. In 2000, Florida had the deciding number of Electors, and at first glance the popular vote went to Bush. However, there were some technical difficulites with the way those votes were counted, and also with how voter eligibility was decided. A recount was demanded, and then halted by order of the Supreme Court. An unofficial recount was still carried out for research purposes, and sometime in the winter of '00 and '01 it was very quietly announced that Gore had won the popular vote in Florida by the slimmest margin imaginable.

Even if the recount was continued Bush would have won. The recount was only a partial recount. The only way Gore could have won Florida was by a state wide recount which he did not request. So dependining on which recount you're talking about gives a different winner. As it stands though the recount stopped by the Supreme Court would have shown GW as the winner. Futher info here

Florida recount tallies released


quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:

To the further annoyance of many, Bush marched into the oval Office acting like he'd been given a mandate, which, in an election as close and fscked up as his, he most certainly did not have, and then turned oput to be much more of a hardline conservative than people expected (which is why Senator Jeffords left the Republican Party and became an Independent).

The unmitigated gaul of this administration is legendary that's for sure

quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
All that said, I'm going to vote Novemebr 3rd, but I'm not looking forward to it.

Not having the luxury of being from a swing state I don't even get pandered to. I can't even vote by who has the best mud slinging campaign.

--------------------
God not only plays dice with the universe,
he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen
--- Stephen Hawking

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject -- Winston Churchill

Posts: 128 | From: Third Stone from the Sun | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0



homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam