Originally posted by Platinum
Reckless...theres a thing called an 'Electoral College'. They decide who's president, not us.
So really, we didn't put Bush into office, they did.
The electoral college works like this. States get so many votes based on citizens. The voters go and vote and whoever wins that state gets ALL of that states electoral votes. Meaning, some states are more important than others. That's woefully inadequate for today's world. We have the lowest turnout for elections, which is truly sad.
Iraq [Archive] - ForumsHQ
-
NIN
Re: Iraq [Archive] - ForumsHQ
K+ for the high school government class tutorial
stupid uneducated american citizens j/k ;)
stupid uneducated american citizens j/k ;)
Re: Iraq [Archive] - ForumsHQ
If I remember correctly due to the whole voting mix up in florida the supreme court put Bush in charge. We should of let France get taken out during world war II, then we wouldn't have this problem. I am guessing homesexuallity would still be taboo and not publicly accepted without France. I am really curious to see if France doesn't have something up its sleeve, after we start mopping up Iraq, we find the french connection. Sneak attacks and attacks on civilians of any country is terrorism and needs to be erracted. I am not saying the United States needs to be the one thats needs to be the one to do it, but really no one else wants to or has the capabilites to do so.
shrug I am rambling best stop
shrug I am rambling best stop
Re: Iraq [Archive] - ForumsHQ
France blowz.
We have the lowest turn out for voting? Why do you think that is? Hardly ANY presidential candidates can or will do what the promise to during an election. Regardless of who's in office, our way of life changes SO little when we get new presidents, CERTAINLY not for the better. That right there makes voting pointless, because nothing ever happens.
Yeah, they SAY the president gets 'this' much money to help poor, and 'this' much money to help elderly, and 'this' much money for this or that.
Do you EVER see ANY changes where you live from what the president has done? I haven't, ever, nothing significant at ALL ever happens that's worth voting for.
We have the lowest turn out for voting? Why do you think that is? Hardly ANY presidential candidates can or will do what the promise to during an election. Regardless of who's in office, our way of life changes SO little when we get new presidents, CERTAINLY not for the better. That right there makes voting pointless, because nothing ever happens.
Yeah, they SAY the president gets 'this' much money to help poor, and 'this' much money to help elderly, and 'this' much money for this or that.
Do you EVER see ANY changes where you live from what the president has done? I haven't, ever, nothing significant at ALL ever happens that's worth voting for.
Re: Iraq [Archive] - ForumsHQ
Originally posted by Hanover Fist
French bashing is nothing they don't bring on themselves with their undue superior attitude and uplifed noses. Well don't look now Madame, but the stench COMES from france, not the other way around.
HA! Aint that the truth. :wstupid:
French bashing is nothing they don't bring on themselves with their undue superior attitude and uplifed noses. Well don't look now Madame, but the stench COMES from france, not the other way around.
HA! Aint that the truth. :wstupid:
Re: Iraq [Archive] - ForumsHQ
I think I shall run for president...My first act would be to pull all of our troops from Germany and France, then cut our budget on miltary spending and reroute it to our education systems and welfare. Social security will be next, and then if I have time, I'll legalize pot ;)
-
NIN
Re: Iraq [Archive] - ForumsHQ
mr. president, fuk welfare
my 18 yr old bro is on welfare cause hes a fukin loser
my 18 yr old bro is on welfare cause hes a fukin loser
-
Reckless
Re: Iraq [Archive] - ForumsHQ
When I run for president, I'm giving everyone a pound of pot for voting for me!
Re: Iraq [Archive] - ForumsHQ
no shite!!
i want to grow w33d =)
The -vast- majority people in america don't want you to. It works out the way it is.
The electoral college works like this. States get so many votes based on citizens. The voters go and vote and whoever wins that state gets ALL of that states electoral votes. Meaning, some states are more important than others. That's woefully inadequate for today's world. We have the lowest turnout for elections, which is truly sad.
You need to understand WHY they put the electoral college there in the first place before you go spewing crap. You probably know why, as most people do, you just don't care.
Without an electoral college:
California has roughly 35 million people in it. If you concentrate all of your promoting and campaign in California, and a select three or four other states, you have the election in the bag. Fuck vermont, new hampshire, maine, places with small populations. Everyone knows most of the peoples votes come simply from what they see in campaign ads and promotions. It's kinda like in high school when one person passes out candy and the other one doesn't, the one that passes out the candy wins.
The point is, without an electoral college, presidential candidates will only focus on the larger, more populated states. They will go nowhere near the smaller states, because what's 500,000 votes gonna do from Vermont when you can get tens of millions from a larger state? Nothing.
The electoral college is there for a reason, and it works.
i want to grow w33d =)
The -vast- majority people in america don't want you to. It works out the way it is.
The electoral college works like this. States get so many votes based on citizens. The voters go and vote and whoever wins that state gets ALL of that states electoral votes. Meaning, some states are more important than others. That's woefully inadequate for today's world. We have the lowest turnout for elections, which is truly sad.
You need to understand WHY they put the electoral college there in the first place before you go spewing crap. You probably know why, as most people do, you just don't care.
Without an electoral college:
California has roughly 35 million people in it. If you concentrate all of your promoting and campaign in California, and a select three or four other states, you have the election in the bag. Fuck vermont, new hampshire, maine, places with small populations. Everyone knows most of the peoples votes come simply from what they see in campaign ads and promotions. It's kinda like in high school when one person passes out candy and the other one doesn't, the one that passes out the candy wins.
The point is, without an electoral college, presidential candidates will only focus on the larger, more populated states. They will go nowhere near the smaller states, because what's 500,000 votes gonna do from Vermont when you can get tens of millions from a larger state? Nothing.
The electoral college is there for a reason, and it works.
-
Reckless
Re: Iraq [Archive] - ForumsHQ
You list every reason why it doesn't work Speed. Under the electoral college, you need to win at minimum 13 states. The other 37 states are immaterial if the top 13 go for the same. The reason that total vote counts work is because 35 million in California don't vote. This past election was won by less than what 2 million votes? Those 500,000 from Vermont DO count. As well as the thousands in Florida that were thrown out, because the margin was in the hundred thousands in Florida.
Your argument seems to imply that only the largest states should vote for a president, which I really don't think is what you're arguing. Please clarify that ;)
Your argument seems to imply that only the largest states should vote for a president, which I really don't think is what you're arguing. Please clarify that ;)