Ok this is making no sense.

[Mystil]

America complains about Bush being a bad president and yet wasn't it the people who gave him his second term?>.<

He's already slated to go down in history as our president with the worst approval rating. and to make matters even more confusing, no one wanted him as president in the last election, but look at what happened(must get rid of the Electorial College).

@_@ make up your minds.

[Wyndham]

you have to consider that the election was close enough that it's obvious we don't all want him in office. don't blame me.

[PJ]

On 2006-12-14 13:04, Oran1324 wrote:
you have to consider that the election was close enough that it's obvious we don't all want him in office. don't blame me.




Assuming there were only 2 parties, that means over 50% voted for him. That means obviously 50% want him in office. (How many parties were there, anyways?)

[roygbiv]

Ah... oran is correct... Bush was not unanimously elected... however PJ has a point... 50.7% of the American Populace Voting Population can't be wrong.

[ABDUR101]

Realise that there's a 'herd mentallity' that happens. Just because the majority votes on something, doesn't make it right. There's alot of twisted shit that gets voted through that really should'nt, but the 'herd' feels uneasy so they all vote for the false sense of security it gives, without realising the long-term, detrimental effects it will have.

(i.e. No gay marriage, among other things.)

[Garroway]

It's actualy not a very good idea to get rid of the electoral college. I used to think that as well but I think a better solution is to apply the electoral system to voting districts instead of states. If you base everything strictly on the popular vote then a candidate could potentialy take the election by only appealing to a handful of larger cities. 2/3 of the population of the United States lives on the coast. New York and L.A. account for almost 10% of the countires entire population. The electoral systems helps to make sure that all areas have relatively equal representation. I also believe that the current electoral system is too general. Currently, a candidate can take certain states by appealing to the larger cities so you aren't incorrect in calling the system broken. I do believe that by dividing the country by voting district instead of by state allows the system to work in the least abusable fashion.

[Solstis]

Mob Rule: Bush Gets Elected

Also, voting districts are ALWAYS abused. Redistricting is the devil.

[Ruby-chan]

Um, if you changed the electoral votes by district then wouldn't the districts with the largest cities be included? They'll always just focused on the largest high-density population center in a district, be it state or a smaller division. I don't quite see how the electoral college limits the clout of high population cities so much as skeys results. The large city in a state will just carry that state, and that stat's electors is partially based upon population.

Oh, and allow me to sumarize the last presidential election again.

Pat Robertson & The 700 Club: Forget the economy, forget the terrorist, DEM DER GAYS ARE COMING! You gots to vote our guy or dem gays will be everywhere, destroying the foundation of society and turnin' yer kids gay with their evil satanic harry potter scented candle witchcraft Jesus hating MIND BEAMS! Ahyuck.

I'm personally ashamed that the biggest issue over our economic lively hood, immigration, foreign policy, and PEOPLE TRYING TO KILL US, was "OMFG, Gays!"

Personally I'd go with, "You know, I'd like not to be blown up by angry men with too much free time." or "You know, I'd like not to be made homeless by rising deficit which causes inflation." But I guess I must be strange.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ruby-chan on 2006-12-14 19:43 ]</font>

[Kent]

The US election system is broken as hell, anyway. You can win, even if the majority of the country's voting populace votes against you. :/

[Niki]

Bush was appointed President once, then elected by 50.7% of 55% of the vote-eligible population who actually voted. So out of those citizens who could vote, almost 30% voted for Bush. So when slightly more than 70% of the people who could vote did not vote for him, it kind of makes you wonder if the system is working as it should.

As a cynic, I'll say yes it is. While that is not the way I think it should be, I believe that the current structure enables and ensures that those with the most wealth remain that way.

All ambition and no talent, Bush is a scapegoat. I actually feel bad for him. The people to blame are the moneyed Social Darwinists who both manipulate and allow themselves to be manipulated by capital. Namely, all the big-business board members who are campaign contributors to nearly every politician in this country. If you command enough resources, the will of the people becomes irrelevant.

That's my take on it.

[KojiroAK]

On 2006-12-14 13:02, Mystil wrote:
America complains about Bush being a bad president and yet wasn't it the people who gave him his second term?>.<

He's already slated to go down in history as our president with the worst approval rating. and to make matters even more confusing, no one wanted him as president in the last election, but look at what happened(must get rid of the Electorial College).

@_@ make up your minds.



You talk about a county, where you have to say the people, that coffee may be hot or that they shouldn't drive with a carton in their front window of the car, while it's the same person, you await to be stupid enough to not know that, allowed to have weapons.

[lavosmanx]

I have a policy, don't vote for anyone unless your certain their gonna run the country the way it should be. With that said I didn't vote last time because I just wasn't comfortable with putting the future of the country in either of their hands. I don't believe in that 'If you didn't vote you don't get to complain'. I believe it is voting so you can complain that put the country in the situation it is in at the moment. I'm not insulting the armed forces, but I am saying that the president couldve run things correctly.

I mean what is the point if we just let anyone in because there are fewer choices available to them. And let's say we vote someone in by a written vote and they turn out to be bad. Point is, I want to actually know who I vote for is going to do something good for the country. I think Bill Clinton was a better president then Bush was.

[UnderscoreX]

You act like American's messing up is uncommon or something.

[Mystil]

Well all of you make good points. Some felt here in Georgia(one of the states Bush won in the election..) that Kerry wasn't going to be able to handle the load of the middle-east. For the record I voted for Kerry.

[Garroway]

I think you misunderstand. I don't mean that we should redefine the voting districts. I think that we should be taking the electoral votes directly from each voting district instead from the State as a whole. (For example, if every district had 1 electoral vote.) Cites are broken up into several districts and it's pretty unlikely that every district will cast their electoral vote for the same candidate. The way it works right now, a candidate can take a state by taking a single city and since there are more than 2 candidates, one person can command the entire voting power of a state even though only 35% of the states population voted for them. The electoral theory is sound but the actual implementation is flawed.

Almost forgot... The reason candidates bring up issues like homosexual marriage and abortion is because people vote on these issues. If nobody cared, it wouldn't be an issue. Bush was largely favored because of 2 major factors. He pledged to reduce government spending and to return power to the states. He actualy did the opposite which caused his approval rating to drop. Also, the Senate drafted a 27 point war resolution for the war in Iraq. Only one of those points involved "weapons of mass destruction" but that was the point he used to sell the war. When no such weapons turned up, his approval rating only dropped further. Nobody has ever brought up what any of the other 26 points were, people only speak of the one.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Garroway on 2006-12-15 08:29 ]</font>

[Agne]

the reason bush got re-elected is because the majority of the ppl who hate bush also distrust the government... these ppl tend also not to vote....

besides he's just a puppet. just a face to hate or love.
the votes are tallied behind the curtain.
everyone behold the new son.

[Q_Anon]

The problems are as much about the politicians as with the voters, there isn't a party that the voting populace as a whole can agree with anymore. We need a new pool of people to choose from that can't be bought with big checks.

[Wheatpenny]

On 2006-12-14 13:02, Mystil wrote:
America complains about Bush being a bad president and yet wasn't it the people who gave him his second term?>.<

He's already slated to go down in history as our president with the worst approval rating. and to make matters even more confusing, no one wanted him as president in the last election, but look at what happened(must get rid of the Electorial College).

@_@ make up your minds.



Did you see the canadates for last election? I didn't feel like I was chosing which one was best...I felt like I was chosing who was the least worst.... Which at the time happend to be Bush.