Would you vote for Bush in the next election?

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Wed Nov 12, 2003 2:33 am

Ironically, every Democrat with any kind of plan for finishing the job in Iraq has exactly the same plan as the Bush administration. Their only hopeful claim is that the French will be happier cooperating with a Democrat. You can all guess how, "Vote for me so the French will be our friends again!" will play in the general election.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Wed Nov 12, 2003 2:55 am

Just out of curiosity, does anyone yet have a plan for "internationalizing" our effort further that overcomes the roadblock of the French? By relinquishing any of our military control to NATO, we give the French veto power over every military move to be made. If control of any of the reconstruction goes to the UN, the French gain veto power there.

Rev: sorry, my bad. I read too much into his early rhetoric, and I have paid so little attention to him most of the time that I spoke completely out of my ass without checking my facts. I'll take your word for it.

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Wed Nov 12, 2003 3:14 am

MooCow wrote:
But he said he would enjoy pulling the trigger himself and his tone of more vengeful and murderous sounding than I am comfortable with from a president.
I'd quite enjoy pulling the trigger myself, so I can't say as I'll hold it against him. There are a lot of things I'll hold against Bush, but that isn't one of them.

I would. Revenge is, by its very nature, a personal feeling. Personal feelings are ultimately unimportant for a leader, whose task is to put his own priorities beneath everybody else's.

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Wed Nov 12, 2003 4:27 am

Anguirel wrote:
Serious Paul wrote:1. Do you think Dean would refuse federal funds for his election attempt? And do you think it would hurt him?
I think, in theory, he could probably earn a lot more if he did, but I'm fairly certain he already has accepted the spending cap and it likely will hurt him in the end

Well, I was right. I may not be shortly. Partial Mea Culpa on that.

Flak: I think this incident may have colored a lot of people's perceptions on Bush's intelligence. It was, of course, blown wholly out of proportion, but is interesting none the less. If you're still looking for more info on the subject I'll see if I can pull up the more substantive and useful stuff again.

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Wed Nov 12, 2003 6:43 am

put his own priorities beneath everybody else's.

In this case, I think he percieves a lot more hostility towards Saddam among our population than you personally feel. In that case (and I have no real polling data on how many people feel the way that the President expressed himself) he wouldn't be placing his priorities above ours, but rather next to them. Just a thought before I head to work.

Instant Cash · Post by **Instant Cash** » Wed Nov 12, 2003 1:47 pm

I didn't vote for him last time, and I wouldn't vote for him again.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Wed Nov 12, 2003 2:36 pm

For everyone who says they would NEVER vote for Bush... what if the alternative was worse? What if Al Sharpton took the Democratic nomination? Would you pick Bush as the lesser of two evils, or would you simply throw away your vote (or withhold it entirely)?

Instant Cash · Post by **Instant Cash** » Wed Nov 12, 2003 2:43 pm

Bethyaga wrote:For everyone who says they would NEVER vote for Bush... what if the alternative was worse? What if Al Sharpton took the Democratic nomination? Would you pick Bush as the lesser of two evils, or would you simply throw away your vote (or withhold it entirely)?

Anyone besides Bush /is/ the lesser of two evils.

I honestly hate them all

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Wed Nov 12, 2003 3:14 pm

Instant Cash wrote:Anyone besides Bush /is/ the lesser of two evils.

Don't speak in absolutes. Al Sharpton would be far worse for this country than George Bush. Although I agree with you that anyone who has a reasonable chance at winning the nomination could be argued to be the lesser evil.

Instant Cash · Post by **Instant Cash** » Wed Nov 12, 2003 3:18 pm

Bethyaga wrote: Don't speak in absolutes. Al Sharpton would be far worse for this country than George Bush. Although I agree with you that anyone who has a reasonable chance at winning the nomination could be argued to be the lesser evil.

Well I agree that I should not speak in the absolute sense. However, I totally do not like Bush or the whole Republican Party for that matter. Not that the democrats are any better, just that they are the less harmful of the parties in my NSHO.

To be fully honest though I have not really paid as much attention as I should to the current election prospects. I really cannot make an informed educated decision at this point. My apologies on that part.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Wed Nov 12, 2003 3:22 pm

I don't like Bush either. And I don't like either of the major political parties, for that matter, but both of them have some good elements and good people as well as bad ones. And my personal distaste for Bush doesn't rule him out as possibly the best choice, depending on what the alternatives end up being.

Instant Cash · Post by **Instant Cash** » Wed Nov 12, 2003 3:26 pm

Bethyaga wrote:I don't like Bush either. And I don't like either of the major political parties, for that matter, but both of them have some good elements and good people as well as bad ones. And my personal distaste for Bush doesn't rule him out as possibly the best choice, depending on what the alternatives end up being.

Fair enough. And yes I admit it /very/ hard to put aside my personal feeling when coming to picking who I want to represent this country.

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Wed Nov 12, 2003 7:16 pm

Bethyaga wrote:For everyone who says they would NEVER vote for Bush... what if the alternative was worse? What if Al Sharpton took the Democratic nomination? Would you pick Bush as the lesser of two evils, or would you simply throw away your vote (or withhold it entirely)?

<vc="Green Party Member"> I'm not throwing away my vote! </vc>

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Wed Nov 12, 2003 7:28 pm

Anguirel wrote:<vc="Green Party Member"> I'm not throwing away my vote! </vc>

Green Party members did worse than throw away their vote. They elected George Bush. If Nader had stepped out of the race and endorsed Gore, Gore would have won, and the Green Party would be much closer to advancing their objectives than they are now.

Rev · Post by **Rev** » Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:57 pm

Marius wrote:Ironically, every Democrat with any kind of plan for finishing the job in Iraq has exactly the same plan as the Bush administration. Their only hopeful claim is that the French will be happier cooperating with a Democrat. You can all guess how, "Vote for me so the French will be our friends again!" will play in the general election.

Yep. To some extent that would work diplomatically, but probably not as a campaign issue. Any president who isn't Bush will start out with more internationall goodwill because they will not be intensely disliked by the populations of most of the worlds countries.

We are in a bad situation in Iraq, one there is no easy or cheap way out of. At this point giving up and running away simply isnt an option(yet, what right wingers making the McGovern comparison forget is that in hindsight McGovern was right). We have responsibilities that we now must fulfill to the Iraqi's and we have a hidiously dangerous situation that we cannot leave to fester.

So don't worry about all this "stay the course" "bring em on" nonsense the president is spouting. That isn't even a campaign issue. We have no choice but to try to make the best of it for the next few years anyway. All the candidates that have a chance know this. The only differences are in details of how they plan to make the best of Iraq.

The quesiton is who will make the best of Iraq.

And then there are all the other issues.

Deficits, tax cuts, health care, trade, energy, domestic security/individual freedoms, etc, etc.

Of course most people just vote for the party they root for, or for the incumbent if the economy happens to do well for the few months befor the election and for the challenger if it does not. The idiots.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Wed Nov 12, 2003 10:27 pm

Bethyaga mentioned him, Kerry. I personally think the guy has all the public speaking charm that gore did, so equivalent to a brick, but his heroism is amazing. Anyone who hasn't read about his experience as a Navy SEAL in Vietnam should.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Wed Nov 12, 2003 11:10 pm

Bethyaga wrote:For everyone who says they would NEVER vote for Bush... what if the alternative was worse? What if Al Sharpton took the Democratic nomination? Would you pick Bush as the lesser of two evils, or would you simply throw away your vote (or withhold it entirely)?

Quite frankly, I'd rather see a trained monkey in the Oval Office. Heck, Bush Jr. is largely a trained monkey, dancing to the tune played by Rove, Cheney, and various corporate interests. While I happen to think Sharpton and Nader are probably at least as stupid as Bush, they're honest about their intentions and aren't brown-nosing big business.

Granted, if I happened to see the three of them on the ballot, I'd be sorely tempted to do a write-in for Elvis. However, we *know* what Junior is like as president, whereas there's the faintest sliver of possibility that Sharpton may do an adequate job. I'd rather take the gamble.

TheScamp · Post by **TheScamp** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 12:58 am

Bethyaga mentioned him, Kerry. I personally think the guy has all the public speaking charm that gore did, so equivalent to a brick, but his heroism is amazing. Anyone who hasn't read about his experience as a Navy SEAL in Vietnam should.

Not only that, but I've played soccer against him and chatted with the younger of his hot daughters. Plus, he's from Massachusetts, so I'm kind of required to like him.

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 1:33 am

*bows and shakes her head* Wow. It really blows my mind how people - and I don't mean this offensively at any one in particular, or anyone at all, for that matter (everyone has their own opinion, and I respect that) - but, it blows my mind how people can actually say they'd rather write in a dead guy, vote for an animal, or not vote at all - than vote for Bush in a re-election. I don't like the guy as a person hardly at all, myself, but to totally dismiss those actions he has taken that have bettered our country - or at least maintained a continual level of acceptability, and rather, compare him to being worse than a corpse? I dunno. Maybe it's just a figure of speech to define one's hatred for the man, but I can only fear how some citizen's of this country would react to some of the other past Presidential options that we have had, should they have been elected over Bush in 2000.

Ratoslov · Post by **Ratoslov** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 1:56 am

Frankly, Al Sharpton couldn't get elected if, through some act of fate, all the other candidates were assassinated the eve of the election.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 2:23 am

Teja: Hey, but Elvis isn't really dead! Don't you read The Enquirer?

Seriously, though, Bush hasn't done much for this country at all. Mostly, all he's done is be a mouthpiece for various other interests who tell him what policies to implement. OK, that doesn't make him that much different than many other politicians, but still....

Sharpton is an idiot, pure and simple. An unlikeable idiot at that, one that gives Liberals a bad name. However, if by some horrific act of the gods, he ended up as POTUS, Sharpton would at least be speaking out his *own* ass.

Rapid Fire · Post by **Rapid Fire** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 5:01 am

To answer the original question:

FUCK NO.

I knew it back when the fucking SOB was appointed the Presidency by the Supreme Court (Go ahead and try to convince me he was elected. Good luck) that this retard would fuck everything up.

The lesser of two evils? What could anyone possibly do to make a bigger mess of things than this arrogant fucking prick? My main goal is to get Bush out of office. I don't think this country could take 4 more years of this.

*ahem*

Who do I like? I don't know a great deal about most of them, but it seems that when I take the time to listen to Kerry speak, he seems like an intelligent man with a lot of good ideas. We'll see how things shake out in the coming year.

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 6:02 am

Cain wrote:Bush hasn't done much for this country at all.

You can honestly say this with conviction and belief in the words you are saying?? First, let me reitterate that I did not vote for George W. Bush in the past election, nor do I have any idea if I will vote for him in 2004, but to say that he has done "nothing" or "little" for this country is really just being ignorant of the facts! Sure, we may not agree with every step he has taken, but Bush and his Administration most definately have taken strides to better this country. Let me rack my brain here for a moment ...The 'No Child Left Behind Act,' increase in child tax credits, including more perscription drug coverage for seniors on Medicare, tax reliefs for small businesses, not to mention the entire development of the Department of Homeland Security - probably the one single thing I really do admire from the Bush Administration. DHS has combined 22 agencies and offices under one sector to share information. Evidence has shown that had these exact government agencies corresponded more with one another prior to 9/11/01, it is possible that that entire situation may have possibly been avoidable. I have spoken to contacts I have who work as employees from both the FBI and the U.S. Secret Service. Both men were strong in their support of DHS and in conveying that it's development has been long-time needed. As well, Bush officials can be credited for the creation of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, the Container Security Initiative, cooperating with Canadian officials to develop and sign the Smart Border Declaration, the reorganization of the FBI, itself - not to mention the simple overall safety improvement measures taken in American airports. I can go on, but I think you get my point.

There are certain things I listed above that I think we could have done without, but I really think that people sometimes, especially at election time, don't research and look at the broad scope of things. They focus in on an incumbant's "mistakes" and are too quick to form conclusions about the alleged failure of that Administration.

On a different note, as well, I am curious of how some people think that things like, excessive name-calling and vulgarity being used in an argument, establishes a firmer, more intelligent, or stronger form of reasoning. Does it make them think they sound like they have stronger convictions about their stance on the topic? In my view, it really makes me think they would just rather not argue like an adult. 'Tis one of those things that shall continue to boggle me about the human mind, I suppose.

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 6:20 am

Hmmm...substantive argument, citing of specific facts, passionate without being rude, lack of name calling....

do you think this is a debate or something?

You're also the only person I've heard praise the DHS. Now I must research.

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 6:41 am

WillyGilligan wrote:do you think this is a debate or something? .

Oh, not really, especially due to the threads title. Sometimes I just get going and going and going...and need someone to pull me back down to the ground every once in awhile. Ignore me. LOL

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 7:05 am

Cain wrote:Seriously, though, Bush hasn't done much for this country at all. Mostly, all he's done is be a mouthpiece for various other interests who tell him what policies to implement. OK, that doesn't make him that much different than many other politicians, but still....

Sharpton is an idiot, pure and simple. An unlikeable idiot at that, one that gives Liberals a bad name. However, if by some horrific act of the gods, he ended up as POTUS, Sharpton would at least be speaking out his *own* ass.

Cain, if Bush made decisions in the unilateral fashion you apparently want, you'd be screaming about him not listening to his cabinet or anyone else.

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 12:32 pm

If you're voting for Bush. You're not voting for Bush, but rather, you're voting for Karl Rove.

At least, that's what I hear

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 12:40 pm

Rapid Fire wrote:(Go ahead and try to convince me he was elected. Good luck)

Because every count of the votes in Florida, both before and after the election was finalized, still came out for Bush. Yes, the court system cut off the counting and recounting before the Democrats were satisfied that it was over, but the counting still continued unofficially anyway... just to see. And guess what? Bush still won. And these extra counts were conducted (if I remember correctly) by a newspaper or university (or both).

I don't like him, but I'm not childish enough to maintain this "selected not elected" crap. Our system (which includes the courts) put him in power. Deal.

TheScamp · Post by **TheScamp** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 1:39 pm

You can honestly say this with conviction and belief in the words you are saying??

I can. Honestly, I can't think of a single 'good' thing that he's done that wouldn't have been done, in some form or another, by someone else. I truly do not believe that he's done anything exceptional, except on the 'retard' side of things.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 2:00 pm

TheScamp wrote:
You can honestly say this with conviction and belief in the words you are saying??
I can. Honestly, I can't think of a single 'good' thing that he's done that wouldn't have been done, in some form or another, by someone else. I truly do not believe that he's done anything exceptional, except on the 'retard' side of things.

Oh Christ, Scamp. Way to twist your words. "I can't think of a single good thing Bush has done." *example* *example* *example* "Oh, that? Well, I admit he's done some good things... but they don't count, 'cuz anyone would have done that."

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 2:08 pm

*nods to Bethy*

I guess I just don't see what the big deal is with not being able to say, "As a nation, we elected him. Since 2000, he has not proven himself enough, in my opinion, to earn my vote in the 2004 elections. I do not share many of the views that President Bush does and feel someone else would serve much better in that office." It's tasteful! It's not ignorant! And people might actually respect your opinion a little, but I suppose maybe some people don't really care about that possibly.

TheScamp · Post by **TheScamp** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 2:22 pm

Oh Christ, Scamp. Way to twist your words. "I can't think of a single good thing Bush has done." *example* *example* *example* "Oh, that? Well, I admit he's done some good things... but they don't count, 'cuz anyone would have done that."

Um, Bethy, what the fuck are you talking about? It would be great if you could point out anywhere prior to that one posting where I've said anything about Bush in this thread, other than whether or not I'd vote for him (in which, I admit, I called him a retard).

My position is simply that his decisions have ranged from average to terrible. He has done nothing, in my opinion, that marks him out as exceptionally good, but plenty that mark him out as quite poor. This places him squarely in my mind as a person unfit for office, and who should be removed at soon as possible.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:39 pm

Bethyaga wrote: And these extra counts were conducted (if I remember correctly) by a newspaper or university (or both).

When the motherfucking Associated Press says a conservative won the election, I think it's a good bet that the conservatice won the election.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 4:25 pm

The "No child left behind" act is really the "Leave every teacher behind" act, since it doesn't actually provide any money to implement its changes. The DHS came from as much of the work of Lieberman and Congress as Bush's handlers. The increase in child tax credits was started under Clinton. It's not that I disagree with some of the decisions made during Bush's term, it's just that I don't think any of them were actually made by Bush.

Quote frankly, I think you could have replaced Bush's role in "his" administration with Howdy-Doody, and there wouldn't have been much difference. This is somewhat true to one extent or another for many politicians; but in Junior's case, I don't think he goes to the bathroom without approval from Rove and Cheney.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 4:38 pm

Cain wrote:The "No child left behind" act is really the "Leave every teacher behind" act, since it doesn't actually provide any money to implement its changes.

You're right. It doesn't. Nor should it have to. Throwing money at stuff is not always the answer; why don't democrats understand this? The school systems can learn to be efficient.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 5:19 pm

Actually, <a href="http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy200 ... 13.pdf">it does</a>. Cain's just speaking from blind ignorance and hatred instead of fairly assessing the facts.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 5:50 pm

My bad, Scamp. The original comment was Cain's. As I was following the responses, I thought you made the original. Sorry.

But the point still stands... just without the bitter sarcasm. (Sorry.)

Cazmonster · Post by **Cazmonster** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 6:01 pm

Serious Paul wrote:Bethyaga mentioned him, Kerry. I personally think the guy has all the public speaking charm that gore did, so equivalent to a brick, but his heroism is amazing. Anyone who hasn't read about his experience as a Navy SEAL in Vietnam should.

Kerry's a fucking SEAL? Shit, I say we resolve this with Mortal Kombat!! Mostly because I would love to see somebody beat the shit out of Bush and Cheney at the same time. And if Kerry could stab Karl Rove a few times with Bush's broken clavicle, that would really make me happy.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 6:12 pm

3278 wrote:Actually, <a href="http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy200 ... 13.pdf">it does</a>. Cain's just speaking from blind ignorance and hatred instead of fairly assessing the facts.

The relevant pages, for those interested, are 6 and 9-15.

Eliahad · Post by **Eliahad** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 6:15 pm

Sal, some school districts can learn to be efficient. Others actually need the money. So I'd say whether or not the information Cain presented is correct, sometimes it would be helpful if the gummint threw a little more cash. When I have a chance to get some oh say, facts together, and a coherent if not lengthy post, I'll open it in a new thread.

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 6:21 pm

Bethyaga wrote:
Rapid Fire wrote:(Go ahead and try to convince me he was elected. Good luck)
Because every count of the votes in Florida, both before and after the election was finalized, still came out for Bush. Yes, the court system cut off the counting and recounting before the Democrats were satisfied that it was over, but the counting still continued unofficially anyway... just to see. And guess what? Bush still won. And these extra counts were conducted (if I remember correctly) by a newspaper or university (or both).

I don't like him, but I'm not childish enough to maintain this "selected not elected" crap. Our system (which includes the courts) put him in power. Deal.

This brings to my mind: 25 electoral votes went to Bush. Not 13 to Bush, 12 to Gore. If I'm correct, electoral votes were supposed to represent population, not winner take all.

Also, I remember reading an article long time ago, saying that if Gore did not challenge the count, Gore would have won by 500 votes.

Personally? Electoral system is what needed fixing. I believe that Electoral system SHOULD represent population by states. If a guy gets 75% of votes in a state, he gets 75% of electoral vote. If a guy gets 50%, then 50% of electoral vote. Of course, there is an issue of rounding up and down. But personally? I find it silly that entire state would "represent" a person if only 51% of people voted for him in terms of electoral votes. If I'm correct, there are only two states that split electoral votes according to population's choice. And I think one state is Maine.

Cazmonster · Post by **Cazmonster** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 6:31 pm

Hell, if it was only New York, California, Illinois and Texas that did that, the run would be radically different.

I think winner take all is assy as hell too. The biggest kicker? I don't know any of these 'Electoral College' people. I think we should get to know the people who actually vote for the president.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 6:44 pm

Here's the thing, Flame: the electoral system actually was intended as a way for states to pick the electors who would then pick the president, because it was assumed that the electors would be educated enough to understand the candidates and who would best represent their state. It WAS intended from the beginning to be winner take all. Remember that once upon a time, there was much more emphasis on the states as very seperate entities, each with their own interests, etc. Therefore, if I'm South Carolina, and the people of South Carolina have a majority of votes for Matt Johnson, then it is in my state's best interest to cast ALL of the South Carolina's electoral votes for Matt Johnson. That's the surest way to ensure that my state's interests are best represented. To say it is unfair is to be looking at the United States as a whole--to assume that the divisions between states are arbitrary and meaningless.

The Electoral College is designed so that each state can have the maximum effectiveness in representing itself. States which choose to split their electoral votes are certainly more "fair" in many ways, but are essentially dilluting their own voice. If you split your votes, then a candidate stands to gain one (maybe two) electoral votes by campaigning in your state and lobbying for your interests. If you don't split your votes, then the candidate stands to gain (or lose) 3 to 30+ votes in your state. Which way will cause candidates to pay more attention to you? In Nebraska, we have only 5 electoral votes, so if we were to split our votes, then in most campaigns, it is unlikely that any amount of campaigning will move even one vote from one side to the other--but one would certainly be the max. But in a close race--like this last one--five votes is something worth paying at least a little attention to.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 6:47 pm

And just to expand on my own point, if we went to a straight popular vote to elect the president, that would mean that the campaigning and interest would be more slanted than it already is towards heavily populated and urbanized states, with little more than lip service paid to the broad swath of the midwest and west. The Electoral College is a way for the little states to combine all of their votes into a single powerful voice.

There really is a purpose to the system beyond just holding onto a piece of antiquity.

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 7:07 pm

Cazmonster wrote:I think winner take all is assy as hell too. The biggest kicker? I don't know any of these 'Electoral College' people. I think we should get to know the people who actually vote for the president.

Amen. And if it's shown that these people representing the states aren't doing good by the residents, then the people get to vote them out.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 7:10 pm

Gunny wrote:
Cazmonster wrote:I think winner take all is assy as hell too. The biggest kicker? I don't know any of these 'Electoral College' people. I think we should get to know the people who actually vote for the president.
Amen. And if it's shown that these people representing the states aren't doing good by the residents, then the people get to vote them out.

I'm hoping both of you are kidding. As it stands, I believe all 50 states apportion their votes as either all or nothing based on the state's popular vote or proportionally based on the popular vote. Electoral College representatives no longer go and vote their conscience--they are bound by the dictates of the popular vote.

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 7:17 pm

Then I must be confused by the process.

Cazmonster · Post by **Cazmonster** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 7:25 pm

Bethyaga wrote:I'm hoping both of you are kidding. As it stands, I believe all 50 states apportion their votes as either all or nothing based on the state's popular vote or proportionally based on the popular vote. Electoral College representatives no longer go and vote their conscience--they are bound by the dictates of the popular vote.

See, this is where I was damn confused - either there should be a College, where actual people vote actual votes or there should be an abstraction with no real people. Because being 'forced' to vote one way or another seems wrong to me.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 9:16 pm

3278 wrote:Actually, <a href="http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy200 ... 13.pdf">it does</a>. Cain's just speaking from blind ignorance and hatred instead of fairly assessing the facts.

Actually, it doesn't; the only significant changes to the funding for primary education appears to be minor increases in a few programs, while adding a fair number of threats to remove funding, and cutbacks in others. There's also not much for teacher salary increases, or expansion of public schools. As the population grows, minor increases in the education budget will get eaten as they try and serve more students.

School systems can learn to be efficient, but quite frequently they're as efficient as they can be under the circumstances. The best way to be more efficient is to hire more efficient workers, but there isn't enough money to attract them.

If I had an ideal system, it'd be to roughly double teacher salaries at the low end (in my area, $24,000 a year to $50,000 for a starting teacher) and increase by 50% the high end (currently about $60,000, to $90-100,000). Then, we triple teacher accountability-- we demand as much out of them as we would a lawyer, or a doctor, or anyone else who's pulling down that kind of money. The long-term effect of this is that we get those who are capable of performing this kind of work in teaching jobs, instead of going for the currently-more-lucrative positions in law or business.

All this is besides the point. Bush was effectively elected by an act of the Supreme Court, and not by a fair ballot count. He also lost the popular vote, which while legal, has never led to a second term. There's so many things wrong with Bush's presidency, he's going to have an uphill battle to try and win this next one.

Rev · Post by **Rev** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 10:01 pm

Cazmonster wrote: See, this is where I was damn confused - either there should be a College, where actual people vote actual votes or there should be an abstraction with no real people. Because being 'forced' to vote one way or another seems wrong to me.

Its just a vestige.

Like the appendix.

So the appendix is this little bag on the intestine that is larger in some animals and helps them digest certain types of food. Humans don't eat such food so the appendix slowly withers away as the generations pass. Unfortunately if the appendix gets too small its interior space can become stagnant and then infected killing the poor human attatched. So the appendix withers down to a certain size then sits there uselessly killing people every now and then by infection until evolution manages to remove the whole thing in one swoop (some people actually don't have an appendix at all).

The electoral college is the same thing. The constitution is such a chore to alter that rather than eliminating the electors alltogether we simply changed the state laws until they have no real function. Still even though we must organize electors and ship them back and forth every four years it would be more work to change the constitution once than to do waste energy on electors for a century.