posted October 01, 2004 06:44 PM            

You see that Bush was very upset about this last debate, but that's what you get when you underestamate the American people and the future as well!

posted October 01, 2004 11:28 PM              

quote:

---

Rest assured, John Kerry will win the popular vote, but he will not pass with the Electoral College.

---

posted October 02, 2004 01:09 AM            

It's there to prevent a few states with large populations from dominating the rest of the country in election of Presidents.

posted October 02, 2004 12:06 PM            

Saturday, Oct. 2, 2004 9:50 a.m. EDT
Gallup Poll: Kerry Better Debater; Bush Better President

Staffers at the Kerry campaign may want to put the cork back in their champagne bottles after they examine the internal numbers in the latest Gallup poll.

Sure, most felt that the Massachusetts Democrat was the better debater by a whopping margin of 53 to 37 percent.

Kerry did even better when Gallup asked which candidate expressed himself clearly, beating Bush 60 to 32 percent.
But when asked which of the two was more believable, it was Bush over Kerry - 50 to 45 percent.

On which candidate did better on the issues, again it was Bush over Kerry, 49 to 46 percent.

Those surveyed by Gallup also apparently didn't buy the media's line that the president came off as irritated and petulant. Asked who was more likable, it was Bush over Kerry again, 48 to 41 percent.

But the worst news for team Kerry came when Gallup asked which candidate was tough enough to be president, a question that taps into concerns that Kerry may be weak on terror.

posted October 02, 2004 02:12 PM              

so then you agree that in the u.s. if you dont vote for the republican or democrat candidate then your vote doesnt "count".....

that was a very good way of putting it jwhop
or did you forget there is a third candidate?

posted October 02, 2004 02:22 PM              

I only recall three specific
"deer-in-the-headlights" looks
from Mr. Prez.

posted October 02, 2004 02:43 PM            

Again, as a practical matter, a vote for anyone other than Bush or Kerry is unlikely to produce any electoral votes for that candidate. However, the impact on future actions and policies of the country can be impacted by 3rd party candidates, even when they do not have a major impact on the election results or even win any electoral votes.

Perot got about 19% of the popular vote but won NO states and got no electoral votes. He did however, get Clinton elected.

posted October 02, 2004 02:57 PM              

quote:

---

It's there to prevent a few states with large populations from dominating the rest of the country in election of Presidents.

---

posted October 02, 2004 03:58 PM            

Maybe the ones that support Bush are right, and that Bush is really smart and just wants to see this country come to an end, so the Bush Family can resume Prescott's legancy of the new Holocaust!

posted October 03, 2004 12:29 AM              

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College
************
Similarly, if no absolute majority is achieved by a Vice Presidential candidate, the Senate -- again, as it is after the November election -- chooses from among the top two candidates. In the Senate, however, each Senator casts a single vote; voting is not based on states. It is unclear if the sitting Vice President could cast his usual tie-breaking vote if the Senate should be evenly tied on this question

If no candidate hit 270, the election would go to the House, where, under special election rules, each state delegation would have one vote, no matter its size

Originally, each elector voted for two persons. The person receiving the greatest number of votes (provided that such a number was a majority of electors) would be President, while the individual who was in second place became Vice President. If no-one received a majority of votes, then the House of Representatives would choose between the five highest vote-getters, with each state getting one vote. In such a case, the person who received the highest number of votes but was not chosen President would become Vice President. If there was ever a tie for second, then the Senate would choose the Vice President
The original plan, however, did not forsee the development of political parties. In 1796, for instance, the Federalist John Adams came in first, and the Democrat-Republican Thomas Jefferson came second. Thus, the President and Vice President were from different parties. An even greater problem occurred in 1800, when Democrat-Republicans Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied the vote. It was intended that Jefferson was the Presidential contender, while Burr was the Vice Presidential one. However, electors did not differentiate between the two, nor could they under the system of the time, and most electors cast one vote for each. The election was then thrown into the House of Representatives, which was controlled by the Democrat-Republicans' opponents, the Federalists. The House had to vote thirty-five times before Alexander Hamilton declared his support for Thomas Jefferson, who won on the thirty-sixth ballot. Burr became Vice President. For this and numerous other reasons he bore a grudge against Hamilton, whom he later killed in a duel.
*************

hey whats wrong with doing it the original way, with the winner as president and second place as vice president?.... would that make the government more transparent? would it stop all the petty b.s.? or maybe they could duel

but its also quite clear that if perot were to have gotten 51%(much more majority than a three way tie even) of the popular vote, no one would have gotten the 50 % electoral votes so the house would have decided between the 3 candidates lol...it looks like it has to be all or nothing for a third party candidate to win....either that or persist until a third party controls the house.....lol