posted October 03, 2004 02:04 AM            

In most states, the candidate who gets the most popular votes gets all the states electoral votes. So, one candidate could get 50.00001% of the popular vote and the other could get 49.99999% and the loser of the state would get no electoral votes whatsoever. If you repeated that in every state, except one, the popular vote nationwide would be very close but the loser would have NO electoral votes at that point. Now say that one exception was California where the vote was reversed and the loser of every other state won California in a landslide with a 65% to 35% margin of victory. The winner of California would wind up with more popular votes nationwide but lose the election, having only California's 54 electoral votes to 481 electoral votes for the winner of all the other states.

posted October 03, 2004 01:17 PM            

You mentioned Perot. Perot had a real shot Petron...until he chose James Stockdale for his VP running mate. When I saw Stockdale debate Gore, I knew it was over for Perot. Perot sabotaged his own campaign and I think deliberately...motive, to scuttle Bush senior and elect Clinton.

Many Republicans were *issed at Bush senior for breaking his promise, "read my lips, no new taxes", and large numbers voted for Perot. Without Perot there would have been no Clinton Presidency...at least not in 1992. In that respect, a 3rd party candidate had a real effect on the election.

posted October 03, 2004 11:47 PM            

If the election gets thrown into the House of Representatives, a 3rd party candidate would not fair very well.

The problem with most third parties is that they are single issue parties or a loose alliance of single issue organizations. The Green Party comes to mind. Most of these parties are on the fringe of political thought and it takes the large center to win a national election. Neither the radical right or the radical left could win a national election without the moderate center. That's the reason Howard Dean is not the Democrat candidate and it's the reason John Kerry sounds so radical at times because he needs to hold those far left Dean supporters.

The electoral college is the system we have and have had from the beginning, for reasons already discussed. Fair is a relative word. Is it fair to the more sparsely populated Midwest and South to have the more heavily populated East coast decide Presidential elections?

posted October 04, 2004 02:02 AM              

there are like 7 states with the minimum electors due to their small size right ? maybe in a couple years we can chuck this anchor to real democracy?

and like it said from the beginning the winner was suppose to be president the loser vice president......
or would that wind up with the two deciding foreign policy with secret skull n bones noogie contest in the oval office??
http://www.funsilly.com/noogie.shtml

posted October 04, 2004 08:13 AM            

quote:

---

It's Bush taking the actions intended to prevent al-Queda from getting their hands of chemical/biological/nuclear weapons in the first place.

---

Oh Really, then how do you explain exactly is going after al-Queda when Bush pulled out as many troops as possible(like maybe all of them?)to pave a clear and broad way to distribute WMDs through the channels of Asia like in Hong Kong and Singapore?

quote:

---

That was one of the reasons for going after Saddam, who had chemical and biological weapons

---

OK, then where are these chemical and biological weapons? OH! I know, Bush made it perfectly clear where they might be and it's all in the footage of him joking around and searching through his office,"Are they over here? Nope! Are they over there? Nope! They have to be somewhere!", Remember that laugh JW? All those innocent people that died(and I already know what your about to say, "You saying that those terrorist are innocent, OZONE?!")NO JW! I'm talking about the civilians over there in Iraq that had to die and it's all a big joke to Bush and his rich golf buddies! Nothing like smelling young dead bodies in the morning hey JW?!

quote:

---

Hmmm Ozone, al-Queda deciding to use nuclear weapons and al-Queda actually having the nuclear weapons to use against the US are two entirely different things.

---

AWWWW! but this all just contrast to everything that was just said in the very same post! How do you do that JW? First you say that Bush had to stop al-Queda and Saddam and then you say that even though they might think about using nuclear weapons, there's even a good chance that they might not even have WMDs either!

How do you figure this all out JW?!

posted October 04, 2004 12:10 PM            

Clinton received more than 50% of the vote in only one state, Arkansas, and the District of Columbia in the 1992 election. The election was NOT thrown into the House of Representatives because it isn't necessary for a candidate to receive more than 50% of the vote in any state to win all the electoral votes for that state. A candidate must only receive MORE votes than the either of the other candidates, no matter how many other candidates that might be.

Example, Clinton received only 41% of the popular vote for Wisconsin but got all 11 of Wisconsin's electoral votes. Bush received 36% and Perot 21% but Clinton won all the electoral votes for Wisconsin.

If Perot had gotten more votes than either Clinton or Bush, Perot would have gotten all of Wisconsin's electoral votes. There aren't any "special" rules that apply only to 3rd party candidates in the electoral college voting process. Note*, the vote totals in Wisconsin show that between them, Bush and Perot, they got more votes combined than Clinton, Bush 36%+Perot's 21%=47% to Clinton's 41%.

I think your information is faulty so, I've posted the election results for the 1992 and 1996 Presidential election showing how much of the popular vote each candidate received, the electoral votes for each state and the totals. Below that is a link to a page explaining how the electoral college works.

I think we're going to stay with the Electoral College arrangement. We're a Republic after all and we don't want the mob rule of a democracy although that's been the wet dream of Marxists for a very long time. But since whatever the Marxists want can't be good for America, we'll keep the current system, thank you very much.
http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/elections/96-92electoral-college.shtml
http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm

posted October 04, 2004 12:37 PM            

quote:

---

Oh Really, then how do you explain exactly is going after al-Queda when Bush pulled out as many troops as possible(like maybe all of them?)to pave a clear and broad way to distribute WMDs through the channels of Asia like in Hong Kong and Singapore?
quote:That was one of the reasons for going after Saddam, who had chemical and biological weapons

---

I wonder why you weren't wetting yourself when Saddam was killing about a million Iraqi's and other Muslims over the last 30 years Ozone? If you want to see the killing of innocent Iraqi citizens stop Ozone, you should get in touch with you pals Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other foreign terrorists in Iraq who are setting off bombs in market places and near schools, as they did today.

I say your pals Ozone because your rhetoric is directly in their favor. Kerry's rhetoric too. They must just love it when Americans and that phony baloney Kerry badmouth our government and the military mission in Iraq. Aid and comfort to the enemy Ozone. Loud and clear.

quote:

---

OK, then where are these chemical and biological weapons? OH! I know, Bush made it perfectly clear where they might be and it's all in the footage of him joking around and searching through his office,"Are they over here? Nope! Are they over there? Nope! They have to be somewhere!", Remember that laugh JW? All those innocent people that died(and I already know what your about to say, "You saying that those terrorist are innocent, OZONE?!")NO JW! I'm talking about the civilians over there in Iraq that had to die and it's all a big joke to Bush and his rich golf buddies! Nothing like smelling young dead bodies in the morning hey JW?!

---

Sometimes I really wonder about you Ozone. Saddam definitely had biological and chemical weapons and was working on nuclear weapons. I never said he had transferred them to al-Queda. Neither did the President. Part of the mission in Iraq was to insure Saddam DIDN'T transfer them to al-Queda and/or other terrorists. What is it that you don't understand Ozone? Saddam Hussein was a terrorist, a terrorist who gave funding, sanctuary and training to other terrorists in Iraq.

quote:

---

[quote:Hmmm Ozone, al-Queda deciding to use nuclear weapons and al-Queda actually having the nuclear weapons to use against the US are two entirely different things.

AWWWW! but this all just contrast to everything that was just said in the very same post! How do you do that JW? First you say that Bush had to stop al-Queda and Saddam and then you say that even though they might think about using nuclear weapons, there's even a good chance that they might not even have WMDs either!
How do you figure this all out JW?!

---

posted October 04, 2004 01:24 PM              

no one told me that jwhop its not what i said.....i was talking about the total count of ELECTORAL votes in the whole country....lol

"i think the perot example shows that a third party would NEED an overwhelming majority to even get near to a say 49% of electoral votes , splitting the other 2 candidates with like 25% each , yet still handing the vote to the house"- petron

"Petron, any candidate would need 50.18588% or more of the electoral college votes to be elected"-jwhop

posted October 04, 2004 02:34 PM              

PRESIDENT BUSH: "Iraqis and their leaders are engaged in a great and historic enterprise to establish a new democracy at the heart of a vital region. "

As killers have attempted to assassinate government officials, Iraq's leaders have refused to be intimidated, and the vast majority of Iraqis remain committed to democracy.

If elections go forward, democracy in Iraq will put down permanent roots

The fourth step in our plan is to enlist additional international support for Iraq's transition to democracy

I don't know if you remember that period or not, but there was a period where some were saying that it wasn't possible for democracy to come forward in Afghanistan.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040923-8.html

so jwhop, why arent we trying to turn iraq into a republic??
theres lots of card carrying republican guards still there.......

posted October 04, 2004 03:10 PM            

I once sent Ronald Reagan a letter when he used Democracy, referring to the American system of government. I told him "it makes the passengers a little apprehensive when the Captain of the ship doesn't know whether he's commanding a battleship or a rowboat."
I doubt he ever saw that letter and I didn't get a reply.

As to what is going to be the ultimate outcome of the Iraqi elections, I don't know what the exact form will be. Would you argue that either a democracy or a Republic would be worse than the dictatorship under Saddam Hussein?

Listen Petron, I think it perfectly normal, natural and beneficial that a foreign leader would get some help, language wise, delivery wise and content wise, when making a major speech to the United States Congress. I also think it wise Allawi would get some help by recommending actions in a country just delivered from the yoke of dictatorship. Allawi is an interim leader...elections are coming in January.

Do you have any clue how long it took to fully implement representative government in Germany and Japan after WWII? I doubt you do.

Do you have any idea how long allied forces battled insurgents there, insurgents intent on making sure representative government was NOT instituted and after that to make sure it failed? I doubt you have any idea about that either.

Iraq is proceeding much faster towards representative government than either Japan or Germany did and with less trouble, less widespread trouble and much less expenditure of American money...when adjusted for inflation.

posted October 04, 2004 05:23 PM              

and yes of course after wwii the u.s. turned the weimar REPUBLIC into the federal REPUBLIC of germany(west germany)
the beginning of the cold war led to massive aid from the western allies (especially through the u.s. marshall plan) pouring into what was to become the federal REPUBLIC of germany. From 1947 onwards life improved in general and later germany became the 3rd most powerful economy in the world......supplying poison gas factories to the REPUBLIC of iraq

i know of the resistance groups in germany after wwii, do you? then explain it to me....i'd like to know how many u.s.soldiers died after taking berlin please...
of course most the high ranking nazi war criminals fled europe to right wing REPUBLICS in south america

and jwhop are you comparing the invasion of Hitler controlled europe (and the rebuilding)to the invasion(and rebuilding) of the Republic of Iraq??

posted October 04, 2004 11:20 PM            

quote:

---

so the REPUBLIC of Iraq was a dictatorship jwhop? is that a conspiracy theory?
or at what point did it switch from a REPUBLIC to a dictatorship? .....perhaps in trying to invade and occupy other countries?like the islamic REPUBLIC of iran?

---

posted October 05, 2004 02:07 AM            

quote:

---

I once sent Ronald Reagan a letter when he used Democracy, referring to the American system of government. I told him "it makes the passengers a little apprehensive when the Captain of the ship doesn't know whether he's commanding a battleship or a rowboat."

---

posted October 05, 2004 11:54 PM            

Next thing that anybody here will ever know is you guys stating that the banner that stands behind those terrorist(that have done all those beheadings), really says "I Ozonefiller!"!

I'm not worried though, Kerry will win anyway and all of this will be forgotten by most anyway! Oh well! *shrugs shoulders*

posted October 06, 2004 10:48 PM            

First you said this...

quote:

---

Ozone, from your post, you should be a Bush voter. It's Bush taking the actions intended to prevent al-Queda from getting their hands of chemical/biological/nuclear weapons in the first place. That was one of the reasons for going after Saddam, who had chemical and biological weapons.

---

And then you said this...

quote:

---

Sometimes I really wonder about you Ozone. Saddam definitely had biological and chemical weapons and was working on nuclear weapons. I never said he had transferred them to al-Queda. Neither did the President. Part of the mission in Iraq was to insure Saddam DIDN'T transfer them to al-Queda and/or other terrorists. What is it that you don't understand Ozone? Saddam Hussein was a terrorist, a terrorist who gave funding, sanctuary and training to other terrorists in Iraq.

---

U.S. Report Finds No Evidence of Iraq WMD
U.S. Report Finds No Evidence Saddam Made Weapons After 1991, but Maintains Regime Was a Threat

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON Oct. 6, 2004 — Contradicting the main argument for a war that has cost more than 1,000 American lives, the top U.S. arms inspector said Wednesday he found no evidence that Iraq produced any weapons of mass destruction after 1991. He also concluded that Saddam Hussein's capabilities to develop such weapon had dimmed not grown during a dozen years of sanctions before last year's U.S. invasion.
Contrary to prewar statements by President Bush and top administration officials, Saddam did not have chemical and biological stockpiles when the war began and his nuclear capabilities were deteriorating, not advancing, said Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group.

The findings come less than four weeks before an election in which Bush's handling of Iraq has become the central issue. Democratic candidate John Kerry has seized on comments by the former U.S. administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, that the United States did not have enough troops in Iraq to prevent lawlessness after Saddam was toppled.

The inspector's report could boost Kerry's contention that Bush rushed to war based on faulty intelligence and that United Nations sanctions and U.N. weapons inspectors should have been given more time.

But Duelfer also supports Bush's argument that Saddam remained a threat. Interviews with the toppled leader and other former Iraqi officials made clear that Saddam had not lost his ambition to pursue weapons of mass destruction and hoped to revive his weapons program if U.N. sanctions were lifted, his report said.

"What is clear is that Saddam retained his notions of use of force, and had experiences that demonstrated the utility of WMD," Duelfer told Congress.

Campaigning in Pennsylvania, Bush defended the decision to invade.

"There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks," Bush said in a speech in Wilkes Barre, Pa. "In the world after Sept. 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take."

But a top Democrat in Congress, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, said Duelfer's findings undercut the two main arguments for war: that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he would share them with terrorists like al-Qaida.

"We did not go to war because Saddam had future intentions to obtain weapons of mass destruction," said Levin, ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Under questioning from Levin, Duelfer said his report found that aluminum tubes suspected of being used for enriching uranium for use in a nuclear bomb were likely destined for conventional rockets and that there is no evidence Iraq sought uranium abroad after 1991. Both findings contradict claims made by Bush and other top administration officials before the war the Bush administration before the war.

He also found no evidence of trailers being used to develop biological weapons, Duelfer said, although he said he couldn't flatly declare that none existed.

Traveling in Africa, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the report shows Saddam was "doing his best" to evade the U.N. sanctions.

Duelfer presented his findings in a report of more than 1,000 pages, and in appearances before the Armed Services Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The report avoids direct comparisons with prewar claims by the Bush administration on Iraq's weapons systems. But Duelfer largely reinforces the conclusions of his predecessor, David Kay, who said in January, "We were almost all wrong" on Saddam's weapons programs. The White House did not endorse Kay's findings then, noting Duelfer's team was still searching for weapons.

Duelfer found that Saddam, hoping to end U.N. sanctions, gradually began ending prohibited weapons programs starting in 1991. But as Iraq started receiving money through the U.N. oil-for-food program in the late 1990s, and as enforcement of the sanctions weakened, Saddam was able to take steps to rebuild his military, such as acquiring parts for missile systems.

However, the erosion of sanctions stopped after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Duelfer found, preventing Saddam from pursuing weapons of mass destruction.

"He was making progress in eroding sanctions a lot of sanctions," Duelfer told Congress. "And had it not been for the events of 9-11-2001, things would have taken a very different course for the regime."

Duelfer's team found no written plans by Saddam's regime to pursue banned weapons if U.N. sanctions were lifted. Instead, the inspectors based their findings that Saddam hoped to reconstitute his programs on interviews with Saddam after his capture, as well as talks with other top Iraqi officials.

The inspectors found Saddam was particularly concerned about the threat posed by Iran, the country's enemy in a 1980-88 war. Saddam said he would meet Iran's threat by any means necessary, which Duelfer understood to mean weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam believed his use of chemical weapons against Iran prevented Iraq's defeat in that war. He also was prepared to use such weapons in 1991 if the U.S.-led coalition had tried to topple him in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday that Saddam was "a gathering threat that needed to be taken seriously, that it was a matter of time before he was going to begin pursuing those weapons of mass destruction."

But before the war, the Bush administration cast Saddam as an immediate threat, not a gathering threat.

For example, Bush said in October 2002 that "Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more." Bush also said then, "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

Interviews with Saddam left Duelfer's team with the impression Saddam was more concerned about Iran and Israel as enemies than he was about the United States. Saddam appeared to hold out hope that U.S. leaders ultimately would recognize that it was in the country's interest to deal with Iraq as an important, secular, oil-rich Middle Eastern nation, the report found.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20041006_2262.html

Geee JW, what is it that I don't understand?!