posted on July 14, 2004 07:34:31 AM new
LOL not afraid... but wanted fariness across the country... at that time the New England states would of decided every election...
I am curious you do know what popular vote is?
I don't have to assume anything, based on populations the most populous states would decide elections...
posted on July 14, 2004 08:50:58 AM new
The popular vote is the total of the individual votes. It is the vote cast by each person. It is the vote of the people.
Do you have a differnt definition?
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 14, 2004 08:52:07 AM new
But Twelve - The number of electorial votes is decided by the population of the state so what is the difference between California having the largest number of individual voters and California having the largest number o f electorial votes?
If anything I would think that you would find the "all or nothing" aspect of electorial vote counting where the winner of a state gets all of the electorial votes as opposed to the appriariate percentage of votes going into the final count.
Individual voting is the only way for a fair decision based on the desires of the country as a whole. When you are electing a president they are representing the country as a whole, not individual states and their interests. States should not have a vote, people should.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on July 14, 2004 09:27:54 AM new
I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand this concept...
With the electoral votes going to the winner of the state... it takes 270 electoral votes for the President to be eleceted...
If you use popular vote... in reality those voting in Alaska and Rhode Island or any other state would not really have their votes count...
However even though President Bush wins CA, FL, NY and texas... he still cannot win the election with electoral style... if he were to win those states with "popular" vote... he would most assured win the election...
Electoral system makes it fair across the board... but in reality we would not even be having this discussion had gore won, now would we?
posted on July 14, 2004 10:13:12 AM new
Twelve - What I don't get is why you think that states should decide the presidency as opposed to people.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on July 14, 2004 11:51:45 AM new
It is not the total number of votes from one state. It is the total number of votes for each candidate period.
Let's make this easier for Twelve to understand.
If there were 10,000 votes cast in an election between Clinton, Bush and Perot.
Clinton received 3,000 total votes
Bush received 3,000 total votes
Perot received 4,000 total votes.
Perot would be the winner of the election.
This has nothing to do with the number or the size of the state each candidate won. The electoral college is not involved. The winner was chose based the total number of votes the people cast - the popular vote.
This is not a difficult concept to understand. It is winner take all and a fifth grader could understand this concept.
Twelve if you are still having problems with this concept, I suggest taking a civics class.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 14, 2004 12:01:09 PM new
WASHINGTON - The Senate dealt an election-year defeat Wednesday to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, rejecting pleas from President Bush and fellow conservatives that the measure was needed to safeguard an institution that has flourished for thousands of years.
The vote was 48-50, 12 short of the 60 needed to keep the measure alive.
“I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance,” said Sen. Rick Santorum, a leader in the fight to approve the measure. “Isn’t that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?”
But Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle said there was no “urgent need” to amend the Constitution. “Marriage is a sacred union between men and women. That is what the vast majority of Americans believe. It’s what virtually all South Dakotans believe. It’s what I believe.”
"In South Dakota, we’ve never had a single same sex marriage and we won’t have any,” he said. “It’s prohibited by South Dakota law as it is now in 38 other states. There is no confusion. There is no ambiguity.”
Supporters conceded in advance they would fail to win the support needed to advance the measure, and vowed to renew their efforts.
“I don’t think it’s going away after this vote,” Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Tuesday on the eve of the test vote. “I think the issue will remain alive,” he added.
Whatever its future in Congress, there also were signs that supporters of the amendment intended to use it in the campaign already unfolding.
“The institution of marriage is under fire from extremist groups in Washington, politicians, even judges who have made it clear that they are willing to run over any state law defining marriage,” Republican senatorial candidate John Thune says in a radio commercial airing in South Dakota. “They have done it in Massachusetts and they can do it here,” adds Thune, who is challenging Daschle for his seat.
“Thune’s ad suggests that some are using this amendment more to protect the Republican majority than to protect marriage,” said Dan Pfeiffer, a spokesman for Daschle’s campaign.
At issue was an amendment providing that marriage within the United States “shall consist only of a man and a woman.”
A second sentence said that neither the federal nor any state constitution “shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.” Some critics argue that the effect of that provision would be to ban civil unions, and its inclusion in the amendment complicated efforts by GOP leaders to gain support from wavering Republicans.
Bush urged the Republican-controlled Congress last February to approve a constitutional amendment, saying it was needed to stop judges from changing the definition of the “most enduring human institution.”
Bush’s fall rival, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, opposes the amendment, as does his vice presidential running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. Both men skipped the vote.
The odds have never favored passage in the current Congress, in part because many Democrats oppose it, but also because numerous conservatives are hesitant to overrule state prerogatives on the issue.
At the same time, Republican strategists contend the issue could present a difficult political choice to Democrats, who could be pulled in one direction by polls showing that a majority of voters oppose gay marriage, and pulled in the other by homosexual voters and social liberals who support it. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken in March showed about four in 10 support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and half oppose it.
Democrats said that Bush and Republicans were using the issue to distract attention from the war in Iraq and the economy.
“The issue is not ripe. It is not needed. It’s a waste of our time. We should be dealing with other issues,” said Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut.
But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court had thrust the matter upon the Senate. The ruling opened the way for same sex marriages in the state, and Frist predicted the impact would eventually be far broader.
“Same-sex marriage will be exported to all 50 states. The question is no longer whether the Constitution will be amended. The only question is who will amend it and how will it be amended,” he added.
He said the choice was “activist judges” on the one hand and lawmakers on the other.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 14, 2004 12:17:25 PM new
You know logansdad why not give it a rest. We know your opinion which is biased.
Chicago has been known for it's crooked voting. Remember the slogan "Vote early Vote Often" Well that was started in Chicago because that is what they did to swing the votes. Chicago voting was and maybe still is very corrupt.
Now back to voting.
Then you mean the state of Wisconsin doesn't even have to hold an election because we don't have enough electoral college votes for a president to win. Go tell that to Bush and Kerry who have been here a total of over 11 times so that they can get the wisconsin votes.
Also tell me why Gore didn't want the absentee ballots from the service men counted in the florida election?
Did you not understand anything I said. A election based on the popular vote is a winner-take-all election. There is no electoral college involved. It is as if you were electing a mayor or governor. The person that receives the majority vote wins, end of story. Not a difficult concept to understand.
This is not the way a president is chosen now. My arguments were based on Linda's comment of a president that is chosen by the people. Until the presidental election process is changed the electoral college really elects the president, not the people.
Now go back to milking your cows, eating your cheese and drinking your beer because I feel this concept is to much for you to understand.
You know logansdad why not give it a rest. We know your opinion which is biased.
LIKE YOUR OPINION IS NOT. AND NO, I WILL NOT GIVE IT A REST, SUSNHINE. IF YOU DON'T TO SEE MY OPINION THEN PUT ME ON IGNORE.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 14, 2004 12:37:37 PM new
Libra - what are you talking about? I guess I am lost as to how your last two statements have anything to do with the discussion at hand.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on July 14, 2004 12:41:22 PM new
logansdad, do you really milk cows? We milk goats, 6 of them twice a day....
___________________________________
Beware the man of one book.
- Thomas Aquinas
posted on July 14, 2004 12:43:10 PM new
oops, I guess I meant Libra....
___________________________________
Beware the man of one book.
- Thomas Aquinas
posted on July 14, 2004 01:53:12 PM new
I'm sure he knew, as I do, that milking is one of the most enjoyable chores. Meditative, calming. You have to sort of center yourself and calm down, otherwise the doe or cow will tense up and not let you have any milk. My boy likes it too, and usually does most of it. It's a great chore for a kid....gives him some contemplative time alone with the animals and a quiet chance to plan or just daydream...
___________________________________
Beware the man of one book.
- Thomas Aquinas
posted on July 14, 2004 02:04:20 PM new
Bovine Dairying is a great life. The only drawback is no vacations and no days off. It's the cows twice a day every day. Their udders don't know it's xmas or thanksgiving, or if you're sick.
posted on July 14, 2004 02:31:09 PM new
Fenix What I am saying Wisconsin is the state most likely to help one or the other win the election. It is a very important state but it has only 11 electorial votes so yes you see the popular vote does count. The more that vote for which candadite they get the electorial vote. The votes that are given to the electoral college are the ones who win the popular vote.
The other pertained to the comment logansdad made about the vote in chicago would probably win in the election in illinois. Chicago voting is known for it's corrupt voting. The slogan they used was vote early vote often which many voters did vote many times during the day in one election.
posted on July 14, 2004 02:41:46 PM new
The electoral college's purpose was to give a "super" effect to each state's majority to attend to the regional differences in the country. No region's issues could be totally ignored, or done so at the presidential candidates peril.
These regional differences are virtually gone.
People in New York are concerned about the Alaskan wilderness, just as those on South Carolina are concerned about water issues in Nevada.
The regionalism has almost disappeared due to access to media and the transient population.
No one considers their home state to be their permanent domicile anymore. People retire and move, lose their jobs and move, or they vacation or want to vacation in other regions.
posted on July 14, 2004 02:50:53 PM new
Libra - just for clarification - Wisconsin is considered one of the 10 major mbattlefield states this year (along with Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, Florida, Maine & New Hampshire) If you want to read some interesting info on the college and this years election, check out this article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4415235
Also consider that if every state votes exactly the same as in 2000 but Edwards is able to deliver North carolia - Bush losses.
It is going to be an interesting season ... and I think those of us in California can cout on not a single visit this time from Bush.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on July 14, 2004 09:11:14 PM new
LMAO reamond got caught stealing others work and trying to get people to think it was his own... now wants to call me a queer...
Plagerizing thief... all you are reaomond... I have caught you time and again of using others work as your own...
What's the matter no imagination of your own? or just to stupid?
posted on July 15, 2004 06:33:46 AM new
Gay Marriage Opponents Pin Hopes on House
1 hour, 53 minutes ago
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
WASHINGTON - Unable to ban gay marriage, congressional Republicans are working to contain it, advancing legislation in the House to make sure federal courts don't order states to recognize same-sex unions sanctioned outside their borders.
"When federal judges step out of line, Congress has the responsibility to drop the red flag," Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said Wednesday as the court-stripping measure cleared the House Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) on a near party-line vote of 21-13.
Democrats objected, some strenuously. Rep. Maxine Waters of California called the legislation a political exercise, and Rep. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, the first openly gay woman elected to Congress, criticized it as "unnecessary, unconstitutional and unwise."
Even so, GOP officials said the measure likely would be on the House floor next week, and they expressed confidence it would pass.
If so, it would mark a clear victory for gay marriage opponents, who suffered a decisive setback Wednesday in the Senate when the constitutional amendment fell a dozen votes shy of the 60 needed to advance.
Within hours of the vote in which 48 senators voted to advance the measure and 50 to block it, President Bush (news - web sites) issued a statement saying he was "deeply disappointed" by the outcome but calling it a temporary setback.
"Activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are not letting up in their efforts to redefine marriage for the rest of America and neither should defenders of traditional marriage flag in their efforts," he added.
"It is important for our country to continue the debate on this important issue, and I urge the House of Representatives to pass this amendment," the president said.
Bush wasn't the only one who seemed eager to extend an election-year debate over the issue.
"We know now which senators are for traditional marriage and which ones are not, and by November so will voters in every state," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. "This fight has just begun."
Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, which opposed the amendment, expressed little concern about political repercussions. "I think the discussion will continue to play out but I think they played their best hand today and couldn't even get a simple majority," she said of the Senate vote.
Bush's public prodding alone assures the issue will persist into the fall, and Republican strategists have said they hope the issue can be put to use against Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), the Democratic presidential nominee-in-waiting.
Kerry, D-Mass., skipped the Senate vote. He issued a statement renewing his opposition to the amendment and accusing Republicans of seeking to alter the constitution for political gain.
"The unfortunate result is that the important work of the American people — funding our homeland security needs, creating new and better jobs, and raising the minimum wage — is not getting done," he said.
Bush urged Congress last winter to pass an amendment banning gay marriage, but prospects have never been good that supporters could amass the two-thirds majority in the House and Senate needed to send the measure to the states for ratification.
Most Democratic lawmakers oppose the proposal, and some conservative Republicans in both houses objected to stepping on terrain traditionally reserved for the states.
The legislation advancing in the House is designed to address the concerns raised by GOP dissidents, and solidify Republican support.
"This simply defers to the states," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
Under the measure, federal courts would be stripped of jurisdiction over federal legislation that gives states the right to decide whether to recognize same sex marriages.
Republican officials also said it was possible they would stage other votes on gay marriage before the fall elections.
The possibilities include a measure to prevent the Washington, D.C., city government from recognizing gay marriages.
In addition, several officials said a constitutional amendment may be brought to the floor in the fall, closer to the election.
This will let the states decide and not be encumbered by other states... Great Move Congress!
posted on July 15, 2004 06:57:34 AM new
I am getting burnt out on this issue. Maybe if the gay community would settle for civil unions (for now)and give some breathing room with the term marriage there wouldn't be so much hoopla about it. There's got to be more important things going on.
posted on July 15, 2004 07:25:13 AM new
neroter, homosexuals made this an issue in an election year... it will be topic all through the election... kerry will have to take a stance and stand by it...
There are other just as important issues, however with the law breakers in CA, OR and other states, there has to be some action take now.
posted on July 15, 2004 07:46:07 AM newWhat's next hetero and gay washrooms, diners, fountains?
stretching pretty deep there dave, all the house is trying to do is make sure that the states can decide this issue without interfernce from activist judges...
Thought that is what everyone wanted for the states to handle this?
It is you who can't have it both ways... no amendment and no protection for the states...
posted on July 15, 2004 07:55:03 AM newPlagerizing thief... all you are reaomond... I have caught you time and again of using others work as your own...
12 you have never caught me using others work as my own. What a desperate liar you are.
You need to get counseling and in the meantime STAY OUT OF PUBLIC RESTROOMS AND MEN'S LOCKER ROOMS.
posted on July 15, 2004 08:01:02 AM new
twelve, Kerry just like many of the politicians (chaney with his daughter) are inbetween a rock and a hard place with this.
Kerry is catholic. I've heard him say he can hold his own personal views without involving state matters. I think any one with any type of religious conviction would have to, to reconcile that with themselves to be in politics at all.
I've said before they shouldn't try to call their union marriage. I think they have to give straights a chance to get used to the initial idea in the first place. (Not withstanding those totally against it like yourself twelve.)
posted on July 15, 2004 08:02:40 AM new
LMAO you got caught and are now dancing like Judy Garland...
I have caught you numerous times and the thread in EO just proves it, you gave no recognition to the author whatsoever.... You pass that off as no one would think I wrote that...
That means everyone knows your to stupid to write something like that or you wanted to fool people... which was it?
You consistently use others words as your own and I am going to call you on it everytime, but you know what lets ask the author of that article you copied without his name attached to see how he feels about it... shall we?
or at least the NY Times where you stole it from... you're a thief reamond and people need to know that your posts are not your words...
posted on July 15, 2004 08:05:15 AM new
redmond: if you cite somebody else's words and dont credit the source...are you plagerizing? I dont know if that applies to chat, but maybe when youre talking legal opinions?
posted on July 15, 2004 08:13:00 AM new
Pla´gia`rize
v. t. 1. To steal or purloin from the writings of another; to appropriate without due acknowledgement (the ideas or expressions of another).
[imp. & p. p. Plagiarized ; p. pr. & vb. n. Plagiarizing.]
