Quote:
|
Originally Posted by postalblowfish7
no, that's wrong.
1996 popular vote
Clinton: 47,402,357
Dole: 39,198,755
source: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe1996/summ.htm
1992 popular vote
Clinton: 44,909,806
Bush: 39,104,550
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._pr...election,_1992 |
Whoops. Forgive me, that was wrong -- I meant that Bush had managed to get a
majority of the Popular Vote, something Clinton never did. My mistake.
Quote:
|
and i still think that the system is breaking down, and it's time for a change. it's just TOO close these days - the last two elections have been absolutely ridiculous, with results extremely close to the margin of error. if the electoral votes had even been split by popular votes in the individual states, a clearer decision would have been made. one way or the other, democrat or republican, the whole not knowing election results till the next day 50/50 split thing is really getting old. if the country is this divided, i think a new system would benefit our election process.
|
How do you know splitting up the Electoral votes wouldn't just make more elections closer? The 2000 election was close, yes, but Bush came out the clear winner. The 2004 election wasn't very close, and Bush was the obvious winner. (Unless you buy into the BS concerning "rigged" voting machines in Ohio -- Kerry saw that Gore almost stole an election, and he figured he'd try it himself.) As for not knowing election results until the next day -- all it takes is staying up a few hours to know. It doesn't take that long for it to be all tallied up, and though it may take a while to get 100% confirmation, they'll usually know soon after polls close who's expected to win.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SelphieTilmitt
Not turning this topic into a political debate is going to be difficult. If you look at the logistics of the situation....The Electoral College in the way it is set up right now...doesn't work. It pisses too many people off around election time. For me, it pisses me off all the time. How could something that was established two hundred plus years ago still be in practice today? And not only in practice but being enforced?!?!
|
Really? Like the Constitution, you mean? Oh, so outdated and obsolete! [/sarcasm]
The Electoral College works just fine. It's worked for more than two hundred years, just fine. I'm sure it'll continue to work well into the future, just fine. There's absolutely no reason to change it. Oh, sorry, you get pissed off at it -- let's change the Constitution.
Quote:
|
Sasquatch....you are a complete moron, do some damn research before you come into the INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION FORUM and make remarks like you did in this thread!! Watch CNN, or the news, or take a damn history class! I dont' believe that someone could make such a statement. Did you watch the 2000 Election coverage on TV? After the results were in and it showed that GWB did not win the popular vote, but won the Electoral vote they said OVER AND OVER this was only the SECOND TIME IN HISTORY that a president lost the popular and still became president.
|
Now now, quit your bitching. I already admitted that I misspoke. Bush won a majority of the Popular Vote, something that Clinton didn't do. Thank you both for, err, "correcting me" on that.