|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 1:12 pm
Yes but, nevertheless, the number of people supporting the candidate is a lot smaller than the number of people supporting another candidate.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 3:59 pm
I.Am Yes but, nevertheless, the number of people supporting the candidate is a lot smaller than the number of people supporting another candidate. it's not. The number of people supporting party D is GREATER than the number supporting any of the other parties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 4:19 pm
No he's correct, he just worded it wrong. The number of people who voted for candidate D is smaller than the number of people who voted for all the other candidates, combined. In otherwords he's saying that D didn't have a majority vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:02 pm
Beware the Jabberwock No he's correct, he just worded it wrong. The number of people who voted for candidate D is smaller than the number of people who voted for all the other candidates, combined. In otherwords he's saying that D didn't have a majority vote. Ah. That's still a stupid reason to stay with the Electoral College, which provides that your vote doesn't actually mean anything. The EC is not required to vote as the people see fit, thus, they can vote all willy nilly if they so chose. Meaning, no, your vote really doesn't count as it now stands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:15 pm
I totally read "EC" as "Emergency Contraception" there and was completely confused. XD Total blonde moment.
*cough* That said; if everyone would just take my advice we'd all be better off. Convert to the Canadian way! Convert!
Soon you'll ALL be clubbing baby seals, and eating moose while watching the hockey game, and wearing toques.
That sounded more poetic than I intended it. >.>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:04 pm
   Good reason to not support everyone's vote directly counting: The majority of people are idiots.
All seriousness aside, I don't think it's perfect, but I like it better than the Canadian way. I mean, their way is sorta like ours except without the Prime Minister and with more parties, because Canada parties more than we do.
The electoral college doesn't provide that your vote means nothing. It provides that there are people who are elected to cast a vote for you, and the candidate with the most votes is the one who gets to cast the vote. The elector CAN go against the popular vote, but they usually don't.
Basically...you're voting for someone who will vote for you. The way it works in some states is that it's proportional...say there is a state with 5 electors. If 3/5ths of the population votes for Candidate A, then 3 of the electors will be from that party, and 2 from another party. In many states, though, it's set up so that the popular vote wins all of the electors...say 3/5ths vote for Candidate A, then all 5 electors will be in Candidate A's party.
If people decide not to vote since their votes don't count, then there will be an inaccurate portrayal of what the country wants, and even if the majority of people want Candidate A, well if many of those people didn't vote but most of Candidate B's supporters did, who wins the electors? Your vote counts, it just doesn't count directly. Electors don't usually want to vote against their party because they'll get a lot of s**t if they do, and they got elected in the first place so that they would vote FOR their party. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:13 pm
Actually Kate the Canadian governmental system and the American are extremely different. Canada is a constitutional monarchy, America is a Republic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:40 pm
Yes. But you still have more parties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:33 am
Beware the Jabberwock Actually Kate the Canadian governmental system and the American are extremely different. Canada is a constitutional monarchy, America is a Republic. Oh...my...god...Its a sad day when the canada-bags get that we're a republic and most of our own politicion's dont...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:16 pm
 
A bit on topic:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/magazine/11wwlnlede.t.htmlQuote: Young Americans, it turns out, are unexpectedly conservative on abortion but notably liberal on gay marriage. Given that 18- to 25-year-olds are the least Republican generation (35 percent) and less religious than their elders (with 20 percent of them professing no religion or atheism or agnosticism), it is curious that on abortion they are slightly to the right of the general public. Roughly a third of Gen Nexters endorse making abortion generally available, half support limits and 15 percent favor an outright ban. By contrast, 35 percent of 50- to 64-year-olds support readily available abortions. On gay marriage, there was not much of a generation gap in the 1980s, but now Gen Nexters stand out as more favorably disposed than the rest of the country. Almost half of them approve, compared with under a third of those over 25.
Interesting, eh? I knew the thing about our generation being less tolerant of abortion than other generations, but now I'm wondering about who was polled, in what regions, etc.
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:10 pm
So in other words, they want what they haven't got, it seems.
Gay marriage illegal? Make it legal!
Abortion legal? Make it illegal!
The only thing that really strikes me is that there was a reason abortion was voted legal in the first place.
I'm also curious about the limits placed. Health in general, or just life? Rape? Incest?
I don't have much faith for this generation anyway. >.<
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:42 pm
Well, if they're like me, they just want what they feel is right.
I think abortion is an issue of age discrimination. I think gay rights is an issue of sexual discrimination.
So I don't exactly see the conflict.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:45 pm
yeah, that seems pretty progressive for me- more rights for gays, more rights for the unborn- seems like this generation is for rights. which is a good thing, i would think
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:54 pm
Beware the Jabberwock Soon you'll ALL be clubbing baby seals, and eating moose while watching the hockey game, and wearing toques.
I don't wanna eat moose or seal! gonk And how sad is it when Buffalo loses to Atlanta? ATLANTA, PEOPLE. scream WHERE NO LAKES HAVE EVER FROZEN. Quote: Young Americans, it turns out, are unexpectedly conservative on abortion but notably liberal on gay marriage. Awesome. whee I didn't think I'd ever be proud to be an American again. divineseraph yeah, that seems pretty progressive for me- more rights for gays, more rights for the unborn Thank you. I don't know how the right to abortion ever became a "liberal" issue. OWAIT, propaganda. stare I'm actually kind of thankful for this discrepancy, as it's encouraged me to question both liberalism and conservatism. Don't mind me, I'm very, very drunk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:48 am
It makes sense to you that it's progressive, divineseraph, but only because you're pro-life. To me it seems regressive because it is taking the rights of the woman. But that's differing viewpoints.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
