Bush won the election because he won the STATES not the people
Majority didnt want him, he still got elected
Honestly if the system was changed to where the votes of the peoplecount directly, this will be a true democracy and a fair one at that
If you think that this isnt a better way of doing things then explain what is
Your saying it protects states from becoming too weak, and to do this they basically said 63 million people in the small and more prone to become weak states count the same amount as 252 million, waaaay more important and more prone to becoming powerful states
Is that such a bad thing?
Would you really want to sabotage 252 million people just to keep the 63 million that are left happy and relevant?
These 63 million are also not that big in the economy and contribute way too little to the general production of things in america. Oh hey wyoming, they make nothing, barley make any change in the economy, yet are worth the most out of everyone. Are these people gods or something.
If I had a say in the electoral process, i wouldn't use the college and you shouldnt either.
Majority didnt want him, he still got elected
Honestly if the system was changed to where the votes of the peoplecount directly, this will be a true democracy and a fair one at that
If you think that this isnt a better way of doing things then explain what is
Your saying it protects states from becoming too weak, and to do this they basically said 63 million people in the small and more prone to become weak states count the same amount as 252 million, waaaay more important and more prone to becoming powerful states
Is that such a bad thing?
Would you really want to sabotage 252 million people just to keep the 63 million that are left happy and relevant?
These 63 million are also not that big in the economy and contribute way too little to the general production of things in america. Oh hey wyoming, they make nothing, barley make any change in the economy, yet are worth the most out of everyone. Are these people gods or something.
If I had a say in the electoral process, i wouldn't use the college and you shouldnt either.
Werepirelord wrote:
How it feels to be Mitt Romney right now:
He phantoms another thread, hey werepirelord, are you going to stay long enough to give a legitimate argument or are you going to disappear into cyberspace again? I'm still waiting for
MrCuddowls wrote:
Bush won the election because he won the STATES not the people
Majority didnt want him, he still got elected
Honestly if the system was changed to where the votes of the peoplecount directly, this will be a true democracy and a fair one at that
If you think that this isnt a better way of doing things then explain what is
Your saying it protects states from becoming too weak, and to do this they basically said 63 million people in the small and more prone to become weak states count the same amount as 252 million, waaaay more important and more prone to becoming powerful states
Is that such a bad thing?
Would you really want to sabotage 252 million people just to keep the 63 million that are left happy and relevant?
These 63 million are also not that big in the economy and contribute way too little to the general production of things in america. Oh hey wyoming, they make nothing, barley make any change in the economy, yet are worth the most out of everyone. Are these people gods or something.
If I had a say in the electoral process, i wouldn't use the college and you shouldnt either.
Correct, in a system where you need electoral votes to win the presidency he gets office because he won the electorate. That's the way the system works. In regards to election, the system is flawed regardless as a winner-takes-all system. If you were to want true democratic representation, control would be split based on percentage vote. For example, if you get 46% of the vote, you get 46% of the 'seats' so to speak.
In regards to your last post, I would first implore you to use proper english or at the very least compose a sentence that makes sense. In any case, that's a pretty steep exaggeration and wouldn't realistically happen, because that's assuming someone gets literally every single vote in the other states and the contested state lines break 51-49%. I don't really deal with hypotheticals, in anycase, you're also implying that all 300 million americans vote, when the number is much lower, about 150-165 million americans that vote. I don't really know what your rant about the economy was about, because it literally has nothing to do with your argument. Are you trying to say that Wyoming doesn't matter because it doesn't provide anything to the economy? If you are then you're contradicting yourself because you're the one who wants a "peoplecount" vote
Thanks for the Signature MissMaw!
@Moonites
Well Moonites, I am always watching, waiting for the best time to comment.
But on that matter, I think Obama is by far better than Bush or our wobbly Lord forgive Romney.
For example the healthcare was really good, a thing America lacked in comparison to other high standart countries.
Please tell me why in your opinion Romney would have benn better in any way.
EDIT: Oh, and we have won a far greater victory today, finally, finaly Teemo is beeing removed from the game.
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=2771527
Well Moonites, I am always watching, waiting for the best time to comment.
But on that matter, I think Obama is by far better than Bush or our wobbly Lord forgive Romney.
For example the healthcare was really good, a thing America lacked in comparison to other high standart countries.
Please tell me why in your opinion Romney would have benn better in any way.
EDIT: Oh, and we have won a far greater victory today, finally, finaly Teemo is beeing removed from the game.
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=2771527
I'm streets ahead. If you don't get it you're streets behind.
Werepirelord wrote:
@Moonites
Well Moonites, I am always watching, waiting for the best time to comment.
But on that matter, I think Obama is by far better than Bush or our wobbly Lord forgive Romney.
For example the healthcare was really good, a thing America lacked in comparison to other high standart countries.
Please tell me why in your opinion Romney would have benn better in any way.
Yes isn't health care wonderful. The average cost of health insurance for Americans has already increased by $2,500 annually, it's on pace to increase another $2,500 in the next two years. But this is the affordable health insurance for all we were promised right? Wrong, the government lied about health care, the average middle class American which the president championed with this bill was coincidentally stuck with a higher bill each month. As far as "high standard countries" we don't really care what you people in EU think, I mean I wouldn't exactly call the EU the pinnacle of democracy or economy, given it's current state, would you?
As far as why Romney is a better choice, let's examen Obama's presidency. Now I do think Romney was a decent candidate, not my first choice, but overall I thought he was more appealing than McCain. All in all the Obama administration has been a colossal failure. Total economic failure, total foreign policy failure, and he has failed on a number of domestic promises made in his previous campaigns.
Let's start economically:
- unemployment is now than when he took office, last I check, unemployment was sitting at a pretty 8.3% compared to 7.8% when he took office, it hit nearly 10% nation wide before it started to come down. There are some areas of the country that still sit at 10% unemployment. He promised to lower unemployment to 5% and he failed that promise
- he gave massive bailouts to the auto industry, specifically General Motors and Chrysler. By any sane economic judgement these have been absolute busts. 70% of General Motors sales are to government agencies, the company can't stand on its own, even today GM stocks look grim.
- He gave an $800 billion dollar stimulus package in which only 8% of the entire $800 billion actually went into the US economy. And then he has the audacity to call it a success and claim that we need ANOTHER bailout. Who the hell does he think he is?
- The US deficit rose by $4 trillion dollars over 4 years, it rose by 1/3 of its total amount under his presidency, total fiscal irresponsibility
- to add insult to injury, he passed Obamacare, and as I stated before, the middle class of America is picking up the tab for his project, and they're not getting any better coverage than they would have with private coverage.
- he's raised taxes on the wealthy and on business owners so that our economy is totally crippled. He's so blind he can't even see that when you raise taxes on corporations or business owners, they higher less people.
Moving on to other issues I guess we can examine foreign affairs
- Obama has failed to place sanctions on Iran in an attempt to deter their nuclear development. The continue to develop nuclear weapons without any repercussions, and I suspect that Iran will go nuclear under this presidency. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama sat on his hands while it happened, despite his insistence that he does not want a nuclear Iran.
- He's left Israel out to dry, going on an apology tour across the middle east, bowing to their rulers, and actively allowing radical Islam to grow without any attempts to counter the rise of Islamic terrorism.
- Details are now emerging from "Fast & Furious" that the Obama administration opened the doors to selling arms to Mexican drug cartels which were turned on our own US officials, slaughtering them
- The Benghazi details are also leaking. New reports show that Obama totally mismanaged the situation and ignored repeated calls for increased security at the US embassy in Benghazi, Libya where 4 US officials were murdered. In fact, despite the request for more security, a month prior to the 9/11 anniversary, Obama withdraw security from the region, and he PERSONALLY ordered General David Patreus of the CIA to "stand down" at the request for security AS THE EMBASSY WAS BEING ATTACKED!
- To spit in the face of Americans, he's lied to them about what happened and his response to the request for more security. Hell, it's been over a month and the American public still hasn't gotten a clear response from the president. It took him two weeks to figure out that this was an act of terrorism and not a response to a youtube video, as if that was even a plausible theory.
- Here's a guy who even called for Mubarak, the former president of Egypt, to step down, when Egypt was one of the United States few allies in the middle east. I think he found the latest election results to be rather disappointing, as Egypt chose to elect the Muslim Brotherhood into office and we have lost an ally in the region. A major political blunder.
To add a few other points,
- he promised to close Guantanamo Bay and he hasn't
- he promised an immigration bill, and we have failed to see one
- he promised labor reform for employees in regards to sick days, etc. and never got it passed
- he promised to allow Americans to read the bill for 5 days before he signed it, he didn't do that once
- He promised more transparency, but it took him 2 years to release his birth certificate, he has yet to release his grades from Harvard (a custom in America), he's covered up 'Fast & Furious', the American public still doesn't know what happened in Benghazi, and we never actually got to find out what was in the health care mandate until it was passed
- hilarious, in response to all the promises he's failed to keep, he states, "I didn't promise to get everything done". Which basically says, "I didn't promise to keep promises"
I mean, I could go on and on, I guess the real question isn't why I would want Romney, but why would I want another 4 years of colossal economic failure, failed foreign policy, and the mishandling of domestic issues?
Whether or not you have an opinion is besides the point, because it's pretty evident from all your posts vagueness, that you don't understand anything about politics within this country. And from what I've seen you don't even understand what goes on in Europe. You can have any opinion you like or even disagree with me, but be prepared to back it up, with atleast a legitimate reason.
Thanks for the Signature MissMaw!
The above is true, but the fact that the poor get too stay in their houses a little longer outways all that. People would be kicked out of homes and sent on the streets, and the rich will get richer. Middle class will have a harder time keeping up than before, and i think these things alone influenced the vote by a lot.
MrCuddowls wrote:
The above is true, but the fact that the poor get too stay in their houses a little longer outways all that. People would be kicked out of homes and sent on the streets, and the rich will get richer. Middle class will have a harder time keeping up than before, and i think these things alone influenced the vote by a lot.
you were just complaining about how the electoral process causes millions to suffer for a small minority, now you're telling me that it's okay that a majority of americans are suffering under this presidency so that a minority of people can stay in their homes? I think you need to seriously examine what you say, because there are major flaws and contradictions to what you believe
Thanks for the Signature MissMaw!
You need to log in before commenting.
What I mean is that the world is releived that we didn't get another Warcrazy president in the US.
we're still in Afghanistan and Iraq are we not? 70% of all military deaths from those wars occurred during the Obama presidency. Who's the warcrazy president here?
So are you saying its OK to have a system that can easily be taken advantage of?
I Already gave a prime example of what a candidate could do in my first post
They won all those small STATES which hold only 1/5th of the population (Notice how I capitalized States and not people)
They won 50.19% of the electoral votes, with only 22% of the population voting for him and a whole 78% voting against him. I Bet those 78% must have felt pretty ****ing cheated. Wouldn't you after seeing just 63 million people win a man an election and disregard an entire 252 million people and who they want to be president?
TLDR
Basically what im saying is its not ****ing right for 22 percent of the entire population to equal HALF the electoral votes, That is completely ****ed up and indefensible
Even Shorter TLDR
63000000 =/= 252000000
explain to me how the system is taken advantage of? The system protects states from becoming too powerful or weak, which is what the founding fathers wanted. And that's the way it works in a winner-take-all system, nobody said it's perfect, but if you don't like it, how about you try democracy in South America or Africa, I think you'd agree that the system we have has flaws, but it's still the greatest system in the world.
In regards to 22%, Given the fact that on a good election, only 50-60% of Americans vote, and that the vote is generally fairly even as far as a split, your average president is only getting about 30% of the nations vote. The same is true with Romney, right now when I checked this morning Romney is only down by 3 million votes to Obama. That's a pretty tight election even if he lost pretty soundly in the electoral process. Given that you're an Obama supporter, the electoral process may turn out to favor you in this election if Romney wins the popular vote (don't suspect it will happen) but none-the-less, it can go either way. For example in 2000 Gore won the popular vote, bush won the election. The same is true here more or less, the electoral process doesn't give a true representation of how close the election was. Besides, the system doesn't discriminate for one party over another, it can happen to either party