Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] Resume of George W. Bush

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Tanner Lovelace <lovelace AT wayfarer.org>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Resume of George W. Bush
  • Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:11:38 -0500

Tarus Balog wrote:
Uh, Tanner ... Happy Non-Sectarian Winter Holiday!

Hi Tarus. Happy Holidays to you too. :-)

When I read this, like I assume most others on the list, I inserted the word "popular", as in "500,000 popular votes". The meaning of the writer was clear: the majority of people in this country who voted wanted the other guy in the White House. I think only one other

Hmm... Call me a stickler for accuracy then. But, then again, I
tend to correct people when they say the US is a democracy. (It's not,
for those of you keeping score at home, it's a republic.)

president (Harrison?) won the electoral college but lost the popular

There have been four presidents who won after losing the popular vote*:

John Quincy Adams in 1824 over Andrew Jackson (this actually ended up
in the House of Representatives because neither won a majority
in the Electoral College)
Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 over Samuel J. Tilden (small states made
the difference here)
Benjamin Harrison in 1888 over Grover Cleveland (score one point for
Tarus :-)
and...
Bush over Gore.

* http://people.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college2.htm

vote. The point is that the American people did not give the current president the sweeping support for his rather brash changes to both domestic and foreign policy. Can we harp on that? (grin)

Sure, and I agree totally. Bush has completely acted like he was the
reincarnation of Caesar rather than someone who barely squeaked in.
My point of contention isn't with that, it's with people who complain
about the rules after agreeing to them beforehand.

And those 500,000 votes *did* count, just towards their electors, however.

Right. I didn't say they didn't count, just that they didn't count towards
the presidency. Note, however, that while some states have laws against
electors changing their votes at the last minute, some don't, so the
electors could conceivably change things. This was one of the proposed
(by TV news crews on slow days) "solutions" to the last election (lobbying
electors to change their votes to Gore). Considering, though, that
electors are chosen for their party "loyalty", it's unlikely, but it has
happened before.

What's funny is that the electoral college was created, in part, just to prevent the kind of thing that happened in Florida (squabbling over 500 votes or so).

Yep, and also that before the last presidential election, some people
thought that Bush might win the popular vote at the same time Gore
won the electoral college*.

* http://people.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college3.htm

I personally think the electoral college should either be done away with
completely or at the very least should be changed so that all a states
votes don't go to the majority winner (i.e. proportional representation
within a states electoral college votes). As it is now, even if someone
votes for a non-republican candidate in a state where a majority of voters
vote republican (i.e. North Carolina, most likely, *sigh*), their vote
doesn't end up counting because all of that state's electors go to the
one who won the majority in that state. If they were split how the vote
was split, I personally think it would be a big improvement. It could
also potentially break the hegemony of the current two party system, which,
unfortunately, is why it won't happen any time soon. :-(

Cheers,
Tanner
--
Tanner Lovelace | lovelace(at)wayfarer.org | http://wtl.wayfarer.org/
--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--
GPG Fingerprint = A66C 8660 924F 5F8C 71DA BDD0 CE09 4F8E DE76 39D4
GPG Key can be found at http://wtl.wayfarer.org/lovelace.gpg.asc
--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--
<refrain>
1. Creativity and innovation always builds on the past.
2. The past always tries to control the creativity that builds upon it.
3. Free societies enable the future by limiting this power of the past.
4. Ours is less and less a free society.
</refrain>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page