Thread: Bush edges ahead in Iowa, going strong in 'blue' states

Originally Posted by Confed999

I've never said otherwise, but any government can have "democratic traditions". The rights of all, even the minorities, must be protected.

Yes, "true democracies" have constitution too.

Yes it is, and it's one that is shared by the free world, as nobody has a true democracy.

I don't know what "free world" are you talking about, because I don't think any "free world" would have approved Bush becoming the president in 2002 when he did not win popular vote.

Then you must be a white male, if you live in the USA. No minority would want to have their voice silenced.

Aren't white male in minority?

Originally Posted by turnagainarm

Yes, "true democracies" have constitution too.

That would be a constitutional democracy.

Originally Posted by turnagainarm

I don't know what "free world" are you talking about but even in US, because I don't think any "free world" would have approved Bush becoming the president in 2002 when he did not win popular vote.

They would if they had the same system as here. There are other places that use systems similar to the electoral college.

Originally Posted by turnagainarm

Aren't white male in minority?

Before this year they were the majority registered voters, that vote. I don't know about this year.

Originally Posted by Confed999

That would be a constitutional democracy.

"True democracies" don't have constitution?

They would if they had the same system as here. There are other places that use systems similar to the electoral college.

I don't think so. Electoral votes system is a relic of 18th century past. The "free world" would not endorse such an archaic system, which violates the very principle of democracy that "every vote counts".

Before this year they were the majority registered voters, that vote. I don't know about this year.

Could you post a link?

Originally Posted by turnagainarm

"True democracies" don't have constitution?

They could have one, but it would be meaningless. In a "true democracy" all that matters is popular vote. From what I can tell of your posts on this subject, you don't want a true democracy, you want a constitutional democracy or a representitive democracy, but not a republic or parliamentary democracy as many of those use a system other than popular vote to elect a leader.

Originally Posted by turnagainarm

I don't think so. Electoral votes system is a relic of 18th century past. The "free world" would not endorse such an archaic system, which violates the very principle of democracy that "every vote counts".

A relic that continues to give equal voice to the people living in small rural states, and large urban ones. "Every vote counts" in electing the legislature, a far more powerful body than the executive.

Originally Posted by turnagainarm

Could you post a link?

Why? Some group is allways the majority, it could be white women, it doesn't matter...

I agree with Confed, Electoral votes insure that everyones votes mean something, I think Turnagainarm like all liberals is just bitter Gore couldn't win the election using both the popular and electoral. If it were the other way around and Gore won the Electoral I doubt we would be having this discussion.

Originally Posted by turnagainarm

Since you have not commented on the 1996 election result, I take it that you have conceded to me that Clinton who got 49.23% of the votes, would have got an additional 0.78% votes and thus won the majority of the votes in the event Perot had not run.

Your claim for 1992 election was that "Bush would have won hands down".
In 1992 Clinton won 370 electoral votes, Bush won 168.

Now even if Bush would have won all the states you have listed above Bush would have got 271 electoral, just 1 more than the required 270.
Would you consider that "winning hands down" ?

I disagree with you that Bush would have won Iowa in 1992 if Perot was not running. In 1988 Dukakis won the state by 10% margin. In 1992 Clinton won Iowa by 6% margin. Iowa in general is a democrat/moderate state and voted democrats in president elections since 1988.

Now of all the states you have listed if Clinton had just won Iowa, Clionton would still get 274 electoral votes, and still win the election.

So I don't see how Bush would have won hands down in 1992 or for that matters won at all, at least the stats. don't indicate it.

Other possible states include Connecticut, 42.2%/35.8%/21.6%, Maine 38.8%/30.4%/30.4%, both carried by Bush in 88, as well as a few others I may have missed.


"Since you have not commented on the 1996 election result, I take it that you have conceded to me that Clinton who got 49.23% of the votes, would have got an additional 0.78% votes and thus won the majority of the votes in the event Perot had not run."

I already stated Clinton would have won the 1996 election.

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

I agree with Confed, Electoral votes insure that everyones votes mean something, I think Turnagainarm like all liberals is just bitter Gore couldn't win the election using both the popular and electoral. If it were the other way around and Gore won the Electoral I doubt we would be having this discussion.

You're totally right.

Originally Posted by Gio

You're totally right.

ah, what do we have here? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136340,00.html

Originally Posted by Julie

ah, what do we have here? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136340,00.html

There are bad people everywhere...
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/loc...sfla-news-palm

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs...190343/-1/NEWS

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

I agree with Confed, Electoral votes insure that everyones votes mean something, I think Turnagainarm like all liberals is just bitter Gore couldn't win the election using both the popular and electoral. If it were the other way around and Gore won the Electoral I doubt we would be having this discussion.

100% correct. Now I know why many liberals want to abolish the Electoral College, cant they just let things be and accept the fact that Bush won? Its hard to belive that almost 4 years have passed since then, it seems just like yesterday; even with all that has happened since then.

At first glance the popular vote looks appealing.

Do you want a New Yorker to determine how the country is going to handle your crops? Do you want a hick changing a supreme court amendment?

The electoral vote ensures that everyone is heard.

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

At first glance the popular vote looks appealing.

Do you want a New Yorker to determine how the country is going to handle your crops? Do you want a hick changing a supreme court amendment?

The electoral vote ensures that everyone is heard.

Excuse me, ahem, what do you mean by "hick?"

Originally Posted by Julie

Excuse me, ahem, what do you mean by "hick?"

Main Entry: 1hick
Pronunciation: 'hik
Function: noun
Etymology: Hick, nickname for Richard
: an unsophisticated provincial person

Yep thats a hick, maybe a strong choice of wording but you get my point.