Paul Johnson wrote:
> I don't agree with Jacques Chirac, I disagree with the Republican Party,
So do I, don't see me wanting to slap everyone else down for it, do you?
Certainly don't see me revising history to fit my own illusional worldview.
> college crap-shoot, which has resulted in hugely unfavorable results in my
> lifetime with Clinton's second term (lost the popular, won the EC) and both
> terms of George Bush (lost the popular, lost the EC, won the supreme court).
Bush won the EC both times. I don't like it any more than you do. I
certainly didn't vote for him. But when you take the blinders off you see the
media is painting a partial picture to fit their goals.
> and the successful impeachment and attempted conviction of Clinton for doing
> a White House intern (never mind some of his best work was done while boning
> said intern)
Nevermind that he was impeached for lying under oath in an investigation
for which he was suspect of breaking some of the very same laws *HE SIGNED
INTO LAW*. Somehow I doubt that you're saying the President is above the law,
are you?
> ¹ For those not of US origin,
Ignore Paul as he slants his posts to cast the most negative light on any
non-socialist administration. Given this is a Capitalist society you can
imagine how flawed his information is. For a prime example see my post about
gas prices vs. his claims that Oregon's prices are far cheaper than the states
surrounding his.
> the US has had an electoral college to decide
> it's soverign since it's inception, the popular vote for president is legally
> nonbinding in nearly all states:
You mean to say that it is legally non-binding in an increasing few
states. More and more states are, indeed, binding the EC votes to the popular
vote. Some are going so far as to ensure that it isn't a winner-takes-all.
Get 30% of the popular vote, get 30% of the EC votes, not 0%. Furthermore
what you're failing to explain is that this is pretty much a formality any way
since the EC pretty much followed the popular vote of that state. There have
been extremely rare cases where that is not the case. The last one I know of
is in the '70s when one delegate voted for the Libertarian ticket instead of
the winner of the popular vote in that state. One delegate in one election is
hardly...
> the electoral college can and does vote for whoever it wants.
...the situation you described. In fact if any EC did go against the
popular vote you can be assured that there would be tons of measures on the
next ballot, that would pass, binding the EC to the popular vote in one form
or another.
> So if you don't like the current president, you only have
> 538 people to blame, not the rest of us who had no non-violent method to have
> any say, pro or con, in the matter.
Sorry, doesn't work that way. Try again, Paul. Maybe if the Socialist
party fielded someone other than an extremist there would be an election
closer to your liking. But blaming the loss on anything other than the
horrible candidates they field is absurd.
--
Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | And dream I do...
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature