Good, Bad, or really sad Bush?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Tasty,

None of what you say means that Gore won either.  So that's a bad place to start.  

Even if I agreed that the Supreeme Court didn't act correctly (which I don't, and I wanted Gore to beat Bush as much as anyone), at most it would call for a new election.  

There were Republican votes not counted too, after all.  

What happened in Florida sucked.  No two ways about it.  But to base an argument that Gore actually won Florida out of the bullshit evidence (from both sides) has no leg to stand on.  I read about votes found after the fact.  I read about a bunch of them going for Bush too.  Who is to believe.  One thing is for sure, when Gore called it, Bush won the election.  

[The Ghost of Bondo]

I personally think Bush won by the system.  I just think the system is bad.  I don't like that a candidate can win by less than 1% of the votes as is the case with Bush in Florida, gets all of the votes of that state.  That is telling the other 49% in this case that they have no say about it.  I think both sides should get their portion of the state's votes or that it should go by popular vote.

Popular vote is plain enough that I won't expand.  In my modified electoral college go here is basically how it goes.

Take Colorado and its 9 electoral votes.  Bush won about 60-40 over Gore here.  So if you split the votes based on that you get 5.4 and 3.6.  Now this is where the system gets a bit tricky but that is no real reason to say it doesn't work.  In my opinion the best way to break the decimals up is to say you round up the one who won the state so in this case Bush would get 6 and Gore would get 3 from Colorado.  That way all voters are at least somewhat considered.  Certainly it seems more fair than the current electoral college system.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I personally think Bush won by the system.  I just think the system is bad.  

I'll just stop there and point out that Bondo has agreed with me 100%.  Or that I've agreed with him 100% (depending on your point of view).  And some people said it could never happen.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

 

Now any feedback on my suggested system?

[Mr. Lothario]

     Bondo, have you ever read Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"? In it, he outlines a system in which all voters would be represented by their candidate of choice. You should give it a read. Not to mention that it's one of his better books in general.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

    Bondo, have you ever read Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"? In it, he outlines a system in which all voters would be represented by their candidate of choice. You should give it a read. Not to mention that it's one of his better books in general.

Haven't...once I get out of school I'm so dedicating time to reading a lot of the things I have wanted to and Heinlein's books are certainly there...I was reading Stranger in a Strange land but my silent reading teacher said it seemed inappropriate by the cover so I had to stop.  This was in Middle school mind you.  I think once I have a kid to take care of I may have time for reading if that makes any sense.  I am after all going to be more of the house husband type with my girlfriend being the breadwinner.

[jn.loudnotes]

I think Saddam is scared shitless.  Wouldn't you be?  That's the only reason he's complying.  But who are we to demand that he abdicate?

I object to the entire use of force, enforcing a UN resolution or not.  That resolution hardly seems justified in my opinion anyway.  I'd like to hear more about why it was put into place. . .and especially why it's so important to enforce it all of a sudden.

That is, other than war talk of "Saddam is a threat to the free world, blah blah blah"  Simply having weapons doesn't mean you're going to use them, nor does simply being meglomaniacal.  One could call Bush meglomaniacal; he's shown it just as much as Hussein.  Also, using weapons on your own people is no crime when they're rebels, as is the case with the Kurds.  Should we deweaponize Russia because they've attacked Chechnyan rebels?

[alaric]

The main point about him having weapons, loud, is that at the end of the gulf war he agreed to disarm as one of the conditions of peace. It could be argued that, technically, a state of war should already exist between America and Iraq. He did violate the terms of the cease-fire. Doesn't that mean the cease fire is over?

On the other hand, I still don't really understand why now is so important. I support the use of force but wonder if Bush made a mistake in his timing. Yeah, eventually this situation had to be resolved, but why did he pick now as the time to do it? There is something to be said for letting sleeping dogs lie.

[jn.loudnotes]

On that note, I just would like to forestall the upcoming comparison to Hitler.  Saddam Hussein is not Adolf Hitler, nor is he anywhere near the magnitude of Hitler, nor can he even be considered on parallel to Hitler in any respect.

Hitler had the full support of one of the world's most powerful countries, an industrial and technological power.  True, the rest of the world was lax in enforcing the peace terms of WWI, but that was only what enabled Germany to rise to prominence.  War did not ensue until after they continued to ignore the country until it became a dangerous opponent.

Hussein runs an impoverished nation with rampant dissent among the populace.  It sickens me when people cheapen the impact of Hitler by unthinking comparisons.

And no, the slaughter of Kurdish rebels is hardly equivalent to the annihilation of innocent Jewish civilians by the milllions.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Now any feedback on my suggested system?

If I did that, we wouldn't be in 100% agreement.

Well, with a modified electoral college, I have a little easier suggestion.  The number of votes in the electoral college are based directly on the number of congressmen.  Why not make voting for president one of their responsibilities.  Since the electoral college doesn't have to vote the way that the popular vote goes anyway, it's not much of a difference (except Congressman that don't listen to the people in this matter will find that they have shorter terms).  I like putting a face on the electoral college.

The way it's set up, the popular vote is really just a poll in most states.  BTW Bondo, if I'm not mistaken, there are two states that do split their votes according to percentage.  So if you let Congress vote (there is still a national popular poll, but it's called what it is), you'll have all states split.  Yes, you may just get some assholes that vote their party, but if they keep their seat in the next election, then their people support it more then not.

Otherwise, just go with the popular vote.  It has it's own dangers.  As much as people bitch about the last election, what was the turnout?  Less then half of registered voters?  And, how many people don't bother to register?  Yes, those same dangers carry over to using Congress too.  But the risk of voting fraud or mistaks *cough*Florida*cough* is greatly reduced if it's Congress (because it's easier to get many small elections right, and even if some are screwed, it's of lower impact).  Unless you think someone is going to fuck with the little buttons.

Did I also mention that if Congress did it, I think it should be a roll call vote?

Anyway, nothing is going to be perfect.  If you like representative, may as well make it simple and just have Congress vote.  If you don't like it, make it based just on the popular vote.  Both will always have problems.  But both are a little better then what we have now.

    Bondo, have you ever read Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"?

Heinlein has a way of cutting through the bullshit I really like.  

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I think Saddam is scared shitless.  Wouldn't you be?  That's the only reason he's complying.  But who are we to demand that he abdicate?

GOOD.  That is the whole idea.  I'm glad he is scared shitless, and I'm glad it is working and getting him off his ass.  What about that is hard to understand?

And what does the first point have to do with the second.  Don't connect them, that's a cheap political (and lawyer) trick.  Scaring him shitless to enforce the UN sanctions has nothing to do with anyone demanding that he abdicate.  

And who is actually demanding it?  I miss the latest soundbite on headline news?  I've heard lots of people here (those against the war, funny enough) ask why we didn't do that in '91, but haven't hear that in the news yet today.

I object to the entire use of force, enforcing a UN resolution or not.  

Good for you.  Object all you want.  Doesn't mean much.  Not when you aren't giving any basis for the objection.  So, the question is the same as always.  WHY?

That resolution hardly seems justified in my opinion anyway.  I'd like to hear more about why it was put into place. . .and especially why it's so important to enforce it all of a sudden.

Don't take this the wrong way, but how old were you in '91?  How much of the Gulf War do you remember?  How much about what happened before it?

The resolutions in question was pretty much the peace agreement to end the war.  Saddam didn't want to lose power, so he proposed peace, and agreed to terms to end the war (like with any war).  He's not living up to those terms.  It's been over 10 years.

Why is it important now?  Because evidence (or rumor if you don't believe it) points to him not only not providing proof that he destroyed what he agreed to, but he was seeking more WMD's.  Some things that the inspectors have found have been shown to support this, some not, and most have been inconclusive.  It was also rumored that he was trying to purchase some nukes.  That hasn't been proven yet either.  But, the fact that he had begun to re-arm with prohibited weapons (which has been proven), and that he still hasn't shown that all that VX gas and Anthrax (and other bio/chem weapons they admitted to having) have all been destroyed.  A clear condition.  He was also blocking attempts to inspect and validate at every turn (until, as you put it, he got scared shitless).

This has all been covered Loud.

Also, using weapons on your own people is no crime when they're rebels, as is the case with the Kurds.  Should we deweaponize Russia because they've attacked Chechnyan rebels?

Did Russia use mustard gas on them?  Other WMD's?  And didn't Iraq use them against Iran too?  Oh, and doesn't Iraq have a history of agression?  Hasn't Saddam murdered those that have spoken out against him?  He was known as a murderer and thug before the Gulf War.  Has that changed somehow?  

On that note, I just would like to forestall the upcoming comparison to Hitler.  Saddam Hussein is not Adolf Hitler, nor is he anywhere near the magnitude of Hitler, nor can he even be considered on parallel to Hitler in any respect.

Really?  And how was Hitler before WW2?  What did he do that compares what Saddam has done before that time?

All the examples I've drawn were of pre-WW2, not post.  So let's look at them:

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Hitler had the full support of one of the world's most powerful countries, an industrial and technological power.  

Beg your pardon?  Suck what?  Go back and read your history books.  When Hitler came into power, he was the one that brought Germany back to being a world power, not the other way around.  When he came into power, the great depression was in full swing.  And it was harder on Germany then any other country.  It's economy and industry was in shambles.  Germany didn't make Hitler the power, Hitler organized them back into that power.  Germany was smoking hole in the ground when the seeds of WW2 were planted.

True, the rest of the world was lax in enforcing the peace terms of WWI, but that was only what enabled Germany to rise to prominence.  War did not ensue until after they continued to ignore the country until it became a dangerous opponent.

So they were lax, then they were lax some more?  They ignored the problem, then they ignored it some more?  

Where is the point there?  That we shouldn't be lax, or ignore?  I agree.  That's why the UN Resolutions need to be enforced.  

Or, are you being a typical monday morning quarterback and saying "oh, right there, that is the point where they should have stopped being lax".  Hard fact, if they had NEVER been lax, it (what we know as WW2) probably would never have happened.  WW2 still would have happened at some point, but with some different players and issues (just because the world is full of assholes, and there was still Japan).  But, it's easy to say that there was a point where they could have stopped it, but, without being there, you can't know if it was easy to see or not.  What you can do is learn from past mistakes.  And being lax in enforcement was the huge mistake.

Hussein runs an impoverished nation with rampant dissent among the populace.  It sickens me when people cheapen the impact of Hitler by unthinking comparisons.

Sounds much like post WW1 Germany to me.  Maybe you are the unthinking one here now Loudnotes?  Maybe your special place in hell for Hitler makes you think nobody could ever be as bad?  Well, I don't want anyone to be as bad, there have been enough evil bastards like him before Hitler, I'm all for stopping another one from being created.

And no, the slaughter of Kurdish rebels is hardly equivalent to the annihilation of innocent Jewish civilians by the milllions.

Yeah, and there were no innocent Kurds.  No women and children in those villages.  Oh, wait, there was.  But they don't count as much I guess.  But if that's the case, why do we talk about the couple million jews, when so many more innocent Chinese were slaughtered in WW2?  Those few million don't compare in number.  

Oh, wait, IT'S ALL FUCKING SHIT!!  THEY ARE ALL EVIL!!  Loudnotes, there just comes a time when you got to say, they are evil.  It's not a contest of who is more evil.  We could argue for years over if Germany or Nippon was worse.  People have.  But is that really necessary?

The point of the analogy is Iraq looks much like post WW1 Germany right now.  They lost a war, and 10 years later, they are pushing past the limits.  

Oh, and did anyone mention that many of the "liberals" of the 1930's were saying that we should leave Germany alone and let them build their economy.  That it was no business of ours (and they continued to say it right up until Dec 7, 1941).  Until that day, America was very split on the war, it's the main reason we weren't actually in it until then.  

Now, with that same monday morning quarterbacking skill, can anyone say we should have stayed out?  Not gotten involved?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Hmm, well, since the Republicans control both house and senate, having Congress vote scares me.  Especially when Gore and Clinton have both won the popular vote showing that one could assume there are slightly more democrats than republicans.  So if I had to choose I'd say go with popular vote...just make sure you make a good system that is regulated not just within the state but nationally and better try to weed out fraud.

[Red Scythe]

so some of you voted for Gore...and yet you play ghost recon and rouge spear.......        

        What the f*ck is wrong with you[/u]

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Hmm, well, since the Republicans control both house and senate, having Congress vote scares me.  

Well, if they didn't vote their ticket, and not the position of their constituants, I would bet it is a short lived problem, wouldn't you?

Especially when Gore and Clinton have both won the popular vote showing that one could assume there are slightly more democrats than republicans.  

There you go, lumping all us independents and "third party" people in as democrats, just because we voted for Gore.  You are drawing a conclusion about party affiliation that has nothing to do with the way anyone I know votes.  There are old people I've heard of that vote the ticket, but nobody I've ever met.  I don't associate with such idiots.

I could go either way on the issue of Congress or Popular Elections.  Both will have problems, but both are better then what we have now.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

How is saying that because Democrats have won the popular vote three straight elections Democrats (liberal) leaning people are more prevalant so offensive to independants?  I never said all those people were registered democrats.  You overreact.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

You used the fact that in the last three Presidential Elections Popular Vote to demonstrate that there were more Democrats then Republicans in America.  What I'm saying is that you can't connect those dots, because there are so many independents, and we (the independants) could have swung the vote.  I'm also saying that I'll bet plenty of registered Democrats voted for Bush, and plenty of registered Republicans voted for Gore (I know my dad did, so that's one, in Florida no less).

So, all the popular vote going to three Democrats in a row means is that American Voters like the last three Democratic Candidates better then the other options.  Doesn't make them Democrats, or Liberals.  Stop attaching titles to us.

And what I'm finding more offensive is that you are drawing lines of black and white where they don't exist.  The whole Democrats are liberal and Republicans are conservative is a big grey blob.  Step back in time a little, didn't you say that there's not much difference between the parties anymore, that they are all a little conservative, and that's one of the reasons you liked Nader?  Seems I remember that from discussions past.  

[tasty]

I'd put my vote in for the majority of the popular vote system over the congressional voting thing. I don't like representative democracy and our 80% of congress are partisan assholes. The electoral college is antiquated, and as you said faceless. At least they can be counted on to cast their votes as the people mandate. As far as other election reforms, I like instant runoff voting and publicly funded elections. Let's get the influence of money out of our electorate system??it has no effect other than corruption. And for those of you who think that a two party system is stagnant, instant runoff voting will help third party candidates become more prominent. As will publicly funded elections.

BTW, what do you guys think about a law making not voting in national elections illegal? I agree that voters who aren't knowledgable about the candidates are a liability, but there has to be some way around this. Also, I would contend that a vast majority of people who are currently regular voters don't aren't really knowledgable about the candidates anyway  .

[jn.loudnotes]

Sigh. . .there we go with the post breakdowns, now I have to defend every statement you misinterpreted.

Post world war one, Germany was in ruins, yes.  And it stayed in ruins for 15 years until Hitler came to power in 1933.  Hitler then built up the nation, in part by rallying the populace around his anti-Semitism.  The rest of the world ignored this, and that was lax.

Hussein, however, governs an Iraq that has been in dire economic state for decades, since before the war.  His people do not support him, unlike the WW2 Germans, and he rules strictly.  But why should we now, after 10 years, object to his attempt to bring the nation some prominence again?

And despite the fact that I was 4 in 1991, how old were you during world war two?  I can read history just as well as you can, Buccaneer, even if I didn't experience it.  I seem to recall that American participation in the Gulf War was questionable to begin with.  That's why continuing repressment of Iraq by the US, not to mention our coming offensive to continue that repressment, seems to me uncalled for.

Why am I against force?  For one, I don't think peaceful options have been exhausted.  But also, I still don't see a great justification.  An eye for an eye isn't good enough, and I don't even see the prospect of that.  Are the lives lost in the potential invasion going to save lives?  Are you sure?

The fact is, no Jews rebelled, but the Kurdish people did.  Of course there are casualities, but it seems like one excessive attempt to paint Saddam as evil.  He still doesn't seem any worse to me than any of the other dictators in power at the moment.

Also, almost no one in the US wanted to be involved in a foreign war, for good reason.  It's not really our business.  However, if it's definitely going to save lives. . .if you could prove that to me. . .I'd be all for it.

And as for the Holocaust, I still think it's among the worst ever atrocities simply because of it's scale.  If you kill a million Chinese, but there are another 10 million to replace them, it's worse than if you kill the same million of someone else and almost completely exterminate their race.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

At least they can be counted on to cast their votes as the people mandate.

That's not completely true.  They don't have to vote as the people mandate in some states (it's the way the laws are written).  Giving them the oppertunity to be complete assholse that remain faceless.  Hasn't happened that I know of, but I hate that it could.

But we agree, it sucks.

Let's get the influence of money out of our electorate system??

Love to.  Easier said then done though.  How do you make a system that publically funds any candidates, and keep frauds out of it?  What's to stop me from running, just to have a decent paying job for that time period?  If you don't let them take pay, then you are automatically handicapping anyone that isn't well off enough to devote himself (or herself) full time to the election.  That's just one problem off the top of my head.  Just picking who gets it and who doesn't will be monumentous.

I'd love to see it happen, I just await a good plan.

BTW, what do you guys think about a law making not voting in national elections illegal?

I think it's a bad idea for one reason.  Last Poli-Sci class I took showed an alarming statistic about how much voting is already done just on name recognition.  It's why those yard signs are still so popular.  I mean, it scared me.  If we force people to vote that don't want to, we'd just be increasing this problem.  I can see people voting "the answer is b" down the ticket (old multiple choice joke if you don't know it).  I can see lots of freaky shit if you force people to do something that they don't want to do.  

If you go back to Heinlein, he had some cool ideas about responsibility and voting.  About how people had to earn citizenship and the right to vote.  They had to be judged to appreciate the responsibility it carried.  He goes so far off the scale of left and right, that he's actually behind you.