Robaggio

This has been on my mind for quite some time, yet, I havn't had the opportunity to throw it out in the open to such a large number of receptive people.

It is my understanding that in the last presidential elecetion, Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral college. Essentially, the majority of people (read: American Citizens) wanted Gore in office. However, due to the way our system works, this did not give him victory.

Now, lets switch gears for a moment... Is it not the presdent's job to listen to his people and do their bidding? Isn't it the president's duty to serve the country in a selfless manner? Assuming this is the case: if you cleary lose the popular vote and continue fourth with obtaining presidency, wouldn't you be going agianst these terms? If I were elected president through the electoral college and lost the popular vote, I would RESIGN and give the title to my opponent! I'd get right up on the podium and say "Well, it was a long haul and a close race. However, I cannot accept the presidency as I did not win the word of the American people. The real title belongs to my opponent, as the majority of citizens wish him/her to be in office rather than I."

Bush's decision to accept the presidential title was selfish. To me, this shows that he doesn't really care about this country's citizens so long as he's in charge of them.

Don't get me wrong though. I'm not saying the system is flawed. I'm not saying that Gore should have won. And I'm not saying that I don't like Bush. I just wish that someone could explain to me what they thought about the election minus all the Florida nonsense (and etc. etc....) More importantly, I'm wondering if I'm alone on this

I just feel like we're the toy caught in the middle of two children screaming "Mine! Mine!" We all know what happens to the toy if they don't let go: it gets ripped to shreds. The smater and more caring of the children will let the toy go. So not to see it ruined...

Superbelt

That's one of the biggest criticisms about him. He runs the government like he was given a mandate when that is not the case. At best the nation was split. Yet he runs us the way HE wants. No compromises. It shouldn't be like that.

Yakk

Anyone who is willing to do and capable of doing what is required to get to higher office is absolutely unqualified to hold it.

Now, not being willing or capable does not make you qualified.

In other words, don't be surprised if people being elected president are power-hungry. Nobody who wasn't power-hungry could make it that far.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Seaver

Or you could view it through the way he may see it.

That it is the honorable thing for him to do what is right (his version of it). And that it is only possible by being president.

seretogis

Gore would not have done the same, so why do you expect Bush to? Don't hold your enemies up to higher standards than you hold your friends.

If this were a perfect country, the electoral votes would be proportional to the popular vote of each state, instead of an all-or-none system we have today. Don't expect that to ever happen, though, as it would take away some power from the Democrats and Republicans.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

DelayedReaction

If this were a perfect country, there wouldn't BE an electoral college. The electoral college is a throwback to the days when people had no idea what the candidates were about, and information took months to spread. Each state would vote who they wanted their electoral votes to go to, and then the electoral college would actually decide the President. A popular vote means nothing in this country, and I think it's one of the greatest flaws of our country.

We live in an age when a message can go around the world in seconds, and the words of an individual can reach nearly anyone on the planet. Isn't it time our country updated our voting system to reflect that?

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

Scipio

1. We select our president by who wins the most states. Even though we're highly integrated, we still have separate states that have rights and recognition as independant units. Each state gets a number of "votes" equal to the size of its congressional delegation.

2. The "popular vote" is really nothing more than an aggregate of a bunch of state votes. Its existence as a statistic is meaningless, and we could have a presidental election without someone collecting it.

3. We also have republican system of governance, where our elected officials are delegated to do the job. There is no formal obligation placed on any public official that they follow the will of the people. In that GWB decided to take his own direction when he became president, he did nothing wrong.

4. (opinion) The system we have is good, and we shouldn't seek to change it for partisan gain. Changes should be system centered, and long-term in scope. They shouldn't be partisan centered, and with a short term outlook.

5. (opinion) That said, I would support changes to the electoral college. The primary problem with the current system is that votes aren't counted equally across the country. For example, compare the number of voters per electoral vote in Montana and California. Our system values the vote of a Montanian (?) almost twice as highly as it does a Californian.

6. Leaders have two fundamental roles. One, they must do the will of their followers, but they must also seek to go places that their fellows never thought about seeking out. This is another reason that our leaders should be delegated.

7. On the question of honor, a president's honor demands action for the greater good of everyone, not merely for the greater good of a small majority.

__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

ARTelevision

"Is it not the presdent's job to listen to his people and do their bidding?"

No. Elected officials receive their legitimate mandate by our electoral mechanisms. Once elected our officials should act according to their own principles. You're suggesting a government by referendum and we don't have that kind of government.

__________________
create evolution

DelayedReaction

I disagree with you Scipio; the popular mandate is THE most crucial number you can have in any election. If the recorded majority of a population does not vote for an individual, and that individual is still elected, then the system is wrong.

You indicate that the current system should be changed because votes aren't counted equally across the country? What better what to do that than give EACH citizen their own vote, and leave this electoral college nonsense behind us?

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

Yakk

Then I assume you have the same objections to the US Senate?

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

onetime2

He won the Presidency based on the system in place for the last couple hundred years. Gore and Bush knew the rules before entering the game. Bush won, Gore lost. That's life.

The President is not subservient to all the wishes of the people. He is elected to lead the country not to facilitate with the public to determine policy. His actions are judged during the re-election campaign and on Election Day.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Superbelt

Well, (and yes this is reopening a rotten can of worms) he did not win the election under the system in place for the past several hundred years.

He won it under a SC decision who's rules and conclusions modified the procedure for selecting a president and those rules and conclusions were specifically barred by that same SC (in the same breath) from ever being used to create a similar decision ever again.

onetime2

It is the same system. No other election required the process to move further that's the only difference.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

ARTelevision

What other system would this process be a part of?

__________________
create evolution

Superbelt

http://www.multied.com/Documents/2000Elecdecision.html

http://www.iknowwhatyoudidlastelecti...reme-court.htm

Robaggio

I don't very well care what Gore would or wouldn't have done.

I appreciate the responsese guys, however, I guess they're just not what I'm looking for. As far as the election is concerned, we all know what and how everything happened. To me, such is irrelivant. Let me put it this way: A president wants to do what's best for the people. If the president did not win the popular vote, wouldn't the logical choice be to step down?

The only other side to this was mentioned by Seaver: Even so, for someone to have this mindset, they must come to the conclution that despite the people not wanting the official in office, he/she would feel it best to take the spot anyway. Going back to my original post: If Bush understood this, why not say something about it? At the very least it'd help ease the pain of half the country. If Bush addressed the nation after his election and told everyone why he was accepting presidency- for no other reason than the matter of informing us that he realizes half of his citizens hate him, things would be a lot different.

Scipio

You're forgetting that we have a system which doesn't elect presidents by a popular vote. I might just as well say that if the majority of states, weighted for population, vote for one candidate, and the other candidate wins, then the system is wrong.

I'll go ahead and defend the current system. Our federal system assigns rights to states. Small states get extra representation so that they don't get shut out of the system. The electoral college and the winner take all system create a campaign dynamic which demands a nation-wide campaign from every candidate.

Is it undemocratic? I see no inherent problem with breaking up a national election into a number of regional elections. Of course it's not the same thing, and of course sometimes the outcome will be different, but I see the current system as having no problems in the democracy department.

It's not the same thing. There are two houses of congress, but only one president. In congress, we get "dual representation," or even "dual rights." There's no analogue for the White House.

__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

Seaver

Superbelt you are wrong on this one.

The Supreme Court ruled that there is a given percentage of votes that will be messed up and thus not counted. You can not argue a person's intended vote by a messed up card. Maybe they wanted to vote for Buchannon(sp?), but wait... no sane person could want to vote for him so of course it's for Gore. No you can not do that, THAT is what the Supreme Court ruled. That if there was questions in it they were not to be counted, tough luck. And guess what? Bush did win Florida when the absentee ballots (Re: military almost always votes conservative) were in.

Did Bush win the election? Yes
Did Gore win the popular vote? Yes, but who cares.

Honestly the rules have been set down for well over 200 years. If you dont like it write up your Congressman and ask them to propose a change. If they dont vote against them the next elections. This is how things have gone on in America since the first elections. You cant change the rules of a game after the fact because you didnt like the outcome. Hell someone could argue that biting an ear off should be legal and then go on a rant that Tyson should be the heavyweight champ. Will it happen? Not likely.

theusername

A President is supposed to do what is right for the people, not what the people want the President to do. And the thing is most people dont want a president that lives by the polls.

I think proposing that Bush or anyone in an election that wins but does not receive the popular vote to step down is laughable. Name one major candidate party in US History that you think would have stepped down in W's situation.

I searched through my resources and found the answer: None.

dy156

If to be elected president, you would have to win the popular election, don't you think Karl Rove would have altered the campaign's election strategy to better achieve that goal. For example, California and it's huge population were virtually ignored, because even though there were many potential votes there, they couldn't likely get a majority. Meanwhile, states like Missouri and Tenn. were the focus of much campaigning. I'm not arguing whether he could have won the popular vote, had he tried, but he was trying to win the presidential election, and campaigning according to how to win the electoral college. You don't change the rules after the fact.