--You said God told you to run for the Senate.--

And she got a pass from the MSM, I bet.

Denny,

You should read this; it's great.

Do you know about Herman Cain? He was interviewed by Michael Medved today and seems an aspiring fellow.

Addison...I read your link. It took my breath away when I discovered that Kleinfeld sits on the 9th "Circus" Court of Appeals. He must be a great disappointment to the rest of those activist idiots.

After yesterday's "things that annoy" to this within a 24 hour span.

A true work of genius. I genuflect before the Master and am humbled.

It now seems that people who speak out against the president arre condemned as unpatriotic. My fear is that this will lead to an extremst state, in which voting for anyone other than the halfwit bush is somehow supporting terrorism.

Only democrats steal elections? ha! only a fool can''t see the truith about florida.

Matthew,
Give it up. You're trying to use an unsubstantiated fear to make yourself (and your party) a victim, so you can't be questioned. What is happening is fools are now being called on their stupidities, and they don't like it. The next defense is to wrap themselves in victimhood and try get a free pass on their words and deeds.
Instead of trying to claim that you are being 'oppressed', how about you stand up and defend the actions and words of those speaking against President Bush?
The Dixie twits pissed off their fans, and now those (ex-)fans don't want to spend money on the Dixie twits's product. How is this defenseable? Should the Twits get a federal subsidy, effectively forcing thier non-fans to (through taxes) pay them money? Oh - the halfwits should not pay attention to what the Twits say when they are overseas and accept their BS excuses.
Whoopi made political comments that could effect her employer's income and they moved to protect themselves from the fallout. What now - when you hire a spokesperson, they represent your company. If they become an embarassment to your company, you get rid of them. Endorsements are not charity or political appointments.
Linda R. - she was paid to entertain and she failed.
Michael Moore / Emmys - producing a movie packed with lies and half-truths attempting to blame Bush for the deaths of 3000 people is bad enough, but the liberal establishment goes along with supporting the lies. Even allowing his movies to enter as 'documentaries' is a joke.
NAACP - sorry, too much ammunition there. Don't have time. I already broke the comments here with too lengthy a post before.
UN / elections - I suppose we could find a more anti-American, biased, corrupt, and irrelevant orginization, but I don't know where you would.
John Kerry - see NAACP.
John Edwards - same.

Take a topic and defend it. Make a point, then prove it with facts. Don't waste our time trying to claim America will become a extremist state because the Democrats are not in power. History keeps showing that the socialists are the ones to fear once they gain control.

Oh - the FL elections keep getting looked at and looked at. Every time they are examined, it keeps coming up:
1) Bush won by having more people vote for him than Gore.
2) Dimocrats kept trying to invalidate military votes while screaming that the evil Republicans are disenfranchising voters. Demanded liberal (pun intended) standards for accepting Democratic votes and stringent standards for Republican votes (see if you can find out how you could identify a military absentee ballot from overseas, even if the return address is not the soldiers' unit. Hint: franking)
3) When asked to produce the disenfranchised voters, said Democrats are unable to actually produce any, instead demand that (somehow) Republicans prove that there are no disenfranchied voters. As adults, Republicans refuse to get every voter in the state to report in.
4) Multiple felons illegally voted in the election, unsurprisingly they voted overwhelmingly for Gore. These illegal votes are not mentioned by the Dimocrat 'stolen election' crowd.
5) The Florida supreme court attempted to rewrite election law in a biased way. They couldn't find a legal excuse to do so, so their reasoning could be best summed up as "we really want that it should be this way". US Supreme court remanded the decision to the FL supremes basically saying "Judges should not make laws. Find a precedent or something". FL supremes, unable to find one, cite unrelated sections of law and send that back. US Supremes remand again, saying "sadly, we actually read your cited sources - they don't say what you want them to say. Try again". FL supremes, unable to find an excuse to rewrite election laws on the fly to favor whomever they want, give up and the FL results are certified.

If you're bored, look around for other reports of voting irregularities during those elections on different offices - guess which party keeps coming up?

matthew, wake up and smell the coffee. Every which way the NY Times and the other media counted the votes, Bush WON. Now get over it.

Come in now Denny, tell us all how you really feel!

matthew g: Whap!

BTW, Denny, you can't use a rifle to hunt deer in Ohio. It's either a shotgun with slugs or bows or "primitive" weapons (muzzle loaders).

Denny:

Ralph is absolutely correct. I'm originally from the Palmetto State and I doubt there is a state on the East Coast that allows rifles for deer hunting. You Missouri roots are showing again !

All y'all are going to be interested in the latest organization to endorse the poodle. It ain't the Ladies Tea Society. It is posted on my blog.

Sailor

Just a note to Denny...you will have a field day with this endorsement!

Rifles are allowed in NH, but mostly in the less populous towns. Others are shotgun only, either slugs or buckshot. In any event, given the terrain here, a shot of over 50 yards or so is pretty unlikely.

Matthew:

You're backsliding. What's the "truth" about Florida? No, Michel Moore is not allowable as a primary source, either.

I think you'll find, if you were to look into it, that the Florida situation was one where there was some (admittedly) dirty pool played on both sides. But. Let's not forget what did happen.
1) Florida is ordered by the court to purge felons from the voting rolls. They hire a company to assist with this - as felons from other states other than Florida are also not eligible to vote. (Some states allow felons to vote). Many people mistakenly get stricken from the rolls - after several letters are sent to their registered address. (Which if they're not living at, after 30 days, they're not supposed to be voting, either). During the actual election, anyone who showed up, and protested was allowed to vote on a marked, provisional ballot, and the question of eligilibity was adjudicated later.
2) The ballots in several counties were designed to be "easy" by the Election Commissions (All Democratic politicitians). Apparently, in the attempt to simplify, at least one county made it much more difficult to judge where to strike the ballot. (I've used punch-card balloting. It is a little more complicated, but by no means impossible. It's also a very cheap and every cost-efficient way to handle many items to be voted on). Anyone who made a mistake was given another ballot. Anyone who requested help was helped. Some people asked for new ballots AFTER they had dropped theirs into the lockbox... Well, no, can't do that. (Side note - you can't have perfect balloting if it's a secret. The only way to realistically have a completely perfect count is to label the ballots so they can be verified later - which has it's own, obvious sets of problems.).
Claims that people mis-voted for Pat Buchanan aren't realistic. Buchanan pulled in an almost identical tally to what he did in '96 in the same area. So if people made mistakes, it wasn't very many.
3) After the voting was done (and after Florida had been called first for Gore, then after polls closed, for Bush, despite the fact that Florida is in 2 time zones), the race was close enough that there was an automatic recount. The recount also showed that Bush was the winner. At this point, the lawsuits ensued. The Gore campaign essential point was that the votes in Palm Beach and 2 other counties needed to be recounted, with a new criteria. This is after 2 counts with the impartial machine. Now that they have seen what the ballots look like, amazingly, they want new criteria. Other counties aren't going to be subjected to this - just the counties that might be able to find the difference in the votes. The Florida Supreme Court said that was fine (all are Democrats). The US Supreme Court said that you couldn't change the rules AFTER the election - and only in some counties. (Also, during this time, the Gore campaign was loudly proclaiming the need to have the voters intent preserved, and then turning around and arguing against military ballots (from soldiers serving overseas) which were either delivered late, or were grouped together by the military post offices - as opposed to each, personally stamped.)
Florida actually shows the brilliance of the Electoral College, Matthew. Instead of having this fiasco across the nation (And does anybody think that the Chicago election was honest?).. and I don't think they ever figured out who really won Nevada - but it didn't matter, due to the lack of electoral votes.
So what about Florida was it you wanted to discuss?

Denny - "I'm beginning to think we should have literacy and civics tests before people can vote"

Now you're talking!! Although the supreme court has ruled literacy tests unconstitutional, so we've got an uphill battle, but I'm with you if you wanna start a movement.

Furthermore, Matthew g, several recounts were performed after the elections by independent groups. And guess what. OOPS! Bush DID win the popular vote in Florida. So STFU. The media, of course, won't widely report the findings. Liberal Bias? Nahhhhh. And one more thing. WHAP!

--Only democrats steal elections? ha! only a fool can''t see the truith about florida.
--

If the shoe fits.....Matthew.

BTW - ever read "Deadlock" the story of the 2000 election by the political staff of the Washington Post?

Keep in mind that the WP is a lefty paper - W didn't really come out that badly.

It was Prince Al. - Besides, I lived and watched it happen.

If you don't understand how the US works is set up, you can't understand FLA.

Read the Constitution - especially the tasks assigned to the 3 branches of government.

Man. You guys have alot of ammo for someone just saying that people call anyone who doesn't agree with the right unpatriotic (which is pretty much true)

As far as the flordia elections, look at the studies done by British Guardian and Observer. They show that THOUSANDS of voters were stricken from the polls illegally. Some had the misfortune of having the same name as a felon. Some, were previous felons that were reported from other states. (Ohio does not take away voting rights from felons like FLA does though, so FLA would have to honor their voting rights and didn't). Some (from the Texas lists, ironically) only committed misdemenors or no crimes at all. And this all done by the company who was overseen by (who else?) Katharine Harris. :-)

Anyway, the facts from a number of sources are this. Had Gore got the recount HE requested, he still would have lost, albeit by a smaller number of votes. However, this is because he only wanted recounts in heavy democratic counties. Had they recounted the WHOLE state, Gore would have won. And he would have done so under the election "voter intent" laws passed by Bush in Texas, too.

The whole problem is that the Supreme court stopped the recounts. You guys talk about "activist judges" all the time now, look at this one. Obviously split 5-4 on partisan lines no less. If they would have kept going, maybe the 2000 presidential election wouldn't have the stain of illegitmacy that it does. It just wasn't allowed to finish.

As far as I'm concerned, I hate the electoral college. For one, it renders my vote useless. I live in Virginia, which hasn't voted for a Democratic president since LBJ (Clinton was 2 points behind Dole in 96). Because the Republicans win the state, and all of its 13 electoral votes, it doesn't matter if they won by 13 votes, or 130,000. So my vote is wasted if the democrats don't win this state. Same goes for republican votes in New York, or California... might as well not go, you vote won't count anyway. The main crisis of this is obviously, someone winning the electoral vote, but losing popular.

Another problem is that people who live in rural states votes are worth more... due to the 2 senators being added to the representitive vote. Wyoming has like... Half a million residents. So it has 3 electoral votes... so 166,666 residents per electoral vote.
Viriginia has a population of about 7 million. and has 13 Electoral college votes. Or about one electoral vote for every 538,461 people.

That's a BIIIIIIIIG difference.

And who does that difference favor? You guessed right. Conservatives. Obviously the founders of the constitution had no idea that it would turn out that way, and it's not some conspiracy or something... but that's just the way it is. And that's why the electoral college needs to be scrapped. It's a system where the guy with less total votes than his competitor won... twice!

And that's another reason why people are upset about the 2000 election... more people supported Gore than Bush. And did that change Bush's mandate, that more people voted for the Democrat in this country? No, he's running the country from the far right. That's not the way one should run the country when one didn't even get a plurality of the vote. Especially if he's looking for reelection.

They're predicting a record turnout for this presendential election. I'll leave you all to guess what greater turnout does to Bush's chances.

Robin, there is just so much wrong with what you've written, that I don't know where to start. But, you've provided plenty of fodder for this bunch so I'll just limit myself to a couple of your items.

As far as I'm concerned, I hate the electoral college. For one, it renders my vote useless.

BS. The electoral college was designed by our Founding Fathers with one principle in mind. They did not want the entire country managed by the interests of several massive population centers. Essentially, the rural areas would be disenfranchised because their voices are overpowered by the concentrated populations in just a handful of city centers. Imagine America today ruled by Los Angeles, San Fran"sicko ", Chicago, New York, Miami, etc. The rural areas, which account for over 90% of our land area, would be victimized by urban politics. The electorate balances the Republic, in my humble opinion.

And who does that difference favor? You guessed right. Conservatives.

That's because mostly conservatives live in rural areas. You'd be spewing forth the exact opposite puke if Liberals lived out in the rural areas. But, we all know that it is next to impossible for a Liberal to survive in rural America, since Liberals pretty much whine all day everyday. Have a nice day.

Only democrats steal elections? ha! only a fool can''t see the truith about florida.

matthew and Robin, you need to read this. It is no longer a matter of conjecture or opinion as to Bush stealing the Florida election - he didn't - a committee of media recounters as mention in my link say he didn't. The NYT's, no friend of Republicans, was a party to the independent recount.

Another problem is that people who live in rural states votes are worth more... due to the 2 senators being added to the representitive vote.

That makes no sense at all. Two senators per state and the mathmatical formula for electoral votes have no connection.

And who does that difference favor? You guessed right. Conservatives.

Except when Democrats win elections!! You've ranted an awful lot of ridiculous statements. Have you got any factual links from original sources, not foaming at the mouth opinions, that support any of your nonsense?

Wow. Such intensity, Paul! So much wrong with what I said? What was wrong with it?
That the Observer and Guardian both ran stories on Flordia purges of the voting rolls BEFORE the election? That's a fact.

That Gore would have still lost with the recount he asked for, but would have won a statewide one? I've seen that several places. And pretty recently too. I'll go into my sources and post it here when I find it.

That the supreme count stopped recount on 5-4 partisan vote?
Wow.. I'm sure that's wrong.

That Bush lost the popular vote? News flash: half a million people more voted for gore than for Bush.

So... what you're saying is... the way we should run this country is to have certain peoples' votes count MORE than others, and have the guy with less total votes win? Sounds like democracy to me. Why don't we bring back the two-fifths rule, too? That was written by the founding fathers.

And I'm not complaining about the electoral college as a liberal. I complained about it in the 8th grade before I even had serious political thoughts. I just doesn't think it makes sense. The fact that someone's vote out there in Wyoming or Nebraska is worth more than mine in determining our president doesn't seem right to me. I live in Richmond... not exactly BIG city politics.

I like the whining insult. Good one! :-) Instead of hurling insults, tell me again why in any popular democratic vote, the thing with less overall votes should win? Because you failed to address that adequately whilst attempting to insult me. So... I'm guessing that prodecural vote for Banning Gay Marriage Amendment should have PASSED last week.... cuz it only got 48 votes. That's about the percentage of the popular vote Bush got! and he won!

;-) Keep the discussion civil please.

For the record, I prefer government from the middle. The two most successful administrations in the past 30-40 years have been Reagan and Clinton. This is obvious. Both were rather easily reelected, despite their faults. However, both of these presidents had Congress controlled by the OPPOSITE party. So that the legistlative and executive branches did their freaking jobs by checking and balancing each other. That's all i want for America. Balance.

One Cent: this is posted from the article YOU linked

"Their report insisted that George Bush would have won the election in Florida by 493 votes even if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened to stop the statewide recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, and that Bush would have won by 225 votes if recounts had been completed in the four Florida counties where Gore sought them."

I stated that exactly in my first post.

This is an editorial piece by the way. Great source material.

By the way... states electoral votes are counted by adding their number of representitives and senators together. Ask any middle schooler in Civics class.

Robin - But Gore did not request the entire state be recounted. He only wanted to cherry pick the heavily Dimocrat counties. As for the Supreme Court, it was only telling Florida to follow its own election laws (i.e. the election had to be certified by a certain date) which the Florida Supreme court (All Dimocrats BTW no partisanship there. I guess it was along party lines because it was unanimous.) had just changed, something only the legislature could do. The same thing happened in New Jersey when the New Jersey Supreme Court (Once again, Dimocrats) changed their election laws to allow Lautenberg to run after Toricelli dropped out. Not wanting another firestorm, the USSC decided not to hear the New Jersey case. BTW there was also some hanky-panky in states that the Dimocrats won. The Republicans could have raised a fuss and demanded recounts there. Anyway you lost. Get the fuck over it! Quit crying and whining. It's has gotten old and tedious. After all, the Dimocrats stole the 1960 election. Hey. I'm just mimicing you lefties here. I guess it was about time for the Republicans to steal one. And just think, if Algore would have won, we'd still be negotiating with the Taliban. He'd have Jimmah Carter over there right now.

Since you work at a bookstore I suggest you read the Federalist Papers and the history of the Constitution. The Electoral College and our bicameral legislature were designed as a compromise to prevent large states from running over small states (as Paul stated earlier.) I'm very happy that California, New York, and Florida do not run the country. Also, Gore (as do all presidential candidates) campaigned to win the most electoral votes not the popular vote. This is not the first time that the winner of the popular vote did not win the election. If you don't like the system, start a drive to amend the Constitution.

Yegad! The Founders would be aghast at our welfare state. You betcha they would have favored Conservatives over liberals. Even more, they would have favored Libertarians over both of them. Even John Adams, who was a Federalist and believed in a strong central gummint would be shocked at just how powerful and corrupt Washington has become. The IRS would have had all of them looking for guns and trying to start an armed rebellion.

Yep! Get out the vote. If your guy gets the most electoral votes, he'll win. I won't like it. I think John Kerry is way to liberal for the country, but I will accept him as our president and move on. Unfortunately, since he thinks diplomacy is a solution to the terrorist problem he'll do the same thing that Dimocrats did during the Cold War (And I haven't forgotten my promise to address your comments on an earlier post) and that is extend the problem and make it worse.

Now please, read the Federalist Papers and find out why The Founders established a bicameral legislature and the Electoral College. I'll give you the short answer: Because the small states would not have ratified the Constitution and we would not be the country we are today.

Good post Denny.

Here is a story on msnbc talking about one of Clintons buddies.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5463586/

"This is an editorial piece by the way".....right, and anyone can Google the facts from the sources mentioned in the article, such as.....
"They based their conclusions on a review of 175,010 contested ballots conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), a nonprofit survey firm affiliated with the University of Chicago retained by the group.'

Your assertion of electoral college bias as favoring conservatives is baseless. It's a needed check and balance. The bottom line is that your guy didn't win. Hence, the election was rigged.

Florida wasn't the only state in question. I voted in New Mexico where Bush lost by less than 500 votes and later ballot boxes where found carelessly and suspiciously in some election official's car. South Dakota, also had some suspicious registration irregularities with Native Americans. Unfortunately, Republicans are poor understudies to the knuckle-dragging union behavior Democrats have a soft spot for and are less adept at crying foul and getting a media circus started to further their ends.

Robin - Two more points. You want the president to have won the popular vote. So what about Clinton in 1992? He won 43% of the popular vote. That means that 57% of the populace voted against him. In many states, this would mean a runoff. With the Electoral College he won. In 1996 he won with 49% of the vote but won a landslide in the Electoral College. 51% of the country voted against him. Once again, in most states a runoff.

You said that the Clinton and Reagan presidencies were the most successful in the last 30-40 years. Well it all depends on what your meaning of success is. Clinton's foreign policy was abysmal. Osama bin Laden has been quoted as saying that when we left Somalia with our tails between our legs, that's when he knew we could be defeated and as the terrorism escalated, Clinton did next to nothing other than killing goats in Afghanistan and bombing an aspirin factory in Sudan. In all fairness, I deplored Ronald Reagan cutting and running from Beirut. Clinton's lack of resolve (and the gutting of the intelligence infrastructure by his addministration, all cuts supported by Kerry) led to 9/11. Korea? Can that Jimmah Carter negotiate or what?

Domestic policy. Health care? One of his successes since it led to the election of a Republican Congress which pulled his administration to the right and led him to co-opt Republican issues like NAFTA and welfare reform. He only supported welfare reform to get reelected. He didn't want to do it.
The economy? Other than the tax increase, which wasn't needed, the best thing he did was sit in his office and get blowjobs and leave the economy alone. He didn't balance the budget since the budget never was balanced. That Republican Congress cut the growth in spending which cut the deficit so I guess he was responsible for that since he and Hillary got them elected. I just wish our current president and congress would cut back on the wild social spending. Maybe if Kerry gets elected they'll start acting like Republicans again. I know Kerry will be no moderate. And his last success was getting Bush elected. If his administration had not been so corrupt (possibly the most corrupt since Warren Harding)and he had not been so morally bankrupt Gore would have won in a walk. As it is, the only reason Gore almost won was the information about Bush's DUI released right before the election. Remember that? That pushed a bunch of swing voters into the Gore column.
Clinton was a mediocre president at best who does not even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as Ronald Reagan.

Matthew g and Robin, listen to Denny. You should seriously take his advice and read the historical documents he sites and the facts behind our elections since 1960. You might learn something more than just liberal rhetoric. Robin, you seem like a person of some intelligence trying to breakout into reality. Feed your mind.

Let's see...Carter's negotiations in North Korea called for the dismantling of Pyongyang's nuclear program by 2004. In 2004, North Korea is bragging to the world about the nukes they have.
Let's send Carter to the Taliban. He'll negotiate $10 billion to the Taliban, and the Taliban will promise to turn over bin Laden in 2010. Then, they can take that $10 billion and finance another attack on America.

Yep, I sure hope Bush steals the upcoming election too.

Denny-
Would you believe that , after re-districting, Corinne Brown ended up being the replacement for the retiring ever-so-honorable Rep. Tilly Fowler, of Armed Services Committee experience?

Talk about getting screwed in the gerrymandering... we trade in a common-sense leader for a barking moonbat!

Shit! :(

Great list, Denny! My sides are still hurting! But only one bitch slap for that fat socialist Michael Moore? Come on! He's getting off too easy! It would take at least five to penetrate the layers of fat before he felt it!

I wish I could vote against McKinney. At least I get to vote, alas unsuccessfully, against Bouncer and Feinstein.

Don in Jax - I just read an interesting article about Corinne today. Forgot where. What a scam artist she is! She's been in trouble with the IRS and all the bad loans she has run out on should have landed her in jail. Plus, she has lied on financial disclosure forms.

Actually, I agree with ALOT of libertarian values. Keep your laws off my body, I agree with. Free trade, open immigration, etc, I agree with. Too bad the libertarians aren't a force in modern politics. I'd much prefer them to the "I know your morality better than you do, neo conservatitive Republicans"

Denny, I know Gore didn't ask for the Entire state to be recounted. I never once said that the election was "stolen" or anything. I was just discussing what was brought up earlier about it, and brought up what shady shit went on. I'm over 2000, but I don't think enough lessons were learned from it.

As far as amending the constitution to change the electoral college, I think it should be done. Can the nation really handle another fiasco like 2000? As divided as politics are now, I really doubt it.

When I mean winning the popular vote, I'd was thinking plurality at least. I mentioned plurality in a previous post. Bush didn't even get that.
Would you have wanted Nixon president during the Cuban Missile Crisis? He'd have been drunk and we'd all be dead.

Btw, the domination of large states over small ones applies primarily to Congress. Electoral College was setup b/c the founding fathers didn't trust the popular vote at the time. They feared the people would vote back the king or something. Also, they didn't think the electorate was smart enough to make a desicion. It certainly doesn't apply today.

As my comment to the two greatest presidencies... I held back my reservations about Reagan...

Basically they are the two presidents that have been reelected since Eisenhower. I'm not really counting LBJ.

I know you hate Clinton. You've made that painfully obvious. Dollars to donuts you'll have to deal with another one in office sometime soon (that is if edwards doesn't wanna run in 2012 or something)

**" I know your morality better than you do "** neo-conservatives ?

Kind of like the "I-know-what-you-should-feel-guilty-about-and-spend-my-life-telling-you-why-its-all-your-fault-and-"take-away-from-you-from-the-common-good"- liberals ?

The point wasn't about neo-cons vs. liberals, Jim. I think you missed it. It was about the difference between Neo-Cons and Libertarians. I suggest you re-read it.

About Florida: Aside from Gore's puerile actions, selective recounts, and trying to exclude the military vote, the Donks grasped at straws by trying to pin the tail on Bush and not themselves. They brayed about the ballot -- never mind a county official of the same ilk designed it. At least it called into question the IQ of their party voters since Bush voters were able to comprehend the ballot layout.

This had shades of what went on in the California recall election. The ACLU whined about the horrible card ballot there -- but, gosh, it was just fine to vote Davis in office --and a silly attempt to stall the elections.

Recently I referred Denny to a Seattle Times article. The author of that piece pointed out if Clinton had done the right thing and stepped down, Gore would have taken his place and no doubt been elected in 2000.

Excluding that, the author as I recall pointed out Gore would have prevailed if he would have captured the electoral votes of his home state Tennessee. He couldn't even do that. This was the ultimate bitch slap from voters there..WHAP!

Given events in recent history, there must be a God.

No argument from me in writer P.J. O'Rourke's assessment of a liberal. But Gore comes to mind, in particular relating to the election:

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -- miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic, and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of snieveling brats." WHAP!

"As far as amending the constitution to change the electoral college, I think it should be done. Can the nation really handle another fiasco like 2000? As divided as politics are now, I really doubt it. "

Robin, your conclusion isn't supported by your facts.

The problem with the 2000 election was that in Florida - even in the whole nation - the election was inside of the margin of error.

Now, let's strike the electoral college. Gee, now we get to recount EVERYWHERE. Sit down and think about how long THAT will take with the legal challenges and issues.

Additionally, the advantage of the electoral college (which is for the only national election that we have), is that corruption by definition is limited. Doesn't matter how much oh, say, the Daley family can cook the books in Chicago - that will only help with the Illinois electoral vote. But in a straight popular election, well, now, 2-3 million votes could make a big difference.

"When I mean winning the popular vote, I'd was thinking plurality at least. I mentioned plurality in a previous post. Bush didn't even get that. "

Funny thing. The week before the election, it looked like Bush was going to win the popular vote - with more than 50% - and lose the electoral vote. The Gore teams were spreading out to preach the Electoral College gospel. I saw them on more than 1 show talking about how it worked.

"Would you have wanted Nixon president during the Cuban Missile Crisis? He'd have been drunk and we'd all be dead."

And why would that be? What would we be dead *with*? Nuclear weapons? From *what*? The reason the Soviets were putting them in Cuba was to threaten us - they didn't *have* any ICBMs at the time. (That worked) Bombers would have been slaughtered over Canada. I realise it really screws up the legend, but the truth of the matter is that the Cuban Missile Crisis was Krushchev bluffing the hell out of the US - we had ICBMs, we had subs, and we had bombers that could penetrate USSR airspace.

And to your earlier comment: "They show that THOUSANDS of voters were stricken from the polls illegally. Some had the misfortune of having the same name as a felon. Some, were previous felons that were reported from other states. (Ohio does not take away voting rights from felons like FLA does though, so FLA would have to honor their voting rights and didn't)."

That's completely totally wrong. Ohio doesn't remove voting privledges from felons. Great. Doesn't apply in Florida. You're an Ohio felon, living in Florida, no vote. Florida felon in Ohio, guess you get to vote. But Florida's rules aren't superceded by another state's.

You also failed to address the provisional balloting issue - who was not allowed to vote who was eligiable and *went to the polls*?

Harris. Well I remember the 2000 election. Seems my grandmother taught Katherine Harris in high school. (Small town, her family and mine know each other, too) Every wire service and major newspaper apparently called her to ask about Harris. Grandmother had nothing but great things to say about her. I notice she wasn't once quoted. Gee. Funny how that works.

"Electoral College was setup b/c the founding fathers didn't trust the popular vote at the time."

Wrong.

(And this goes for Denny too). Electoral college wasn't set up until after popular votes weren't working.

The constitution was signed 9/17/1787. Took effect 3/4/1789. The 12th Amendment (The electoral college) was proposed to the states 12/9/1803, and ratified 6/15/1804.

Before that, it was popular vote, the #1 getter was President, and the #2 was the Veep. Remember your High School history, and the tales of the problems that ensued after Washington declined to run again? (Under the system you're proposing).

So, no, the EC wasn't part of the original electoral college. But it is part of why it was set up the way that it was. Otherwise, the "flyover" states that literally elected Bush could be ignored in favor of the big cities.

Doggone it Robin, don't you remember reading about that Most Recent Unpleasantness that ensued the LAST time there was a big break between the big cities and the countryside? It wasn't a good time, and the root causes were damn similar to what you're proposing.

Furthermore, the EC maximizes your vote - making it worth more than it would if it were just you, alone voting. If you really insist, and can't see the problems inherent in having one national election where fraud is suddenly much more profitiable, harder to count, and recount, allegations of problems are even more widespread,.. I'll find that study where they mathmatically were showing the EC is the way to get the most "bang for your vote".

As I recall, if you are an ohio felon, and they didn't take away voting rights, Flordia can't take them away either, for a felony not committed in Flordia. I don't really wanna argue about felons... The truth is there was much, much voter poll adjusting that year. Most of it due to plain idiocy and not some partisan agenda.

Now, I do remember talking about the problems with 1st place Pres 2nd Place VP. But the ticket system changed that, not the electoral college, right? Sorry, I'm better with 20 century history and Chinese History.

I guess you all are forgetting about Texas, being the 2nd most populous state, and a conservative lock. Big cities there, hmm?

As far as the most recent unpleasantness, yes, I can''t really forget it. I live in Richmond, VA. It's known here as the "War of Northern Agression" Our Monument ave has statues of Lee, Jackson, Stuart, Jefferson Davis, and then.... Arthur Ashe.

But "Big Cities" won that war, both idealogically and physically. But the South takes a long time to change. ;-)

The thing the most ticks me off is that my vote probably won't count at all because I live in Virginia. Sure, I think Kerry has an outside shot here, but he probably won't campaign or anything. Much better chance here than in Edwards state of NC though. So, if Bush wins the state, I might have well not voted at all, because it didn't count. I may have to move to Flordia or Ohio, where my vote will mean something.

Funny thing huh? A select few states have the power to choose presidents. New Hamphire and Iowa choose the candidates, and big swing states like OH, PA, FL, MI, and IL get to choose the president. Eh. Funny thing, these politics.

Robin, your vote doesn't count period if you don't cast it at all. You should cast it because it will count, but, unfortunately, your vote won't accompany enough other votes in Virginia or elsewhere to send Bush back to Texas.

I suspect that you agree with our voting system when Democrats are elected but is unacceptable and in need of reform when Republicans are elected. Eh. Funny thing, these politics.

"It's known here as the "War of Northern Agression" Our Monument ave has statues of Lee, Jackson, Stuart, Jefferson Davis"

Its called that because it was, and those men deserve statutes a helluva lot more than many who have them.

In my old stompin grounds, men such as Houston, Austin, Travis, Bowie, and Crockett do as well.

The one thing they have in common? None of them would recognize our government any longer.

IL is a swing state?

The Peoples' Republic of Illinois?

--I'm over 2000, but I don't think enough lessons were learned from it.--

Aye, there's the rub. No education.

Most spoiled ballots were in IL, Chicago.

There's a reason.

Robn - I feel your pain. I live in a heavy Dimocrat district so my vote doesn't count in the Congressional election. I'm stuck with Cynthia McKinney for the next two years.

A hypothetical question: If Bush won the popular vote and Gore won in the Electoral College would you still want to abolish it? I wouldn't. I'm consistent.

I wish you liberals would just get over the 2000 election. Dammit! You can't steal every one. Y'all stole 1960 and Nixon was honorable enough to accept the results. As to your what if about the Cuban missile criseis, what if Kennedy had not withdrawn the promised air support at the Bay of Pigs and the invasion had been successful? Then there would have been no Cuban missile crisis. And the possibility of Nixon being drunk? Did that come from an Oliver Stone movie?
Y'all stole the 2002 senatorial election in New Jersey by the New Jersey Supreme Court changing the rules (like the Florida Supreme Court tried to do) and letting Lautenberg run. And how about the last minute Indian votes found in the 2002 South Dakota race that allowed Tim Johnson to narrowly win the election there? In the 2000 election, a polling place in North St. Louis (very heavily Dimocrat) remained open until 10:00 (against the law) so more voters could be rounded up. In 2000, Cynthia McKinney and her campaign workers were campaigning inside a polling place in violation of election laws. I won't even talk about Chicago. Look at almost all the elections since 1960 and the Dimocrats were the party committing the election frauds.

When Republicans are corrupt (Nixon Agnew) they resign. When Dimocrats are corrupt (Clinton - who abused power much more than Nixon) they fight it. Nixon resigned rather than put the country through the agony of impeachment. Three honorable Republican Senators asked him to do it for the good of the country. The Dimocrats, unfortunately, do not have three honorable Senators.

When a Republican kills someone (Jankow) he resigns. When a Dimocrat kills someone (Ted Kennedy) he buys off the family and becomes a repected elder of the Dimocrat Party. I hope you are proud to be a member of a party with an ex-Klansman who used the word nigger on national TV.

Anyway, I am invoking Addison's Law and declaring this thread finished. Bush won. Gore lost. As the Dimocrats kept saying during the Clinton scandals, "Let's just move on."

Can you bitch slap Cynthia McKinney again for me? I just learned she won today. I think I'll go clean my gun.

Unfortunately, in most New York counties U have to hunt deer with a shotgun and can face a stiff fine if even caught afield with any rifle larger than a .22.

"Why don't we bring back the two-fifths rule, too? That was written by the founding fathers."

You have a tendency to make stupid comparisons.

And just what the hell is wrong with calling Michael Moore unpatriotic? Dems love to act like calling someone unpatriotic is the equivalent of calling them a Nazi (wait a sec...) but as far as I'm concerned, if you hate capitalism, if you support Muslim fanatics over the US, as Moore does, then yes, you're unpatriotic. No, being a Democrat does not make someone unpatriotic, but being an anti-American asshole? Yeah, I'd say so.

The funny thing is, liberals love to call people like Moore patriotic for expressing their opinion (so apparently no opinion can be considered destructive and anti-American...) but I'm sure they likely would view someone with a big American flag on their truck as a pro-American drone.