In 2004 who will you vote for?
Al Gore (78)
42.39%
George W. Bush (100)
54.35%
Other (6)
3.26%


Total = 184

Done:

Al Gore (78)
41.71%
George W. Bush (102)
54.55%
Other (7)
3.74%

Total of votes: 187

Here are the other candidates:

1. Gerald Ford
2. Libertarian

41% Gore

54% Bush

I voted again.  Send him a message, brothers.

Edited to ask how many of us have put him in the shitcan?

I'm getting sick..... hasn't the boy learned ....

112 to 79- BUSH WINNING---- KILL THIS POLL

You can thank Klinton/Gore for the recession they put us into.  I believe the downturn was VERY evident as early as Jan of 2000, so how is this Bush's fault?  Oh yeah, this is just some more dumpocrap sympathy, right?

59.5% Bush

39.9% Gore [RedForeman]DUMBASS![/RedForeman]

I suggest you read about how the electoral college works, since your above statement makes very little sense.  In fact, it's pretty much ass-backwards.

You can find some good information at the Federal Election Commission's website:

http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm

To summarize:

Electoral votes are based indirectly on a state's population.  Every state receives two electoral votes (one for each Senator) and then an electoral vote for each Congressional district (districts are based on population, so states with higher populations have more districts, and therefore, more electoral votes).  On the surface this would seem fair.  If a candidate wins the vote for a district, they receive the electoral vote for that district, and every district in the country is equal.

Here's the problem, though: in all but two states (Maine and Nebraska) whichever candidate wins the most electoral votes (in other words, wins the popular vote in the most Congressional districts) wins the electoral votes for the ENTIRE STATE.  In Maine and Nebraska, electoral votes are split based on districts won.  In effect, winning 51% of the popular vote in any of 48 states gives the candidate 100% of the electoral vote in that state (which would be as if the candidate had actually won 100% of the popular vote).

If every state were like Maine and Nebraska, the votes would be divided evenly based on districts won, and the electoral college would be a fair representative vote.  Instead, by campaigning in a few key states, a candidate can lose the overall popular vote, but win the presidency.

Here's an example using year 2000 numbers.  Let's say for simplicity that each electoral vote is representative of 1000 voters.

To win a presidential election, a candidate in 2000 had to receive 270 electoral votes out of 538 total votes.  To win those 270 electoral votes, the candidate only has to win the majority vote in the 11 states with the most electoral votes: California, New York, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Georgia (or Virginia, which has the same number of electoral votes).

Using our simplified math where 1 electoral vote equals 1,000 popular votes, and assuming that a candidate won by 51% in each of those 11 states, that would be 137,700 popular votes.  Their opponent could go on to win 100% of the vote in all of the remaining 39 states (which would be 268,000 popular votes - almost double the votes!) and still lose the election because that would only give the opponent 268 electoral votes.

The electoral college doesn't *PREVENT* the scenario you cite, where a small portion of the country dictates the outcome of the election.  It *CAUSES* that problem by using the all-or-nothing approach to allocating electoral votes by state.

Colored maps are very handy, but if you don't understand the underlying mechanics behind them, they can be quite misleading.

Done!!!!

Lying POS--35.75%

George Bush--59.28%

Other--4.98%

Done!
Al Gore (79) 34.2%
George W. Bush (141) 61.04%
Other (11) 4.76%

Hey, it let me vote again. That's twice for Bush from me!

79-145-12 of 236

Al Gore (79)
32.51%
George W. Bush (152)
62.55%
Other (12)
(display visitors suggestions)
4.94%


Total of votes: 243

DONE

Bush (152 votes)
P.O.S. (79 votes)

243 total votes

Did you notice the link on the left side of the front page to: "Anti Bush sites"

190 to 80- WE ARE KILLING GORE ON HIS OWN SITE!!!

As of 5:12pm

George W. Bush  65.34%
Gore the Bore    28.88%

Other           5.78%


Total of votes: 277

I hate IceTeaAl so much!
I was so sickened when I entered his website,  the urge to vomit was almost too much to bear.

In 2004 who will you vote for?
Al Gore (80)
27.87%
George W. Bush (191)
66.55%
Other (16)
(display visitors suggestions)
5.57%


Total of votes: 287

Woo Hoo!
Gore 26.76%
Bush 67.56%

Done.



Al Gore (81 votes)             25.16%

George W. Bush (220 votes)     68.32%

Other (21 votes)                6.52%



Isn't this poll supposed to be pro-Gore, right?

I can hear it now [democrap]"I voted for the wrong candidate, the ballot was canfusing"[/democrap]!

Man, he's getting spanked on his own website! OUT FREAKING STANDING!


PONY_DRIVER

Done x3

Al Gore (82)
23.03%
George W. Bush (249)
69.94%
Other (25)
7.02%
Total of votes: 356

Done....maybe he will get frustrated with the poll results, and decide not to run.

Done:

George Bush:  270   (71.43%)

sore loser:   82    (21.69%)

Other:        26    (6.88%)

Done

Done.
Al Gore (82)19.81%
George W. Bush (301)72.71%
Other (31)7.49%
Heh heh heh.....

I think you are confused. If we had it your way with popular vote only, they would only campaign in California, New York & Florida.

Done !  GO VOTE !

Done.  I still say he is going to call for a recount to "let the people's voices be heard."

DONE !!!
73% FOR BUSH !!!
I hope the FUCKING TRAITOR gets the hint and falls off the face of the earth !!!
On the other hand , perhaps the fuck would an easy victory for "W" if he did run. Who else the shithead Democrat Pinko Faggots got to run anyhow ?

[usa]

In 2004 who will you vote for?
Al Gore (85)
17.6%
George W. Bush (358)
74.12%
Other (40)
8.28%

Done

As fun as this is, there's nothing "official" about the site.  The "click.to" address is (obviously) a redirection to [url]http://www.homestead.com/moisesaloufanclub/algoresupport~ie4.html[/url]

But hey, at least one (probably a couple) idiots are learning something.

I just voted again (Dems like that, don't they?) and it's now
Al Gore (85)  15.18%
George W. Bush (430)  76.79%
Other (45) 8.04%

Total of votes: 560

Scott

I've voted 4-5 times now.

In 2004 who will you vote for?
Al Gore (85)
14.78%
George W. Bush (445)
77.39%
Other (45)
(display visitors suggestions)
7.83%


Total of votes: 575

I think we're winning. I wanna see his face when he gets it. "So right then, you'll know it was me."

I posted a thread about this on the FAL FILES, and they jumped all over it too...

One poster over there noticed that there is a link to [b]D[/b]irty [b]U[/b]nderwear.

He also pointed out [b]THIS[/b] little tidbit from the forum rules of the Al Gore site:

"[b]If you think someone is breaking any of the rules listed here, please click the "Alert" link on the offending post so a moderator can deal with it. This is a very busy message board, and we can't enforce the rules unless we know when people break them.[/b]"

Gee,...I umm, SURE hope nobody goes over there and ...umm...registers with that forum just so they can click the "Alert" link of EVERY SINGLE POST.  he he

I think sir, it is *you* who is confused.  According to the US Census Bureau, the combined populations of California, New York, and Florida total less than 70 million people, less than 25% of the US population of almost 285 million people.

If a candidate were to campaign only in those states, they would almost assuredly find themselves the loser in a popular election.  It is only the electoral college system, with the all-or-nothing allocation of electoral votes, that allows a candidate to win 11 key states and take the election, while largely dismissing the remaining 39 states.

If you want to check my math, you can read the census information yourself:

http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/tables/ST-EST2001-04.php

There are several good reasons for keeping the Electoral College. Two of these are:


1) it maintains the principle of compartmentalized mass

2) it maintains both the national and federal characteristics of the Union, for the purpose of choosing a president.


The advantage of restricting otherwise-dislocated mass to a compartment within a given area is that distortions caused by that mass have a limited effect on the area outside the compartment. Consider this example: when a canoe springs a leak, the added, dislocated mass places sinking pressure on the canoe's total area. However, if the canoe is sectioned off into many compartments, each sealed on all sides, water from a single hull breach is restricted to the compartment in which the breach occurs. Now the effect on the canoe's total area is localized and limited to the compartment.

In the Electoral College, these compartments are the discrete sets of electors sent from the states. This means that thirty million voters in a few large states, galvanized in favor of a presidential candidate whose campaign promises may threaten the livelihoods, property, and liberty of individuals in less populous states, can appoint for that candidate only a limited number of electors.

As a practical example, suppose an extreme environmentalist promises the inhabitants of large cities and their suburbs to create more national parks, expand the definition of "protected wetland," and generally to prevent ranchers, loggers, farmers and "agribusiness" from humbling the noble wild. Legislation born of these promises must be enforced uniformly throughout the Union, but will have little direct impact on the Manhattanite who does not need to worry that his job, apartment, or automobile will be taken from him by a government agency representing the interests of trees and trout. To provide some equity to the residents of those states in which such threats to one's property and livelihood are an everyday reality, the Electoral College limits the capacity of densely-populated, distant regions to make a president for the entire nation.

By allowing each state to select a number of electors equal to the total number of its senators plus the total number of its congressional districts, the Electoral College maintains, for the purpose of choosing a president, the national/federal character of the Union. In the federal chamber of congress all states are represented equally, regardless of population size. In the national chamber each state is represented in proportion to its population. The United States is, in James Madison's words, a composite government; 2 it is both a single political entity and a communicating collection of separate, political entities. Although the house of representatives originates revenue bills, neither house may present a bill for the president's signature without the consent of the other. Thus, every law is produced by a mechanism that recognizes this composite character of the Union. The Electoral College is simply the means by which the same principle is applied to the selection of a president.

These two principles - compartmentalization and maintaining the Union's composite character - are related, in that the federal character of each state sets the minimum size for each compartment (3), and the national character of the state regulates the size of each compartment exceeding that minimum.

third time voting.

this is too much fun.  i am going to go troll the DU.

Al Gore (92)
13.55%

George W. Bush (529)
77.91%

Other (58)
(display visitors suggestions)
8.54%

I voted. Al's not doing so well it seems.

In 2004 who will you vote for?
Al Gore (92)                13.49%
George W. Bush (532)        78.01%
Other (58)                   8.5%

Total of votes: 682

Oh I had to... Get Real! - Loser!

Get ready for Hillary.

Al Gore Support Poll
In 2004 who will you vote for?
Al Gore (93)
12.42%
George W. Bush (590)
78.77%
Other (66)
(display visitors suggestions)
8.81%


Total of votes: 749

Bovine excrement.  Once again, you are completely ass-backwards.

To use your canoe example:

Let's say a canoe is divided into 538 compartments, and it takes 270 flooded compartments to sink the canoe.  But, instead of each compartment being an individual unit, the compartments are divided into 50 sections, with some sections having as many as 54 compartments, while other sections have only 3 compartments.  In every section except for two (that are relatively small and only contain 9 compartments between them), whenever 51% of the compartments flood, the remaining compartments in that section will flood as well.

It doesn't take a calculus professor to figure out that the entire canoe can be sunk by flooding only 51% of the compartments in the 11 biggest sections.

To further dispute your example, the number of electoral votes in each state are determined by the population of that state.  The states with greater urbanization have more electoral votes.  Say that a candidate was running on an environmental platform, and was proposing the restrictions you mentioned regarding logging, farming, etc.  Those wilderness-related issues would least effect the states with the greatest influence in the electoral process.  Simply by selling the pro-environmental issues to a majority of the voters in those key states, a candidate could win the election, and enact policy nationally, EVEN IF 100% of the voters in the remaining 39 states voted against it.

Once again, the effect you are describing is not *PREVENTED* by the Electoral College system, it is *CAUSED* by it.

Understand me clearly: the Electoral College is just an extension of the democratic electoral process, and COULD be a fair and representative process.  BUT it is being implemented in the wrong way.  If electoral votes were divided by district as they are in Maine and Nebraska, the system would be much more representative of the actual vote.  The only electoral votes that would be swayed by the majority vote of a state would be the two electoral votes allocated for a state's two senators.

It is the all-or-nothing allocation in 48 states that causes the inbalance between the intention of the voters, and the outcome of the election.  The all-or-nothing system allows for a candidate to receive far fewer popular votes and still win.

Now, let's address the issue of representative balance.  It is a fact that each state is allocated a minimum of 3 electoral votes regardless of population (2 senators and at least 1 representative) in order to balance the effects of high population centers.  In 1988, for example, the total voting age population of the seven least populated states was a little over 3 million people and the combined electoral votes for those states were the same as Florida, which had a voting age population of over 9.6 million.  So in theory, the voters in those seven sparse states received a 3:1 preference over Florida voters.

What this fails to address however, is that the benefit of that preference is negated by the fact that the electoral votes of those seven states were divided into sections of 3 each, and that it was possible for some of the states to allocate their votes to one candidate, and others to allocate their votes to the opponent.  Whoever won the majority vote in Florida won all 21 votes in one lump.  If you were a presidential candidate, would you waste your time campaigning in seven sparsely populated states trying win a majority vote in each state, or would you simply campaign in the one densely populated state to win the majority vote and achieve the same effect?  It's not rocket science.

To understand the purpose of the Electoral College, you have to understand the context in which it was created.  When the college system was conceived, the United States comprised of 13 states and around 4 million people.  The national infrastructure for transport and communication was largely non-existant.  It was not feasible for a candidate to campaign nationally for President.  In 1789, there were also only 3 states with 10 electoral votes and 1 state with 3 electoral votes, with the rest falling between 5 and 7 electoral votes.  The spread was much more even than today, where in 2000, 8 states had only 3 electoral votes, 31 states (including DC) have between 4 and 12, and 12 states have between 13 and 54, with 7 of those having 20 or more.  It has become a grossly unbalanced system.

So why do we persist in using the Electoral College?  Because it serves to maintain a two-party political system in America.  With the all-or-nothing allocation of electoral votes, it is extremely difficult for a third-party candidate to get enough votes in a state to achieve the required majority to receive the electoral votes.  A candidate that receives even 25% of the popular vote in a state will receive 0 of that state's electoral votes, thus ensuring victory for one of the two major party candidates.

It is the two-party system that is slowly whittling away our rights to keep and bear arms.  The Republicans are not *pro-gun*.  They don't have to be. They only have to be slightly less *anti-gun* than the Democrats.  Instead of crushing gun owners with a steam press like the Democrats, the Republicans are slowly beating us to death, one stroke of the nightstick at a time, hoping we won't notice.  Yet the two-party system keeps pro-gun advocates voting for Republicans, because the alternative is certain death.  To many pro-gun voters, they are forced to choose "the lesser of two evils".

The Republicans know we won't vote against them as long as they remain slightly less liberal than the Democrats.

The two-party system is a political duopoly, and the Electoral College is to tool to maintain that duopoly.

I agree with you. I've lost a ton on the stock market. So many of my friends have been laid off and I think I'm going to be next. But, this is NOT Bush's fault in any way.

Approaching 80% for Bush.