Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by B_enzia35, Oct 26, 2011.
Failed Democrat Pol Sues Critics Over Election Loss - Peter Roff (usnews.com)
Sore loser much?
Following the last UK election a LibDem candidate took the Labour victor to court, basically for telling lies about the LibDem. He won. The election was reheld with Labour putting forward a new candidate - and Labour won.
On the first poll the LibDem lost by a handful of votes and would probably have won without the Labour candidate's lies. however by the time the re-election took place the LibDems had lost popularity. So the LibDem was proved right but in effect lost anyway.
Another sore loser....
US: Dearborn Republican Sues Facebook for Shutting Down Account During Election, Foiling his 'Attempt to Overthrow the Dingell Dynasty'
Case in point:
Bush v. Gore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
^ To that end:
Not That It Was Reported, but Gore Won
Thank you: that was the first thing I thought of when I read the thread title. If you hadn't, I'd have done so myself
So Gore was another sore loser? That's what I got out of reading the wiki link.
Gore wasn't a sore loser. Not only did he win the popular vote, no one will ever know how many votes he really won in Florida. Before the Supreme Court "anointed" Bush to the Presidency, Gore was still leading in Florida's recount. But when you stack the Supreme Court with your own party's pick of "activist judges" you gets what you pays for.
Would you guys get off the popular vote thing of any election. I am not saying our election system is fair, but the electoral college is better than the popular vote. If we went by popular vote, the candidates would only care about NYC and California and the rest of the country be damned. Leaving out the 1824 debacle which was on a whole different level and the 1876 election that was a back room deal, there has only been two Presidential elections where the leading popular vote getter did not win: 1888 and 2000. In both those elections, the candidate who won captured states in every region of the country, the lose did not.
Well, yeah, if states are more important to you than people, then sure, the electoral college is great.
I think the electoral college may have out lived its usefulness. It was important when communications were more primitive but now we can easily count millions of votes instantaneously - just ask American Idol. A popular vote system, among other benefits, would lessen the importance of states such as New Hampshire and Iowa and relieve the country of their constant jockeying for earliest vote count. Lets face it, these early states are not exactly representative of the Union. Why should they dictate the direction of the elections?
Rhode Island gets 4 electoral votes. New York gets 31.
New York is 19 times more people, but only gets 8 times more votes.
The Electoral College helps protect the little states from being overwhelmed and losing their identity. However, Fluffy agrees that some states like Iowa get too many electoral votes.
you're missing the point. I for one am not arguing against the electoral college system. it has worked for us for more than 200 years but in this case where Gore was clearly ahead in the popular vote he was proving to be ahead in the coiunt in Florida which would have given him the electoral count needed to win..... UNTIL Bush&Co went to court and for the first time in our history the activist supremes injected themselves into a presidential election and halted the corrupt vote count in Florida (run, at the time, by Bush the junior and a Secretary of State who was the state chair for the Bush campaign). You want clarity on this issue? read the dissenting votes.
Some of the problem was there were great voter irregularities. In the past, I voted on those punch type ballots. If you did not hold it steady with one hand, and punch it with the other, the thing would move. You'd wind up punching holes in the wrong places. It seems a lot of older people didn't hold it steady, punched the wrong hole, and screamed foul. Well, if you can't hold something still while you punch holes, you've got bigger problems than voting.
I was hoping Gore would win. I didn't think he was a super candidate but it would have put into light the economic earthquake was caused by the irresponsible behavior of the 90's. People would have had to face the truth or start blaming someone from the previous administration. Americans are some of the most irresponsible people on earth, and don't want to take responsibility for their own stupid actions.
It would have been interesting to see if Gore would have pointed the finger at the previous 8 years of government for the coming collapse.
Yep. And this court has really been an incredible return on investment (ROI). I the ROI has been beyond their wildest dreams. And every year comes yet more rewards.
Justices Offer Receptive Ear to Business Interests
The Supreme Court, for starters, came under fire from some panelists, who cited the Chamber of Commerces win rate during Chief Justice Robertss tenure. Doug Kendall, head of the Constitutional Accountability Center, cited statistics his group compiled late last year showing that the Chamber had won 68% of the cases in which it participated from 2006-2010, compared to the Chambers win rates of 56% in the Rehnquist Court and 43% in the Burger court. (Heres a link to that report.)