|
| Thread: URGENT --Americans (and others) PLEASE READ THIS!!! |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
posted October 09, 2004 06:17 PM |
|
|
PM, before you leave.
I interpreted your "homework" statement as a jest. My reply about you "tearing me to shreds" etc was also a jest.
We're fine.
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
posted October 12, 2004 05:57 PM |
|
|
Binabik --
Thank you for being so magnanamous in response to my lack of self-awareness. Very kewl.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2004 06:50 AM |
|
|
Whew, had to read that twice....couldn't figure out why you thought I should get a mammogram....
But if all this politness keeps up I'm going to spell that D-word again and start singing Bee Gees songs.
Stayin alive
Stayin alive
ooo ooo ooo ooo
Stayin aliiiiiive
____________
|
|
Rindle
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted October 25, 2004 04:42 AM |
|
Edited By: Rindle on 25 Oct 2004
|
Khayman wrote:
Quote:
In regards to your statement, please see below:
Amendment XXVI of the Constitution of the United States
Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Bravo! You know how to copy-and-paste the Constitution on voting rights. Most Americans I talk to don't even seem to know the Constitution. I'm usually the one who has to point things out lol. It may look great on paper but it doesn't mean much when it's being disregarded by powerful people. Communism looked good on paper too, until Stalin killed 20 million people.
Quote:
You have been watching too many Michael Moore movies.
You don't need to watch his "movies" if you are even slightly capable of researching things for yourself. However, people like you are usually too lethargic or feebleminded to do this. The information is in the public domain and is by no means wild conspiracy theories. But hey ignorance is bliss, right? lol
Quote:
No United States citizen, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion is ever denied the right to vote. If minorites were ever denied the right to vote in the United States, then the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), along with the National Association for the Advacement of Colored People (NAACP) and other watchdog groups, would never allow this to happen.
Yes, in a perfect world. However, the US Civil Rights Commission reports: an analysis of the entire state using county-level data and at Miami-Dade, Duval, and Palm Beach counties using precinct-level data, demonstrates that blacks were far more likely than non-blacks to have their ballots rejected in the 2000 Florida presidential election. After carefully and fully examining all the evidence, the Commission found a strong basis for concluding that violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) occurred in Florida. The VRA was enacted in 1965 to enforce the 15th Amendment’s proscription against voting discrimination. It is aimed at both subtle and overt state action that has the effect of denying a citizen the right to vote because of his or her race.
Quote:
In all fairness to your statement, perhaps what you meant to say was that in Florida certain votes from primarily minority voting districts may not have been accounted for. That would be more acccurate, IMO.
No, what I meant to say was that many perfectly eligible voters (most of them black) were barred from voting. How could this happen, you ask? Well, you see, felons are not allowed to vote in Florida, and there's something called a Felon Voter Purge List. The company getting paid $5700 to collect this list in the 2000 elections was fired, and instead the Bush friendly firm called Database Technologies was hired -- and got paid $2.3 million. This company was instructed to cast as wide a net as possible, meaning even people who had similar names, birth dates or social security numbers as felons were included. As a result: a total of 173,000 names were removed from state voter rolls, of which 90% turned out to be innocent of any felony crimes. And to top it off, even the elections supervisor for Madison County, Florida, Linda Howell, found out that she had been barred from voting! While this mistake was eventually corrected, the incident shook her faith in the process. After this, Howell decide not to use the list anymore; stating "the information is so flawed". However, not all counties rejected the list. Etta Rosado, spokeswoman for the Volusia County Department of Elections, said "the county essentially accepted the file at face value, did nothing to confirm the accuracy of it and doesn't inform citizens ahead of time that they have been dropped from the voter rolls". Rosado also stated "If they show up at a polling place, we'll say, 'Wait a minute, you're a convicted felon, you can't vote. Nine out of 10 times when we repeat that to the person, they say 'Thank you' and walk away. They don't put up arguments." Rosado doesn't know how many people in Volusia were dropped from the list as a result of being identified as felons. They probably didn't argue because of the heavy police presence and the treat of arrest, particularly in inner city precincts.
Things haven't gotten better this election, either. It seems Bush & Co are up to their same old tricks: an employee of a private voter registration firm alleges that his bosses trashed registration forms filled out by Democratic voters because they only wanted to sign up Republican voters. The registration firm (called Voter Outreach of America) denies the allegations, of course. However, Voter Outreach of America was hired by Sproul & Associates who in turn were paid $500.000 by the Republican party to register voters. Also, it's reported that Governor Jeb Bush has been sending out a flawed felon voter list (déjà vu?) to county election offices despite warnings from state officials. In fact, as a result of the mess in the 2000 presidential elections, the OSCE -- an organization that normally operates in third world countries like Russia, Ukraine, Macedonia and Bosnia -- has sent 160 election observers to supervise this years election in counties all across the country. The OSCE's first report is already strongly critical. Talk about a Banana republic.
Binabik wrote:
Quote:
First: ditto what Khayman said. Eligible voters being banned just wouldn't happen. Well, if it did, it would cause major riots.
Newsflash, it already did. On the day Bush was inaugurated tens of thousands turned out to protest. His limo was pelted with eggs and things where so tense that he could not get out and walk for his inauguration. The only reason it did not turn into a full scale riot was because of a massive police presence. Not since Richard Nixon paraded down Pennsylvania Avenue in 1973 has a presidential Inauguration drawn so many protesters -- and last time, people were out to protest the Vietnam War.
Quote:
As I mentioned earlier, I've been voting since the 1970's. I've never used anything except punch cards and I've never voted in a poor neighborhood. The controversial punchcards used in Florida were a specific type of punchcard called a butterfly ballot. I've used butterfly ballots also, maybe half the time. They may be *SLIGHTLY* more difficult to use than other types. Let me rephrase that. They may be slightly less easy to use than other types. To do it wrong, someone has to not be paying attention to what they are doing. At worst, the elections board may have been guilty of not teaching the voters how to tie their shoe (which literally is much more complicated than using a butterfly ballot).
Nevertheless, punch card machines are antiquated and unreliable and so is the American election system. For instance, having to register in order to vote is unheard of in more modern democracies.
Quote:
The bottom line is that there is no such thing as a perfect system. A system and rules are created and approved by everyone involved, including the voters themselves (although 99.9% of them choose not to give input on it).
I never intended to discuss whether there is such a thing as a perfect system, you'll have to talk to Khayman about that lol. He seems to have a rather naive and optimistic view of the world  . However, I think you're on to something when you talk about the lack of participation in American politics. The United States still has the sort of social gaps that Western Europe only experienced decades ago. America is all about keeping the rich and resourceful rich and in control, and the poor and resourceless poor and uneducated. There's this backwards culture in America, it's like people are used to having their church pastor interpret world events and scriptures for them. It's dangerous when people simply rely on being fed information -- by the Fox News Channel or CNN, for instance -- rather than asking questions and researching things for themselves. People tend to have an unwarranted amount of respect for authority. Poverty is also a breeding ground for religion, and religion is one of the best methods of control for the elite rulers. So is fear and anxiety. The Bush administration is playing all of these cards to the fullest.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 25, 2004 06:27 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 25 Oct 2004
|
I Completely Disagree
You seem to have no class or respect for the other posters here Rindle. The president didn't rig the 2000 election, poverty is not a breeding ground for religion, and the sky is not falling.
I don't question your fact-check on what actually happened to the Florida felons and "disenfranchised" african american voters. I do highly question your philosophy though.
I also agree with Binabik. The idea of idealogical security coercement is a conspiracist's dream come true. But since it isn't, I'm afraid you'll simply have to stick with pointing the finger at the president for all your personal problems. And I really don't see much self gratification or personal enlightenment with such an ill-natured philosophy. Surely you jest, surely you can't be serious, for if it were then we'd likely have more than a localized riot on our hands. We're talking criminal allegations.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
WhoMe
Tavern Dweller
loving friend to honer
|
posted October 25, 2004 06:55 AM |
|
|
Much fathe have Amerkan not nowing how balitt is bot with much dolar yes. Notrele mans place having wif life at home beeng and wuman wurk makes much comfert but honer smal.
Still gut is it if prid lost is!!!!
____________
with great responsible come much power
|
|
Rindle
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted October 25, 2004 01:38 PM |
|
Edited By: Rindle on 25 Oct 2004
|
Quote:
I Completely Disagree
You are free to do so.
Quote:
You seem to have no class or respect for the other posters here Rindle.
Not true! If I didn't, I wouldn't be bothering to post here. You see, Consis, people can disagree but still have mutual respect. However, if you're not used to, or not capable of handling, disagreement I can see that you might get confused.
Quote:
The president didn't rig the 2000 election
You say you don't question my fact-check on the 2000 elections, yet you still don't seem to grasp what it means. Let me put it in simpler terms for you: when you're running for president and your brother (who is governor of Florida) attempts to remove as many of your opponents voters as possible from voter rolls that amounts to election fraud!
Quote:
We're talking criminal allegations.
Yes , but I'm sure they'd tell you It's just business.
Quote:
poverty is not a breeding ground for religion
Statistically, poor communities are more religious.
Quote:
and the sky is not falling.
Really, it's not? lol You're such a kidder! 
Quote:
I don't question your fact-check on what actually happened to the Florida felons and "disenfranchised" african american voters. I do highly question your philosophy though.
My only philosophy of thought is the truth. It may come as a slap in the face to some people, but I'm sure the people who were turned away from polling stations and the thousands who turned out to protest the president's inauguration will tell you that It's time to wake up!
Quote:
Surely you jest, surely you can't be serious, for if it were then we'd likely have more than a localized riot on our hands.
You did not even know about the facts regarding what actually happened in the 2000 elections. How do you think the general public would have reacted if all the facts had been laid out for them in the media? I think you'd definitely have more than a localized riot on your hands then.
Quote:
And I really don't see much self gratification or personal enlightenment with such an ill-natured philosophy.
Self gratification? What are you talking about lol.
Quote:
I also agree with Binabik. The idea of idealogical security coercement is a conspiracist's dream come true. But since it isn't, I'm afraid you'll simply have to stick with pointing the finger at the president for all your personal problems.
You can't refute the arguments, so you attack the person instead. Your post only illustrates ignorance. It's people like you that make it possible for powerful individuals to get away with election fraud. However, since you don't seem to have much interest in finding out what's going on in your country I suggest that you go back to your philosophy of daily "self gratification".
____________
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 25, 2004 02:22 PM |
|
|
all i can say is this: i hope that Bush loses.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 25, 2004 05:01 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 25 Oct 2004
|
Oh Dear....
I may have mispoken. Eek, uh....now I see how bad it sounds. What I meant to say was inner peace. Disregard the 'self gratification' comment. 
LoL, ho hum
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Rindle
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted October 25, 2004 06:11 PM |
|
Edited By: Rindle on 25 Oct 2004
|
Quote:
I may have mispoken. Eek, uh....now I see how bad it sounds. What I meant to say was inner peace. Disregard the 'self gratification' comment.
LoL, ho hum
That is what we call a Freudian slip up lol, now I know what your definition of "inner peace" is LMAO. Just teasing . When I first read that, I was like what the...  I can't believe he just wrote that lol
____________
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
posted October 29, 2004 07:11 PM |
|
|
Hmm, I can't find where that hypnotic-Vote-For-Nader picture is posted. But, this is the US voting help thread. So here's a website for anyone interesting in supporting Nader without electing Bush: VotePair. It can also help those stranded in a state assured to go to the opposing candidate.
If we're going to have an outdated electoral college system in place, we might as well make the best of it.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted October 30, 2004 12:16 AM |
|
|
As requested...
I like the electoral college, I really don't see a huge problem with it. It's just another part of the "game".
____________
|
|
sirzapdos
Promising
Famous Hero
Open the pod bay doors, Hal.
|
|
posted October 30, 2004 01:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I like the electoral college, I really don't see a huge problem with it. It's just another part of the "game".
No problem with it? Hmmmm, I find that hard to believe. Any system that can automatically exclude 50% - 1 of a state's population's opinion doesn't seem right.
Consider this example. It's an extreme case, but humor me and read it. Assume EVERYONE in the state votes (very extreme), and assume it's for either one of the two candidates, say X and Y (not as extreme ). Now, I'm using 2000 Census populations, so the numbers are smaller than what they are now, but proportionally they should be about equal. A Candidate needs 270 votes to win, correct? So, say Candidate X won these states:
California: 55 Votes
Texas: 34 Votes
New York: 31 Votes
Florida: 27 Votes
Pennsylvania: 21 Votes
Illinois: 21 Votes
Michigan: 17 Votes
New Jersey: 15 Votes
Georgia: 15 Votes
North Carolina: 15 Votes
Virginia: 13 Votes
Arkansas: 6 Votes
That's 270. So Candidate X wins. Assume that all the either states went to Y.
Technically, a candidate wins a state if he has the most votes, so, Candidate X could win a state if 30,001 people voted for him, but (only) 30,000 voted for Y.
So, theoretically, if Candidate X won by 1 vote in every state, and every state that Candidate Y won voted ONLY for him, the Electoral College will still elect Candidate X, even though Candidate Y had more votes. Read on:
State: Population (Thus, total votes, by assumption)
California: 33,871,648
Texas: 20,851,820
New York: 18,976,457
Florida: 15,982,378
Illinois: 12,419,293
Pennsylvania: 12,281,054
Michigan: 9,938,444
New Jersey: 8,414,350
Georgia :8,186,453
North Carolina: 8,049,313
Virginia: 7,078,515
Arkansas: 2,673,400
So in California: Candidate X got 16,935,825 votes, and Candidate Y got 16,935,823 votes. Similarly,
Texas: Candidate X: 10,425,911. Candidate Y: 10,425,909
New York: Candidate X: 9,488,229. Candidate Y: 9,488,228
Florida: Candidate X: 7,991,190. Candidate Y: 7,991,188
Illinois: Candidate X: 6,208,647. Candidate Y: 6,208,647
Pennsylvania: Candidate X: 6,140,528. Candidate Y: 6,140,526
Michigan: Candidate X: 4,969,223. Candidate Y: 4,969,221
New Jersey: Candidate X: 4,207,176. Candidate Y: 4,207,174.
Georgia : Candidate X: 4,093,227. Candidate Y: 4,093,226
North Carolina: Candidate X: 4,024,657. Candidate Y: 4,024,656.
Virginia: Candidate X: 3,539,758. Candidate Y: 3,539,757.
Arkansas: Candidate X: 1,336,701. Candidate Y: 1,336,699.
So, tallying the votes, Candidate X has 79,361,072, an appalingly low 28.2% of the votes. (Didn't Ross Perot come close to this number? ).
So, the Electoral College, can, in theory elect a president who is preferred by well less than a third of the people. While this is an extreme case, I think it illustrates its purpose: The Electoral College can be misrepresentative.
If I had more time, I would do a similar example for Canada's electoral system, and calculate the ABSOLUTE minimum a party leader would need to become prime minister (minority of majority). Maybe tomorrow after my midterm.
I eagerly await vicious counterexamples and criticisms.
Cheers!
____________
So I try to live a complicated world...
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 30, 2004 01:59 AM |
|
|
I know how it works, I didn't need the explaination of it. But like I said before, it's just part of the game. The candidates are out to win states. I think it's exciting, personally.
My friends and I made a little game out of it. We guessed who would win each state. I'll win the game...
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted October 30, 2004 02:25 AM |
|
|
Wolfie here thinks the election of the president of the world most powerful nation is a game and "winning the states" is particularly fun to guess.
No wonder you shouldnt be allowed to vote yet.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 30, 2004 02:58 AM |
|
|
Sure it's a game, and it's a spectator sport, just look at what we're doing. It's a game that spends more money than professional sports in making their "team" better.
Instead of first base, second base, shortstop, etc. they have Campaign managers, Public Relations people, etc. It's a valid analogy.
I found it's too stressful worrying so much about it. Maybe you haven’t noticed, but I haven’t tried to defend against every Bush basher like I used to. It’s not worth the time and effort. I have better things to worry about than what some ignorant conspiracy theorist thinks on the internet, sometimes halfway around the world.
Now, you don’t think I should be able to vote because I try to make it fun and a little less stressful for myself? That’s ridiculous.
The Electoral College was set up because the Founding Fathers didn’t think that people would be engaged enough in the political process to make an educated decision. I think that logic still rings true. You may think an “educated decision” may be for another candidate from the one I support, but I understand that and accept it. No one is going to change anyone else’s political ideology over the internet, it’s just not done.
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted October 30, 2004 03:45 AM |
|
|
Its good you stopped worring so much about this election thing.
But I commented that, because from what you wrote it appears you think the Electorial College is good because it's "fun and exciting".
And if this:
Quote:
The Electoral College was set up because the Founding Fathers didn’t think that people would be engaged enough in the political process to make an educated decision.
...is an additional reason, then you're sooo not right for the original purpose. If that was the case, logically they would have been the most fearsome opponents of democracy, which was completely the opposite.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 30, 2004 03:47 AM |
|
|
That's what I've always heard and seen. Feel free to provide me with some info to the contrary.
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted October 30, 2004 03:54 AM |
|
|
Hmmm, I thought this very thread did that very well.
For example, a quote from Binanik on the first page:
"The reasons behind this have to do with the founders view of what this country was at the time, and should be in the future. The original thirteen states were largely autonomous.
Websters definition of autonomy: 1: the quality or state of being self-governing; esp : the right of self government 2 : a self governing state 3 : self-directing freedom and esp. moral independence
The founders were keen on the idea of the states remaining largely autonomous. Much of the debate among the founders involved the question of whether there should even be an umbrella government at all. They had just won a war and gained independence from Britain.....a government they felt was oppressive and didn't give them a voice in choosing their own destiny. They knew from experience and history that governments always become overly large, unresponsive to the people, etc. They didn't want that to happen again. On the other hand, they realized the benefits of the states being united and having at least some form of government to act in the common interest of the individual states. This second view prevailed and, hence, the United States was born."
Or even more, read his entire post, or the entire thread discussion for that matter.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted October 30, 2004 06:23 AM |
|
|
My brother's currently in Nebraska for college. Nebraska is a Rebublican stronghold, and my brother's a Democrat. If he votes in Nebraska for his first election, his vote will not count. So, thanks to his status as a transient student, he's using the absentee ballot to cast his vote in Minnesota, a swing state. Most Democrats in Nebraska don't have that option, unless they decide to support Nader using the VotePair system. Their votes go unheard. Same for Republicans in Washington D.C. Check out the little map on the website...Kerry has a 67% poll spread in D.C. If Bush himself votes in D.C., his vote will be overwhelmed and unrepresented in the college.
You can play games with the electoral college. You can try to manipulate the electoral college system. But, fundamentally, the system is outdated (based on the conflict between large and small states, see discussion before). It's really silly. Alas, the chances of the US implementing a system like the representational one Germany uses are about nil...
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
| |
|
|
