If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Presidential Election
Girl-From-Mars
Posts: 2,822 Boards Guru
what does everyone think abotu bush becoming president, even though gore got more votes? is it really so wrong to ask for all the votes to be counted? i think they should be counted before a president is actually decided, why doesnt bush want them counted? the fact its taken so long is just madness though, cant it be counted right the first time?
0
Comments
At least I wouldn't want to vote for someone and not have my vote counted. I don't think I'm going to vote in the future anyways so I'll just drop the twaddle. :P
So I got not much more to say...
-Faf
I fly like Wilma!!!
As to counting them before a president is decided, well they were, several times. Gore kept arguing (through the courts as well) that it wasn't done accurately enough, and needed to be redone, again. From some Republican's (Bush's) point of view Gore was trying to recount again and again till he got the result he wanted.
The peculiarity of Gore losing though he had more votes is not that unusual - most electoral systems have problems like that. 'First past the post' (UK) could end up with that happening (I think), and pretty much always gives the winner a majority in parliament even when they didn't get a majority in terms of votes. 'Proportional representation' (lots of countries in Europe) is fairer, but can end up with weak coalition governments.
I have to say I think Bush is bad news, if not for America then definitely for everywhere else, because he's isolationist and doesn't have a clue about the rest of the world, or about world politics. In general he also seems short sighted and downright stupid - plus his record as governor of Texas is hardly exemplary. He doesn't have a clean past either, so you can expect a scandal at some point IMO.
The world would be better off without the USA, who here agrees?!?!?
I agree the system is morally corrupt at least partly because of this, but do you think that it produced the unusual result here? It was a very close run election, and most voting systems are able to produce results that look wrong like this but conform to their system.
I think the reason America has this system of each State electing representatives to the electoral college, who then elect the president, is because of the significance of the (at least partial) independence of each State. If you take this independence as necessary, then:
1. Each State chooses how to elect its representatives, and they choose el presidente by a simple majority. That's why it not a simple majority vote for the whole country.
2. It's difficult to exactly decide the number of reps each State should have in the electoral college, if only because populations change quite a lot, even every 4 years (immigration, emmigration, birth and death rate changes etc.). This means that you won't get every State being exactly fairly represented in the electoral college, so it's difficult to ensure the result will be 'fair' if it's a close election like this time. When the difference is only about 100000 (or 2 or 6 or whatever) out of 100000000 (i.e. 0.1%, 0.2%, whatever), it's not surprising something like this happens.
That's impossible to say, it's like trying to fortell the future. If the USA was simply 'not there', who's to say Stalinist Russia wouldn't rule the world, or some other nastier superpower (even the Third Reich). Could be better, but no reason why necessarily. I do agree that the USA often abuses its power or doesn't deserve it, and is nowhere near as advanced or civilised as some of it thinks, but its inhabitants are only human after all... we know what that means... <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
[This message has been edited by JB (edited 16-12-2000).]