Don't forget to VOTE!

[Shadowswift]

Vote? Fuck. The elctroal college does whatever the hell it wants. I believe it should be absolute popular vote against popular vote. The people are not being heard.

after the two Bush elections and the insanely close numbers, a lot of people feel that way

[Solecord]

1. Clean house.

The Clintons were some f'd up people. Now they and all their cronies are gone and they [the Clinton cronies] are not Obama's friends. Many of them are probably on his "shitlist", especially due to their behavior in the primaries. Most of them were weasels at best.

More than half of Obama's advisors were staff from Clinton's whitehouse.... change?

[foq]

after the two Bush elections and the insanely close numbers, a lot of people feel that way

If you look at election results you WILL see that in 2000 Al Gore had more votes than Bush, yet Bush won. This has occured in other years too but 2000 is the only year I know which it happened in.

[Baker]

If you look at election results you WILL see that in 2000 Al Gore had more votes than Bush, yet Bush won. This has occured in other years too but 2000 is the only year I know which it happened in.

Winning the popular vote means you got 50% or more of all votes.

Gore did not win 50% of votes cast, he had 49% so he didn't "win" the "popular vote".

[Neither did Clinton, who got 43% and 49% of the popular vote.]

[Shadowswift]

More than half of Obama's advisors were staff from Clinton's whitehouse.... change?

i heard that Obama gave thought to making Billary his chief of state.
that frightens me a little...

[terminus]

i heard that Obama gave thought to making Billary his chief of state.
that frightens me a little...

Yep, pretty frightening. :d

[Shadowswift]

horrifying

[foq]

Winning the popular vote means you got 50% or more of all votes.

Gore did not win 50% of votes cast, he had 49% so he didn't "win" the "popular vote".

[Neither did Clinton, who got 43% and 49% of the popular vote.]

That's the corruption I speak of. In my book, even if you got 1% of the popular votes, as long as you had more votes than anyone else you win.

[metchsteekle]

BAH i say throw them in a ring with a bottle and crowbar each and have them use there physical and mental strength to beat each other

this include the other than democrat and republican parties as well

[Baker]

That's the corruption I speak of. In my book, even if you got 1% of the popular votes, as long as you had more votes than anyone else you win.

Most countries that use the popular vote method of electing a leader require 50% of the vote. If no candidates reach 50%, then they take the top 2 in vote count and hold a run-off election (this happened a few years ago in France).

[This is also done in some US states. Lousiana comes to mind, but there are others.]

The benefit of a popular vote system is that it makes third party candidates have a real chance. And if the USA used such a system, it would bring an abrupt end to the 2 party political system.

However, if you don't have a run-off system, you can end up with situations where someone no one likes becomes president due to vote-splitting.

This is why you almost never find plurality vote systems for electing national leaders because eventually some Ross Perot type guys wins with 37% of the vote, while 63% of the people didn't want that.

In fact, the Democratic party uses a far superior primary process than the Republican party. McCain became the Republican party nominee by "winning" several states with 34% of the vote in a winner-take-all system ... only to be a relatively unpopular choice within his own party.