|
Grex > Agora35 > #175: grangers comments on al gore and his contest | |
|
| Author |
Message |
grangerz
|
|
grangers comments on al gore and his contest
| 
Nov 29 05:22 UTC 2000 |
al gore is a man who in 1992 i respected
many of the people i associated with agreed, more respectable then dan quale,
we wanted to see george bush and al gore as president and vice president
bill clinton has corrupted al gore
now i voted for bush, but dont misunderstand em for a minute,
im all for democracy, and all for all legal votes that have been cast being
counted,
these include the military oversee ballots, and those in the various
counties,
its fricking unbelievable that after 200 eyras we still do not have
standardized ballots and a consistent way to count,
we need touch screen balloting, or an email vote, which isnt practical i know,
but it is the decision of the florid asecretary of state, after following the
rules set forth by the flordia supreme court, that mister bush jr is the
winner
this contest of gore to me is now pushing it, if two or three weeks ago he
had said this is what we need to do that is both a) legal and b) fair
a set of legal standards that are consistent on how all votes cast shall be
counted
but its just waiting and legal manueveering and crap
its time he go away
it the people who have voted that have decided this election (and i know some
jack ass will say but sean its the electoral college)
the people, not the legislature or the court or some secretary of state that
should decide,
and not some electoral college either
eliminate it
get a stardardized vote with consistent counting procedures
and if this is what we had this year al gore would have won!
a granger commentary
|
| 39 responses total. |
bdh3
|
|
response 1 of 39:
|
Nov 29 06:37 UTC 2000 |
Eliminate the electoral college and you might as well let California
elect the president.
Anything other than a physical ballot leads to easier fraud, just try to
prove who it is that posted this response for example, or that it
contains now what the person posting originally wrote. Consider for a
moment that even with optical or punch card voting, somebody has to
program the readers...
Perhaps after all is said and done, paper ballots marked in an
appropriate box is the way to go with the results taking days to
tabulate...but then you have to trust those doing the counting doncha.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 2 of 39:
|
Nov 29 07:05 UTC 2000 |
Black and white balls work pretty well.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 3 of 39:
|
Nov 29 08:16 UTC 2000 |
Like a lottery? Random chance selects?
|
polygon
|
|
response 4 of 39:
|
Nov 29 14:16 UTC 2000 |
Georgia used to use a form of the electoral college (the "county unit
system") to determine the winner of some statewide elections. The
argument was similar to #1: "eliminate the county unit system and you
might as well let Atlanta elect the governor." However, the county
unit system was struck down, and Atlanta does NOT dominate Georgia
elections, any more than Detroit dominates Michigan elections.
California is only 10% of the country. No matter who the candidates are,
the other 90% is going to make more difference than California's 10%.
What bdh really means is that television stations in large media markets
like Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Detroit, Atlanta,
Houston, etc., would get a disproportionate share of the presidential
campaign dollar under an all-popular-vote system. This is something that
might be of concern if you happen to own a TV station in Appleton,
Wisconsin that benefited from being located in a battleground state.
News flash: the presidential election was held in every state regardless
of where the campaign media buys were. Some of the so-called
"battleground" states didn't turn out to be very close at all (e.g., Gore
won Michigan by over 200,000 votes), and some non-battleground states
turned out to be extremely close (e.g., New Mexico).
Again, the way to keep the electoral college, and make the popular vote
relevant without being the only consideration, would be to add a slate of
at-large electors, equal in number to the elector slate of the largest
state.
As to the risks of online voting, and any other system (like the old lever
handle machines!) that does not involve a physical ballot, very much
agreed.
|
ashke
|
|
response 5 of 39:
|
Nov 29 15:43 UTC 2000 |
I liked Gore in 92 also. His wife scares the bejeeze out of me, but he was
okay. Clinton didn't corrupt gore. Quite frankly, I still like Clinton as
a president. He can stick his you know, or his cigar, wherever he wants to.
But it has nothing to do with his preformance as a President, and I won't hold
that against him. I'm not his wife or daughter.
We seem to want a President who is honest, open, and holds the right "values"
for the job. But then we also want one who can lie, keeps secrets, work
behind the scenes in our best interest, and keep it from us when they don't
feel we should need to know. We want a contradiction, and when they turn out
to be human, with human failings, then we bitch and moan.
I want to know who was elected. Not who won, but who was elected, because
frankly, no one has won this year. I do not see anything unreasaonable with
the recount, other than it gets a lot of panties in a bunch because they will
either loose or they don't like the time it will take. I just want to know
the actual outcome. And I won't blame Gore for wanting that either. Bush
is acting like a spoiled child, who doesn't want to know for sure, and if he
doesn't get his way, well, he's gonna stamp his feet.
|
ric
|
|
response 6 of 39:
|
Nov 29 18:25 UTC 2000 |
Electoral votes are still primarily based on population, plus two votes for
every state. The thing is, thanks to the electoral college, winning
California is a LOT more powerful than it should be. For example, if you get
a plurality of the vote in California, say 45% - you effectively gain 100%
of the vote in California. That may account for an additional 8 million in
the popular vote that you didn't actually get.
Going to the popular vote would actually take power AWAY from California.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 7 of 39:
|
Nov 29 23:15 UTC 2000 |
Can someone succinctly explain what the supposed "problem" is with Tipper
Gore? Was she a Salem witch that floated or something? ;-)
|
scott
|
|
response 8 of 39:
|
Nov 29 23:35 UTC 2000 |
She and several other wives of senators somehow managed to get hearings on
music (language, content, "occult" content) by the govt, claiming all the
while that it was just a group of "concerned parents" and not some big govt.
censorship move. They ended up with the "tipper sticker", the parental
warning sticker you see on CDs with profanity etc. Not actually censorship,
supposedly, except that Wal-Mart and other major retailers won't carry things
with the stickers.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 9 of 39:
|
Nov 30 00:06 UTC 2000 |
And that is what "scares" some people about her?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 10 of 39:
|
Nov 30 01:00 UTC 2000 |
(you mean besides her hair?)
|
birdy
|
|
response 11 of 39:
|
Nov 30 01:10 UTC 2000 |
Anybody who decides *for me* what is offensive and what isn't is scary.
|
grangerz
|
|
response 12 of 39:
|
Nov 30 01:10 UTC 2000 |
the electoral college allows california 10.8% of the decision
with the popular vote based on recent voting patterns . . . 10.2%
so going to popular vote means california has lwess power
who is the uneducated person who said a popular vote would make california
decide an election?
regardless gerx wont be the deciding factor
grex rather
if anything, there are 2 million undercounted votes in america,
2 million votes for president that werent counted
why does al gore want to count "all the votes" but yet only requesting that
two counties get recounted,
this is HYPOCRACY
bush is acting wisely i think and hes trying to get colin powel as his
secretary of state
eitehr way i hate the idea of judges deciding presidents,
it should be the people
the legislatures have the constitutional means to determine how the people
will decide
-granger
|
ric
|
|
response 13 of 39:
|
Nov 30 02:05 UTC 2000 |
It was bdh who said California would decide the election in a popular vote...
which is entirely untrue, especially if one c andidate only gets a few percent
more than the other.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 14 of 39:
|
Nov 30 07:05 UTC 2000 |
What does the warning sticker say? Is it simply factual, or is it also
judgemental? If it is factual only, I see no problem with it. It would not
be making any *decision* for anyone about offensiveness. Definitions of
profanity are pretty well understood by everyone - whether you like it or
not is another matter.
|
ric
|
|
response 15 of 39:
|
Nov 30 12:20 UTC 2000 |
The sticker itself isn't deciding what's offensive, just states that there
is profane language.
Walmart is the one deciding or trying to decide what's offensive and what's
not. Walmart is the evil empire, not the people putting on the labels.
|
ashke
|
|
response 16 of 39:
|
Nov 30 14:02 UTC 2000 |
I think that they are making an asumption about the content is what bothers
me. Not only that, if you get transcripts of the "hearings", it's not just
Tipper. It's her hubbie too, and god was he a jerk. And these hearings are
not just from the mid 80's either. They happen every..3 years I believe.
But don't hold me to it. At the last hearing, the guitar player from Nirvana
spoke, and it was rather good.
And Ric, by placing the sticker on the album, they are making the judgement
that it is offensive. The intent of the hearings was NOT the sticker. That
was the settlement they took, because anything else was unconstitutional.
Then the choice was made that any under 18 were not allowed to by an album
with the sticker (I worked in retail music for 3 years), so they were placing
it in the same category as booze and pornography. Why? Because a bunch of
old bitties with nothing better to do decided they needed to shelter the world
from themselves, and why not...it's bad, and people can't make up their own
minds. Once again, the gov trying to do the job of parents, rather than
letting them make their own decisions.
Good listen? Ode to Tipper Gore, last song on Warrent's Cherry Pie album
|
rcurl
|
|
response 17 of 39:
|
Nov 30 16:34 UTC 2000 |
I think you may be confused. If the sticker just says the contents contain
profanity, then it is factual and not judgemental. If WalMart refuses to
sell a product with the label, they have every right as they are a private
corporation. The government has not denied anyone free expression. Your
beef seems to be with a private corporation that does not think the way
you do. That's their right just as much it is your right to think the way
you do. This is especially relevent as WalMart is, I am sure, not the
only vendor of the product in the world.
|
ashke
|
|
response 18 of 39:
|
Nov 30 17:14 UTC 2000 |
I beg your pardon, Rane, but a music chain store can not sell CDs or Tapes
with explicit lables to underage children. This has nothing to do with
WalMart. If they do sell them, and the parents find out, they are
automatically refunded when they come back, or they can be sued.
And putting the lable on the item is making a judgement about it's content.
You are aware on some surfing software that is parent controlled you can't
look up "breast cancer" because the word breast is considered to profane and
adult content? Who has the right to determine what is offensive other than
parents for their own families?
(oh, and by arresting 2 Live Crew, t hey did deny free expression. Also
banning their albums and preformances.)
|
gelinas
|
|
response 19 of 39:
|
Nov 30 17:45 UTC 2000 |
Putting the label on *describes* the content, which has been _listened to_.
No "assumptions", no "judgements". Just description. Of fact.
The 'problems' with filtering software are well-documented, and not pertinent.
Well, maybe: The choice to use them lies with the parents, just as the
purchase of labeled music does. Or labeled books. (Which books have been
labeled? _Ullyses_, _The_Adventures_of_Huckleberry_Finn_,
_The_Catcher_in_the_Rye_, _The_Wizard_of_Oz_. Just to name a few. ;)
What were we talking about? Oh, yeah, the Electoral College and the
distribution of votes. I don't care enough to know whether California
is a "winner take all" state; it may very well be, but that really isn't
important for the Electoral College: each state gets to decide for itself
how (or even whether) to apportion its electoral votes. A strictly
popular vote sort-of eliminates the apportionment. Only "sort-of"
because it depends upon the 'popular vote' is counted: a percent of the
nationwide-vote, or a state-by-state percentage.
I've listened to folks who know their area comment on the vote-counting
as it happens. They can tell when the number of votes already garnered
are enough to overwhelm anything that could possibly happen in the
uncounted regions. (This is what the network news folks were trying to
do, with varying success.) I *think* (i.e., it's an unproven statement)
that a straight popular vote would be more vulnerable to this kind of
forecasting than the current system is. Consider: If the difference in
votes of everything east of the Mississippi, plus California, is already
larger than the population of Alaska and Hawaii, separately or together,
why should they leave their polls open? Nothing that happens there will
make any difference.
|
senna
|
|
response 20 of 39:
|
Nov 30 19:26 UTC 2000 |
Actually, they can sell to underage people. Some chains choose not to. The
sticker has no legal implications attached to it, unless legislation changed
within the past three weeks.
|
ashke
|
|
response 21 of 39:
|
Nov 30 19:50 UTC 2000 |
Thank you for the correction. Perhaps it was the company policy for Musicland
Group, but you could be fired for doing it from there. Just because of the
ramifications.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 22 of 39:
|
Nov 30 21:17 UTC 2000 |
Kids under 18 can't get into R rated movies without parental guidance
either... Should that rule be abolished?
Factually- purely factually- the labels make no judgements. However,
people/companies viewing them do. Kinda like that old saying 'guns
don't kill people, people kill people.'
The label makes no more of a judgement than say the dustjacket on a
book with a few words about what's in the book.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 23 of 39:
|
Nov 30 21:23 UTC 2000 |
re #19: the "they might as well not vote in Alaska and Hawaii" argument
pretty much presupposes that the presidential race (the only nationally
elected federal race) is the only one that counts. Most states cast votes
for their senators, congressional representatives, and state legislators,
myriad local officials, and an ever-growing number of ballot referendums
all on the same day.
re #17: the issue is a bit more complicated than that.. yes, the record
companies put a "voluntary" label on their products describing (albeit
subjectively and inconsistently) the lyrical content, and the retailers
make their own business decisions about whether to sell merchandise labelled
"offensive" and if so, under what circumstances.
However, this "voluntary" system was a compromise solution forced on the
industry by the threat of coercive use of government power -- the PMRC
and associated groups were lobbying for legislation that had a lot of
high- powered backing in Congress at the time (Tipper Gore's devoted
husband included..) When government power is involved, the threat of
censorship can sometimes be nearly as effective as the reality.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 24 of 39:
|
Nov 30 22:07 UTC 2000 |
The vice president is also elected naturally - by the states.
There are many instances of apparent "threats" - which never materialize.
One still has the First Amendment, and the ACLU, on your side.
|