response 26 of 101:

Nov 15 09:12 UTC 2003

  re #23:
  > Because at its inception, the technology to conduct a reasonably
  > accurate count of the popular vote wasn't available, and now it is.

  I suppose such technology is available.  Of course "available" and
  "in use" aren't the same thing..  

response 28 of 101:

Nov 15 09:21 UTC 2003

re #22...no I have thought the electoral college was outdated for a long
time before the 2000 election.  One reason is that the system is set up so
that whoever wins the popular vote in each state gets ALL of that state's
electoral votes.  The people of Florida in 2000 were clearly evenly
divided, and half the population in Florida voted for Gore.  But Bush as
the certified winner, even if he won by one vote or ten votes out of
millions, got ALL the state's electoral votes.  Why can't the state's
electoral votes be apportioned according to the break down of the vote, so
that if somebody gets forty percent of the vote, they get forty percent of
that state's electors?  Because it would make too much sense to do it that
way.  States theoretically have more leverage in the electoral college if
ALL of their electors vote the same way.  So Gore got half the vote in
Florida and zero electoral votes from Florida.  Is that right?  They could
at least allocate electors based on each congressional district won, so
that if a candidate wins the 2nd district, he gets the second district's
electoral vote and so on.  But that makes too much sense too I guess.

And I say that knowing it wouldn't always help my candidates.  In 2000,
Gore got all 54 of California's electoral votes, but under a system where
he only got the votes of those congressional districts he carried, he
might have only won 30 or so electors.  But like I said, Gore would have
gotten maybe half the electors in Florida and electors in other states
where he lost by close margins.  The results would probably have been the
same.  But it would seem a lot fairer then awarding ALL the state's
electors to a candidate who only got half the state's popular vote.

response 30 of 101:

Nov 15 13:33 UTC 2003

Each state decides for itself how its electoral votes shall be cast.
If New York, for instance, wants to go to a porportional system, or any
other (by county, for instance), it can.

response 32 of 101:

Nov 15 17:56 UTC 2003

I don't see the absolute relevance of the "national popular vote". We
live locally, not nationally, for one thing. It seems to be a fetish more
than a necessity, especially because of our being a federation of States.
Do those advocating abolishing the electoral college also advocate abolishing
States and their independent perogatives? If not, why not?

response 34 of 101:

Nov 15 21:36 UTC 2003

I would rather be able to elect a national Green party candidate than a
Michigan Democrat.u

response 36 of 101:

Nov 16 02:18 UTC 2003

Mr. richard:
If you were willing to equally vent your anger at the minority of the 
U.S. Senate that is preventing a floor vote on President Bush's Appeals 
Court nominees, then we might be able to consider taking you seriously.

response 38 of 101:

Nov 16 09:03 UTC 2003

klg, different situation entirely.  one situation is an election in a
democratic country where every voter is supposed to have equal rights.  If
each voter's vote is not counted equally, is that equal rights?  The Senate
is entirely different. The democrat senators are playing by the rules.  If
you don't lik that, change the rules

btw, klg why do you always refer to yourself in the plural. You are NOT "We",
you are an "I", a lone isolated voice.  don't flatter yourself by doing this
"we" crap anymore when you are only voicing one opinion

response 40 of 101:

Nov 16 23:04 UTC 2003

more like 'absent personality' disorder.

response 42 of 101:

Nov 17 14:40 UTC 2003

Oh, Mr. richard,
Yes.  We are voicing one opinion.  However, it would seem that this that 
to which we are entitled.  Does this bother you?  It appears you wish to 
avoid the fact that others exist.
(We note, as well, that you are voicing one mere opinion and we have no 
qualms with your doing so.)
klg

response 44 of 101:

Nov 17 16:47 UTC 2003

it isn't that they oppose the nominationan and are blocking it.  It is how
they are blocking it.

The Republican leadership still hasn't done everything they could do to bring
this to a vote.  They do not want to use those tactics that the democrats have
fallen to using because they don't want to set that precedent.

response 46 of 101:

Nov 17 18:43 UTC 2003

The senate minority is just doing what they should be doing, stopping very
bad nominations from proceeding. The senate has approved some 160+
nominations, and the minority seems to find only 4 to be untenable. The
majority party should take this opinion more seriously, and accept that
viewpoint. The Republican record when the appointments were being made
by a Democrat was MUCH worse. They stopped some 63 nominations from
proceeding in committee - not even permitting full Senate debate, as
the Democrats are now allowing. 

response 48 of 101:

Nov 18 02:29 UTC 2003

Mr. mcnally-
You may be interested to learn that Mr. Delay is not a member of the 
U.S. Sentate.

Mr. rcurl-
What you fail to admit is that it is quite clear that the nominations 
which the minority is currently filibustering would be certain to win a 
clear majority in a vote of the full body.  This cannot be said of the 
other nominations to which you refer.

response 50 of 101:

Nov 18 05:53 UTC 2003

a.. adn that great dui-driver just labled a balck, female circuit (??)
judge  'neanderthal' including her with three other judges ...
  
teddy-dear ought to be on espn!