Presidential Debates!
<div class="IPBDescription">American Stupidity - part 2</div> The following is a PSA brought to you by yours truly.
The first of several debates between our esteemed presidential candidates is going live tomorrow, at 9PM EST. Don't miss em.
On a side note, my AP USH teacher says he'll give me 2000 extra credit points if I can write a credible essay detailing intelligent and creative arguments or actions used by either side during the debate.
Finally, it might be a good idea to read up on the rules of the debate as agreed upon by both sides:
<a href='http://go.fark.com/cgi/fark/go.pl?IDLink=1143749&location=http://www.newyorker.com/shouts/content/%3f041004sh_shouts' target='_blank'>http://go.fark.com/cgi/fark/go.pl?IDLink=1...041004sh_shouts</a>
The first of several debates between our esteemed presidential candidates is going live tomorrow, at 9PM EST. Don't miss em.
On a side note, my AP USH teacher says he'll give me 2000 extra credit points if I can write a credible essay detailing intelligent and creative arguments or actions used by either side during the debate.
Finally, it might be a good idea to read up on the rules of the debate as agreed upon by both sides:
<a href='http://go.fark.com/cgi/fark/go.pl?IDLink=1143749&location=http://www.newyorker.com/shouts/content/%3f041004sh_shouts' target='_blank'>http://go.fark.com/cgi/fark/go.pl?IDLink=1...041004sh_shouts</a>
Comments
That decide elections.
Neither candidate shall mention the word “Vietnam.” In the event that either candidate utters said word in the course of a debate, the debate shall be concluded immediately and declared forfeit to the third-party candidate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sounds good to me...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On a side note, my AP USH teacher says he'll give me 2000 extra credit points if I can write a credible essay detailing intelligent and creative arguments or actions used by either side during the debate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yay! More teachers that pigeon-hole others into molds of ignorance while making themselves icons of enlightenment!
That decide elections. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks to the electoral college the common voter dosen't matter, but voting for Nader will make me feel better. Sure he won't be elected but its more of a personal matter. Voting for him won't mean I support a mcdonalds in Baghdad if I were to vote for Bush, and voting for Kerry, well, he has no real stance other than "I'm not bush"
That decide elections. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks to the electoral college the common voter dosen't matter, but voting for Nader will make me feel better. Sure he won't be elected but its more of a personal matter. Voting for him won't mean I support a mcdonalds in Baghdad if I were to vote for Bush, and voting for Kerry, well, he has no real stance other than "I'm not bush" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh huh...
Wanna tell me the last time an elector voted against that which was dictated by the state?
And I don't mean to abstain from voting.. I mean voting for the other candidate or a candidate other than the one decided by the state vote.
And 404 just earned a spot in my sig with <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yay! More teachers that pigeon-hole others into molds of ignorance while making themselves icons of enlightenment!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->. You rule. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
CWAG, either you're joking or you're completely ignorant of several centuries of American history. I'll assume the latter.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> People tell me a vote for nader is a vote for bush...sadly what these people don't realize Nader could possibly be the "Ugly prom queen". One person votes for her thinking its funny, but so does everyone else and before you know it...well you'll see.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
^ i meant that
Illuminex, I would hardly consider the electoral college fair or right or good or farsighted or balanced or in anyway "SMART" unless you honestly believe that candidates who win the popular vote, if not the electoral vote, do not deserve office. Following that logic, it's also a good idea to give pigs wings and introduce no-fly zones for pigeons. Yup.
For the rich anyway, I don't remember a single president who ran a campaign while as a poor man. THe only one that comes close was a farmer during the Robber baron days (Carnagy (spelling?) and the like) He was from one of those corporate owned towns and ran for president under the communist party and lost to whoever was going for re-election that time around. I can't remember his name for the life of me, someone help D:
CWAG, either you're joking or you're completely ignorant of several centuries of American history. I'll assume the latter.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> People tell me a vote for nader is a vote for bush...sadly what these people don't realize Nader could possibly be the "Ugly prom queen". One person votes for her thinking its funny, but so does everyone else and before you know it...well you'll see.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
^ i meant that
Illuminex, I would hardly consider the electoral college fair or right or good or farsighted or balanced or in anyway "SMART" unless you honestly believe that candidates who win the popular vote, if not the electoral vote, do not deserve office. Following that logic, it's also a good idea to give pigs wings and introduce no-fly zones for pigeons. Yup. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The whole prom queen thing was a joke, so yeah <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
It would also be worthwhile to note that when the constitution was first forged, the population was NOT centered around urban centers (90% of it, in fact, was spread out around rural areas), and the only reason for the electoral college is because the delegates believed that the majority of the population was unfit to make decisions about their president. Now do explain how the lack of an electoral college would imply that candidates would only need to campaign in the biggest cities - when the entire 50 top cities consist of only a fraction of America's population? <a href='http://geography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.infoplease.com%2Fipa%2FA0763098.html' target='_blank'>http://geography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offs...2FA0763098.html</a>
Wow, completely missed the whole point. I live in New Hampshire. New Hampshire goes for Bush this round, so our 4 electoral votes (I think it's 4) go to Bush. So, the state of NH decided that it wanted Bush, and gave Bush 4 electoral votes.
It is a State Rights issue. The States elect who they want for President. It's not some "rich vs poor" issue like CWAG wants it to be. It's entirely the point that the USA is a collection of States. S-t-a-t-e-s. States. Remember that. That's the KEY point to this whole thing.
Wow, completely missed the whole point. I live in New Hampshire. New Hampshire goes for Bush this round, so our 4 electoral votes (I think it's 4) go to Bush. So, the state of NH decided that it wanted Bush, and gave Bush 4 electoral votes.
It is a State Rights issue. The States elect who they want for President. It's not some "rich vs poor" issue like CWAG wants it to be. It's entirely the point that the USA is a collection of States. S-t-a-t-e-s. States. Remember that. That's the KEY point to this whole thing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ditch the entire electoral college. Have a piece of paper with the names on it and circle the name. No middleman, no ****, and no copouts by illum.
Wow, completely missed the whole point. I live in New Hampshire. New Hampshire goes for Bush this round, so our 4 electoral votes (I think it's 4) go to Bush. So, the state of NH decided that it wanted Bush, and gave Bush 4 electoral votes.
It is a State Rights issue. The States elect who they want for President. It's not some "rich vs poor" issue like CWAG wants it to be. It's entirely the point that the USA is a collection of States. S-t-a-t-e-s. States. Remember that. That's the KEY point to this whole thing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ditch the entire electoral college. Have a piece of paper with the names on it and circle the name. No middleman, no ****, and no copouts by illum. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Way to **** on states rights. Why should the cities be the ones on control if they only exist in a small part of the country? Such speak will lead to civil war. In a popular election states with low populations such as Alaska will all be lead around by the cities. The forefathers knew this and they couldn't allow this to happen since it endangers the voteing power of the minority.
early america wasnt as nationalistic as it is now (the civil war). outlying states contemplated secession all the time.
the minimum electoral votes a state can have is 3, one for each senator and each congressman. so states like montana and wyoming get a little extra pull in deciding elections.
some states (very few actaully) divide there electoral votes up depending on the outcome. giving one for each congressional district won and and the 2 bonus points to the overall winner.
this would probally be a better system for all states, but getting republicans and democrasts to give up the home terrortories is unlikely to happen.
I won't be happy until a secular New Yorker is president *cough*hilary*cough*
Wow, completely missed the whole point. I live in New Hampshire. New Hampshire goes for Bush this round, so our 4 electoral votes (I think it's 4) go to Bush. So, the state of NH decided that it wanted Bush, and gave Bush 4 electoral votes.
It is a State Rights issue. The States elect who they want for President. It's not some "rich vs poor" issue like CWAG wants it to be. It's entirely the point that the USA is a collection of States. S-t-a-t-e-s. States. Remember that. That's the KEY point to this whole thing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ditch the entire electoral college. Have a piece of paper with the names on it and circle the name. No middleman, no ****, and no copouts by illum. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Way to **** on states rights. Why should the cities be the ones on control if they only exist in a small part of the country? Such speak will lead to civil war. In a popular election states with low populations such as Alaska will all be lead around by the cities. The forefathers knew this and they couldn't allow this to happen since it endangers the voteing power of the minority. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nowhere is it written that the less people you live near, the more of a say in politics you should have. As such the electoral college setup is an outdated system, once used to make the political patchwork of the USA function. Today, no state is reasonably going to secede (Right, Alaska will become inedependent. SUUUURE) - so in effect, its just a handicap to any attempt at an actually democratic election.
I won't be happy until a secular New Yorker is president *cough*hilary*cough* <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you ask me, you may be more educated then the average mid-westerner, but you're probably just as open minded (or lack of, for that matter.)
"I KNOW BETTER THAN YOU! I KNOW BETTER THAN YOU!"
You are one person. Of about 270million. Get over it.
I won't be happy until a secular New Yorker is president *cough*hilary*cough* <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well you can include the poor, homeless, and minority voters that are bussed to polls and told who to vote for. You can also include the elderly who have dated preconceptions of what their party stands for. While you are at it, you can throw everyone's vote out that does not agree with my own. God I hope your statement was sarcasm. When you start to decide who gets to vote and not, you are getting yourself in a whole heap of crap. Just because you believe you are more enlightened than the rest of the world, doesn't mean you are.
As for the electoral college. Yes it was made because there was no trust in the people. AS many things have done, the electoral college has evolved. Believe it or not, voter fruad does happen. Extremist for both parties find ways to invent votes; dead people voting, people voting more than once, bussing people to polls who are not registered and telling them who to vote for. The electoral college has moved from not trusting the people to not trusting the canidates. It limits the greater effects that voter fraud can have on the election. It also insure that the canidats address the needs of the smaller states. If they do not address them, than they dont get their votes.
**** and complain about the popular vote all you want, the electoral college is the current system. Im tired of people complaining that Bush lost, he won under the current system in place. Its like playing a game of golf and then deciding that you want the higher score to win at the end.
I won't be happy until a secular New Yorker is president *cough*hilary*cough* <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well you can include the poor, homeless, and minority voters that are bussed to polls and told who to vote for. You can also include the elderly who have dated preconceptions of what their party stands for. While you are at it, you can throw everyone's vote out that does not agree with my own. God I hope your statement was sarcasm. When you start to decide who gets to vote and not, you are getting yourself in a whole heap of crap. Just because you believe you are more enlightened than the rest of the world, doesn't mean you are.
As for the electoral college. Yes it was made because there was no trust in the people. AS many things have done, the electoral college has evolved. Believe it or not, voter fruad does happen. Extremist for both parties find ways to invent votes; dead people voting, people voting more than once, bussing people to polls who are not registered and telling them who to vote for. The electoral college has moved from not trusting the people to not trusting the canidates. It limits the greater effects that voter fraud can have on the election. It also insure that the canidats address the needs of the smaller states. If they do not address them, than they dont get their votes.
**** and complain about the popular vote all you want, the electoral college is the current system. Im tired of people complaining that Bush lost, he won under the current system in place. Its like playing a game of golf and then deciding that you want the higher score to win at the end. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't go so far to say the poor, I mean I'm very poor but I like to think Im pretty intelligent. I have a difficult time making points and arguing over the internet because I cant see the other person but still.
Anyway I've made my opinion clear and if I could there'd be an oligarchy of professionals of all fields.
<a href='http://www.badnarik.org/Multimedia/BDNK_RussoEndorse.WMV' target='_blank'>One of his Ads.</a>
There is a major difficulty with counting 100million words.
The whole idea of punchcards, levers, touchscreens, etc is to reduce the workload of human-counting (which has errors, extremists, (eating chads? WTH?) and other problems) and have an ACCURATE machine which has no bias, error, doens't get tired, etc.
Just look how long it took to recount one section of Florida...
Just as a side note, this is one of the reasons why I don't really like the idea of a simple print-out paper trail for electronic voting. Either make it a SAT-style bubble-printout that can be easily scanned, or don't give any at all. Because of the "magical" process of computers (I.E. You can't see what's going on) I forsee EVERY candidate to call foul on the results (citing hackers, right/left wing conspiracys, etc.), thus falling back on the paper trail EVERY TIME. This will just create more work and error than ever before.
If you really want to be upset about something, be upset about this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Commission on Presidential Debates Announces Formats for 2004 Debates
June 17, 2004
The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) today announced formats for its 2004 debates. Dates and sites for these debates were announced on November 6, 2003 as follows:
First presidential debate:
Thursday, September, 30, 2004
University of Miami
Coral Gables, FL
Vice presidential debate:
Tuesday, October 5, 2004
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, OH
Second presidential debate:
Friday, October 8, 2004
Washington University in St. Louis
St. Louis, MO
Third presidential debate:
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ
<u>Format</u>
The candidates will be seated at a table with the moderator in the first and third presidential debates and in the vice presidential debate.
The second presidential debate will use the town meeting format in which undecided voters, selected by the Gallup Organization, will question the candidates.
Each debate will last for ninety minutes, start at 9:00 p.m. ET, and take place before a live audience.
The first presidential debate will focus primarily on domestic policy, and the third presidential debate will focus primarily on foreign policy. The town meeting debate and the vice presidential debate will be open to all topics.
<u>Moderators</u>
Each debate will have a different single moderator to be selected by the CPD. The four moderators will be announced no later than September 10.
The moderators job in the first and third presidential debates and the vice presidential debate will be to introduce and change topics, to ensure that the participants have equal time, and to encourage some direct exchange among the candidates. The moderators will select all topics and questions.
In the town meeting debate, the town meeting participants will pose their questions to the candidates. The town meeting participants will review their questions with the moderator before the debate for the sole purpose of avoiding duplicate questions.
The moderators will have discretion to ask follow-up questions in all debates.
<u>Participation in the debates sponsored by the CPD is subject to the application of the CPD's Non-partisan Candidate Selection Criteria for 2004, which were issued on September 24, 2003. They are:</u>
*Eligibility under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which requires that a candidate be at least 35 years of age, a natural born citizen of the United States, and a resident of the United States for fourteen years;
<b>*Appearance on a sufficient number of state ballots to have a mathematical chance of securing an Electoral College majority in the 2004 general election; and</b>
<b>*Fifteen percent support of the national electorate as determined by the average of five national public opinion polls taken as close to the first debate as practicable. The polls to be used will be announced no later than September 10.
The candidate selection criteria will be applied before each debate. If a presidential candidate is eligible for the first presidential debate, his or her running mate will automatically be included in the vice presidential debate.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Boldness added to focus your dissent. This is why you'll only hear 2 (*cough*) points of view on topics in the debates.
So a president that screws over farm support in order to put more money into the cities should be elected? Because the cities could swing enough votes to elect him, then the mid-west would be out of luck.
City folk != country folk. Not only is it a slightly different culture, but they both have different needs. In order to get a leader that dictates to both of these sets of needs rather than just those of the cities, the idea of state's rights, etc. comes into play.
Some say a better system would be to apportion (mm apportionment, quite a fun process- used to find how many seats each state gets in the house) each individual distrct so that a state could give some republican electors, and some democrat, dependant upon the population of each district. But that just seems horribly complex.
This leads to the concept so common for humans when they are a large group choosing between two issues: flamewar. The arguments, election tricks and ads that come from those two sides would put any forum troll to shame, and they leave me with a VERY bad taste in my mouth. It seems to me that the most powerfull position in the world goes to the winner of the worlds greatest flamewar. And that, frankly, scares me.