shart1780
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Anyone?
Clark W. Griswold said:THe electoral college did exactly what it was supposed to do in 2000, which was to keep one state or region from having too much effect on the outcome of the election. Bush lost the popular vote to Gore by 100,000 overall. This was mostly due to the landslide victory Gore enjoyed in California, where he won by over a million. Basic math should tell you that the Cali vote was far out of line with how the rest of the country voted. The electoral college corrected that.
blueyedpoet said:the country will never go for abolishing one of the core doctrines in the constitution - not that the constitution is perfect, many just hold it to be, well, holy. I say a proportionate distribution of electoral college votes is the way to modify it.
popshopper said:Put simply, in a close race such as Florida in 2000, you had a republican candidate win by a tiny margin, with the election handled by a partisan republican offical in a state governed by the victors brother. A third world country could manage a fairer system.
nbcrusader said:
The idea of having non-partisan officials is mostly illusory. Everyone brings their biases with them. If they violate the law, they pay the price.
popshopper said:The idea that lawyers can solve anything is pretty naive. At the end of the day your supreme court is pretty much partisan too.
deep said:Historians will say the results of the 2000 election did not reflect the will of the people
There will be a consensus that Bush got onto the Whitehouse on a busted election process.
nbcrusader said:
As a lawyer, my suggestion was a bit sarcastic.
Flying FuManchu said:History will say that election 2000 rightly went to Bush...
verte76 said:
History will say that it was a very closely contested, and excruciatingly close election. That's all.
verte76 said:
History will say that it was a very closely contested, and excruciatingly close election. That's all.