The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

cvillehog, if the popular vote was used, the people in the small states would be considered. Their one vote would count the same as the vote of someone who lives in a large state. And the candidates only campaign in a small number of states now. Do you think Bush is spending much time campaigning in conservative states or Kerry in liberal states?

patrickg68 wrote:cvillehog, if the popular vote was used, the people in the small states would be considered. Their one vote would count the same as the vote of someone who lives in a large state. And the candidates only campaign in a small number of states now. Do you think Bush is spending much time campaigning in conservative states or Kerry in liberal states?

If you can get millions of votes by campaigning in NYC, or get 100,000 votes by campaigning in Charlottesville, VA, where are you going to campaign? If we had a direct election by popular vote, those of us in more rural areas would never see or hear from the candidates. At least, that's the theory. Whereas, with the Electoral College, the rural voters are over-emphasised, while you still can't ignore the population centers if you want to get your message out.

Again, all I'm trying to point out is, that an election by direct popular vote would just have a different set of problems. It would also take the states out of the equation to a certain extent, because in the current system much of the functioning of the Electoral College is determined at the state level.

I have to say, I shared your sentiment for the popular vote until I began to look into it more. I certainly think the election processes need to be looked at and reformed, but I am no longer convinced that a direct popular vote is the magic answer.

I kind of like what Maine and Nebraska do. Their electoral votes work a bit differently. In those states, the two electoral votes that represent the Senate seats go with who wins the state, but the electoral votes that represent the House seats vote with whomever wins in their district so instead of winner takes all from the state, it is decided more fairly.

JansenFan wrote:I kind of like what Maine and Nebraska do. Their electoral votes work a bit differently. In those states, the two electoral votes that represent the Senate seats go with who wins the state, but the electoral votes that represent the House seats vote with whomever wins in their district so instead of winner takes all from the state, it is decided more fairly.

That will never happen in Virginia, because the state Republican Party wouldn't allow it. There are definitely some districts that would go to the Democrats, and they prefer just knowing that all of Virginia's electoral votes go to the Republicans. I can't see how the state legislature would agree on something like that, and the U.S. Constitution specifically grants the states the right to decide this kind of thing, so the Feds can't just decide to impose that kind of system.

I totally agree with you. The states that are traditionally one or the other are not going to change because it would certainly effect the election.

As you said in Virgina, Nova would almost certainly go to the Denocrats, if the number of Kerry signs versus the number of Bush signs I see every day are any indication.

JansenFan wrote:I totally agree with you. The states that are traditionally one or the other are not going to change because it would certainly effect the election.

As you said in Virgina, Nova would almost certainly go to the Denocrats, if the number of Kerry signs versus the number of Bush signs I see every day are any indication.

I wonder where Charlottesville's district would fall. Charlottesville itself is so liberal it makes NoVa look like an RNC convention, but the district it's in reaches all the way to Danville, and the rural parts of the district (such as where I live in Fluvanna County) are quite conservative.

Yeah, in our neck of the woods, we had Cooter from the Dukes of Hazzard run on the democratic ticket for Congress. He was a local celebrity and ran his Dukes of Hazzard museum just up the road from our house. He got blown out by a young republican candidate from Richmond that never heard of our county before. Cooter has since moved to Tennessee.

KERRY IS A LIAR

GO BUSH IN 04!

spudstr04 wrote:KERRY IS A LIAR

GO BUSH IN 04!

Thanks for your insight into the topic at hand.

www.stolenhonor.com

It's now free for immediate distribution. It features Kerry's own words and their impact on POW's and the like. Testimony and testimonials - if you dare.

Ooh. I'm just checking in. I thought this thread died last weekend....

My friend does a good Kerry impression. I ask him stupid questions and he lies...heehee.

Me:Are you John Kerry?
Him:That's a lie.
Me:Are you alive?
Him:That's a lie.
Me:Do you smoke pot?
Him:Only on days that end in "Y".

[color=darkred][/color
DONT VOTE FOR KERRY UNLESS UR A FAIRY

Man, I should change my vote now.

Bush all the way

Did they change campaign sign laws this year? I remember years past where the section between lanes in the roads were covered with hundreds upon hundreds of signs for every candidate under the sun. This election, its maybe 5 per candidate and its not as noticable. For instance I didn't even know my congressional delegate was up for reelection. I haven't seen on sign for him or the opponent. Kind of weird.

I took it as a slap to the face when Bush choose to not address the African American community. The NAACP and B.E.T asked him to speak and he said no. The fact that he doesn't have time during a re-election period to address his potential voters is amazing. That showed me just how much care he has for my community.

I still dont know who Im a vote for but Bush lost a lot of points with that.

i tried. when i was told it was a 3 hr wait, i laughed in the bitches face and went back to work, where i actually make money, not waiting in a BS line.

just curious....who were you going to vote for HS?

OK with me, let's use the popular vote... wadaya mean it's over already?

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I took it as a slap to the face when Bush choose to not address the African American community. The NAACP and B.E.T asked him to speak and he said no. The fact that he doesn't have time during a re-election period to address his potential voters is amazing. That showed me just how much care he has for my community.

I still dont know who Im a vote for but Bush lost a lot of points with that.

The NAACP and B.E.T are not the only outlets to address the "African American Community." Bush addressed African-Americans through many other ways. The leaders of the NAACP said downright hateful and evil things about Bush...why, then, should he address a group whose leadership did not even give Bush a chance? By the way, there is a subtle, but undeniable and significant movement/shift of African-Americans (especially evangelical African-Americans) towards the Republican party.

not to mention a significant movement of Hispanic voters towards the Republican party

A segment of the vote that often goes overlooked is the midget vote. Often disgruntled and beligerant, midgets tend to vote democratic. But in this election, exit polling showed the midgets voted 3 to 1 for Bush. The only drawback is that their votes only count 1/2 of a regular vote.

The NAACP and B.E.T are not the only outlets to address the "African American Community." Bush addressed African-Americans through many other ways. The leaders of the NAACP said downright hateful and evil things about Bush...why, then, should he address a group whose leadership did not even give Bush a chance? By the way, there is a subtle, but undeniable and significant movement/shift of African-Americans (especially evangelical African-Americans) towards the Republican party.

For one the NAACP and BET do not speak for me. Regardless of what anyone said about him he should have been willing to sell himself to anyone and everyone to get their vote. Thats what this time of year was about. He should be trying to win people over. I didn't like it.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

The NAACP and B.E.T are not the only outlets to address the "African American Community." Bush addressed African-Americans through many other ways. The leaders of the NAACP said downright hateful and evil things about Bush...why, then, should he address a group whose leadership did not even give Bush a chance? By the way, there is a subtle, but undeniable and significant movement/shift of African-Americans (especially evangelical African-Americans) towards the Republican party.

For one the NAACP and BET do not speak for me. Regardless of what anyone said about him he should have been willing to sell himself to anyone and everyone to get their vote. Thats what this time of year was about. He should be trying to win people over. I didn't like it.

I agree. I certainly don't think it is a good sign that a candidate can win election by pretty much solely "playing to his base." The whole point of the election process is that you have to at least pay lip service to all the different demographics, and then be held accountable to how well you meet those expectations.

In 2000, Bush ran a very centrist campaign, then didn't govern in that fashion. Not only was he not held accountable for that "bait and switch" but then this time he ran much farther to the right and concentrated solely on his base of support.

Let's hope that the media does a better job of holding him accountable in this term, though I doubt it.

"Let's hope that the media does a better job of holding him accountable in this term, though I doubt it."

Hilarious!