Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   President Bush signs election reform bill   (story.news.yahoo.com) divider line 63
    More: Ironic  
•       •       •

64 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Oct 2002 at 2:54 PM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



63 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2002-10-29 03:00:13 PM  
So many jokes to be made, so little time.
 
2002-10-29 03:02:30 PM  
I just love how Bush is making all kinds of stuff illegal now that he's already done it and used it to his advantage.
 
2002-10-29 03:04:23 PM  
isn't he worried about how he'll get elected when he runs for a second term?
 
2002-10-29 03:06:19 PM  
Of course he did! After Gore tried to steal the election in Florida he might want to make sure something like that doesnt happen again.

Anyways, isnt this unconstitutional, the states are supposed to be in charge of the voting process.
 
2002-10-29 03:06:54 PM  
"The federal government will post civil rights monitors at the polls in several Florida counties next Tuesday."

They forgot to mention that the monitors will be armed with assault rifles in case anyone gets upset at their name being illegally removed from the voter rolls like during the 2000 election.
 
2002-10-29 03:07:06 PM  
Didn't take long for rabid anti-Bushers to start flaming. Can this guy please get some credit for doing the right thing here? He may not be Gandhi or Striesand, but come on, at least he helped fix this.

You may start tearing me apart for being a rapist or baby-smasher or whatever now that I have made my point.
 
2002-10-29 03:09:21 PM  
Ha! Sure, if you believe the liberal media! I bet President Bush isn't even President. The liberal media lies!

PS How come bushcountry.org is reporting that the democrats have ruined all chances for fair elections by getting rid of paper ballots. Now the AP says Bush is getting rid of paper ballots. The liberal media are lying, President Bush, if he is indeed our President, would never do this.
 
2002-10-29 03:12:11 PM  
Bush - Election Reform
Clinton - Erection re formed
 
2002-10-29 03:12:57 PM  
[image from agonist.org too old to be available]
 
2002-10-29 03:13:04 PM  
best.ironic.tag ever.
 
2002-10-29 03:14:41 PM  
[image from jackspace.com too old to be available]
 
2002-10-29 03:15:18 PM  

This Yahoo! story on President Bush is bought to you by the nation of Chad.


[image from forestworld.com too old to be available]

 
2002-10-29 03:16:09 PM  
No im wrong, the votes are taken by the states, but the feds can regulate it.

Which accounts for the 2000 Supreme Court ruling which shutdown the third recount after the first two recounts, and the original count all said Bush was the winner.
 
51
2002-10-29 03:16:47 PM  
Awesome, and correct, usage of the [image from img.fark.com too old to be available] tag
 
2002-10-29 03:18:48 PM  
Wow, it took less than twenty posts for someone to say "so what if Bush snuck his way into the office, with thanks due to his brother and a judge his Dad put in...Clinton got a blowjob!!"
 
2002-10-29 03:18:56 PM  
isn't he worried about how he'll get elected when he runs for a second term?

Getting in is the easiest part. All he has to do now is start a war and, in line with recent republicanism, question the patriotism of his opponet.
 
2002-10-29 03:22:15 PM  
Plan for election reform? Just sit back and wait for that sweeeeeeet Supreme Court 5 - 4 decision.....
 
2002-10-29 03:24:16 PM  
Is there an "influential brother manipulating the result" clause?
I hope it's still allowed to fix elections so family members can win, otherwise this isn't the America that I love.
 
2002-10-29 03:41:07 PM  
So could someone explain to me why we use the electoral college system instead of just counting the popular vote?
 
2002-10-29 03:44:54 PM  
Yeah, can't the guy get some credit for doing the right thing only two years too late, and too late to affect the upcoming election?

Your answer is NO.
 
2002-10-29 03:46:33 PM  
TO ALL PEOPLE WHO KEEP WHINING ON AND ON AND ON BECAUSE GORE LOST: Nya nya, Bush won Bush won, nya nya nya nya nya.


It's about time we elevated this discussion to where it belongs.
 
2002-10-29 03:54:57 PM  
So could someone explain to me why we use the electoral college system instead of just counting the popular vote?

To combat population density and make sure the votes in Iowa are just as important as the votes in Chicago.

Think about it. The populations of places like Chicago, New York and Los Angeles are so dense, that if we went with purely popular vote, those three cities could decide policy for the rest of the country.

Flood damage relief needed in Mississippi? Screw them, L.A. wants a new baseball stadium!
 
2002-10-29 04:00:02 PM  
The electoral college allows states to have a greater influence than they might otherwise have, while still involving a democratic process, Nelno. It's sort of like the original concept of Senators vs. Representatives.
 
2002-10-29 04:01:21 PM  
Nelno, because if just the popular vote was counted, then theororetically one could just get all the votes in the nine most populous states* and win.

*2000 US Census
 
2002-10-29 04:01:41 PM  
Holy Moly, how many times did Bush need to win the counts before people get the point that in our system of government he won? Gores best chance at winning would have been to demand a statewide recount (which would have been legal) instead of trying to selectively boost his chances by picking only the heaviest democrat counties (illegal). Remember the SCOTUS voted 7-2 that what Gore did was unconstitutional both in Florida and in the US constitution. The 5-4 vote was that the Florida supreme court tried to re-write the election law and that because to extend the time yet again would be unconstitutional under florida laws and that the time to vote for the electoral colledge would be in jeopardy.
 
2002-10-29 04:02:27 PM  
10-29-02 03:41:07 PM Nelno
So could someone explain to me why we use the electoral college system instead of just counting the popular vote?

To prevent morons who don't understand the electoral system from having undue influence over an election.
 
2002-10-29 04:04:23 PM  
Ah, if only Gore HAD lost - but the president-designate wouldn't want us to remember that. At least with Bush, tho, all of us who were coke-snorting alcoholics without a job til we were forty have a role model. Just remember Jeebus forgives, and play that card often.

step one: be born rich
step two: avoid pesky draft
step three: do any thing you want for forty years (snort, chug)
step four: make sure Daddy is President
step five: make sure brother is corrupt land-developer governor in state with america's lowest IQ
step six: jeebus, jeebus, jeebus
 
2002-10-29 04:08:49 PM  
Heh. Every time someone writes "SCOTUS", I think of a little dog scooting across the lawn, trying to get rid of those last cling-ons. No disrespect to that very important institution, I just have a sense of whimsy about that particular acronym.
 
2002-10-29 04:12:18 PM  
To combat population density and make sure the votes in Iowa are just as important as the votes in Chicago.

That being said, it would be nice if more states allowed their electoral college votes to be apportioned somehow, whether geographically or via popular vote within the state. Had this been the case in Florida a couple of years ago, the election fiasco would have been a mere footnote.

As for the electoral college helping to equalize the effects of population density...The winner-take-all policy of most states means that you can focus your campaign on Texas, Florida, California, New York, Michigan (etc) and end up with a good chunk of the electoral college vote. Also, it means that in a close election such as Florida 2000, a winning margin of a few hundred votes will have a much greater impact than a very decisive victory in several rural states.

I'm not going to suggest we throw out the electoral college, but I think there are some ways it could be improved.
 
2002-10-29 04:15:09 PM  
Ironic is that Hillary Clinton has voted for almost every spending bill that's hit her desk... except this one. Punch card machines from 1894 are good enough for New York City...
 
2002-10-29 04:15:29 PM  
Huh, I always think "SCROTUS", because of my juvenile sense of humor.
 
2002-10-29 04:17:33 PM  
ok... I'm trying to this in early so we can actually see if it's possible. I'm sure plenty (in my mind too many in fact) are going to defend Bush. So here's my challenge... defend him on his own merit. Do it without mentioning any previous President or presidential candidate.

I really want to see if someone can defend him and his actions on their own merit.
 
2002-10-29 04:18:14 PM  
Mofolotopo: You are, of course, correct. No-one should EVER try to straighten out the faulty ballot system unless they did it in the past, when you would have liked it more.

Someone get Dubya the Mystery Time Machine so that he can satisfy cynics like Mofolotopo by travelling back and changing policy in a more timely fashion to accomodate Mofolotopo.

Get real, man.
 
2002-10-29 04:27:40 PM  
To combat population density and make sure the votes in Iowa are just as important as the votes in Chicago.

Unfortunately, what it does is make votes in Iowa MORE important than those in Chicago, by apportioning less electoral votes per person to the dense states:

Alaska, as of the 2000 Census, had 626,932 people, and 3 electoral votes.

New York, at the same time, had 18,976,457 people, and 33 electoral votes. 11 times as many electoral votes, with just over 30 times as many people.

As a result of the electoral college, therefore, a vote in Brooklyn is worth significantly less than a vote in Anchorage. Something should be done about that, if we're going to continue to use this outmoded system.
 
2002-10-29 04:28:04 PM  
Hastur: Good one!!

Ok: How's this: He was elected (arguably) under what many people think are suspect circumstances. Acknowledging the stress this caused much of the country, he takes part in supporting a bipartisan effort to eliminate the same problem in future.

This is my interpretation of the thing. To me, it seems like good politikin'. But I'm just a filthy conservative, so my sheep-like opinion cannot, by definition, be valid.

I like your challenge, whether I rose to in appropriately or not.
 
2002-10-29 04:32:12 PM  
I never did understand why the Electoral College is considered important for Presidential elections because of the idea of "fairness between states." Remember, the President is, first and foremost, a foreign-policy dictator, while most of the domestic issues (e.g. funding flood relief in Mississippi, as someone mentioned above) are handled by Congress. See, the real reason why the Electoral College exists is because way back in the day, it was believed that the only people who should be allowed to officially vote are educated people of high status, such as doctors and lawyers. These intellectuals made up the Electoral College, and the popular vote was only held in order to advise them in the process of deciding the vote. Now-a-days, however, we believe that every US citizen over the age of majority has the right to have his vote counted, and the Electoral College is almost entirely ceremonial and has outlived its usefulness.

Rob
 
2002-10-29 04:32:42 PM  
2004 Official Ballot
For President
(Mark Only ONE Choice!)

George W. Bush of Texas
Richard Cheney of Wyoming.............................[ ]

I Am a Terrorist.......................................[ ]
 
2002-10-29 04:33:25 PM  
Hastur: Excellent challenge, let's see if anyone even attempts to defend a guy who ran an oil company bankrupt in TEXAS!!
 
2002-10-29 04:36:34 PM  
Bladel has it right.
 
2002-10-29 04:37:50 PM  
Bladel: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
 
2002-10-29 04:38:45 PM  
Finally, someone uses the ironic tag properly.

But I liked my headline better: Bush signs election reform bill; comments that he's now worried about the 2004 election.

Nelno,

So could someone explain to me why we use the electoral college system instead of just counting the popular vote?

It forces a canidates to have wide platforms that appeal to both rural and urban folk. In theory it prevents elections from becoming cities vs. rural, left wing vs right wing and white vs everyone else.
 
2002-10-29 04:48:24 PM  
Props to Bladel !
 
2002-10-29 04:50:35 PM  
It forces a canidates to have wide platforms that appeal to both rural and urban folk. In theory it prevents elections from becoming cities vs. rural, left wing vs right wing and white vs everyone else.

On the other hand, it also encourages candidates to have platforms that appeal especially to influential states such as California, Texas, Florida, New York, etc, because of the winner-take-all method of allocating electoral college votes.
 
2002-10-29 05:04:50 PM  
By the way, just so my stance on this issue is understood...

I think the bill GWB signed is a good thing. I think the fact that he killed the funding that would have made the bill work now rather than later is a bad thing. I realize that politics and government budgets are rarely if ever black and white or easily cast into the molds of "good thing" and "bad thing" but signing legislation to protect the votes of the people is pretty hard to paint as a "bad thing" and denying funding that would make a truly good piece of legislation work is pretty hard to see as anything but a "bad thing".

As for the electoral college... it's inital purpose has been explained far better than I can in previous posts. I do think that it could be adjusted to more acurately reflect the will of the people without removing its ability to prevent 9 states from controlling the presidential election. Personally, I would like to see states cast their electoral college votes in an equal proportion to the popular votes taken in that state. But even I'll admit that it's better than what it used to be (people voted for the electoral college representatives for their state who then cast their votes however they pleased but presumably based on the desires of the people who elected them to the electoral college). If ever there was a method that was easily corruptable, the old system was it.

One last bit about the legislation GWB just signed... I do find it kinda odd that they're linking the ability to vote to drivers licenses. Since you have to pay a fee to get a drivers license, in effect, you're having to pay a fee to be able to vote. I'm not casting this as being a Republican or Democratic issue... just something strange.
 
2002-10-29 05:29:12 PM  
Well, DrLearned, how do you explain the delay? Coming into office in a deeply divided country based on a decision by the supreme court, it's not like he DIDN'T KNOW the system was screwed for the past two years. Don't you think the timing is a little convenient? Just in time to look good for the upcoming election without affecting it in ANY WAY?!? Oh, and that time machine wouldn't have been necessary if he had signed off on the farking proposals put to him OVER A YEAR AGO. Here, from USA Today, March of '01:

WASHINGTON - Although President Bush called for repairing the tattered election system that put him in the White House, his administration has rejected its first formal opportunity to help fix the problems. The White House turned down a request from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for $5.5 million over two years to beef up its Office of Election Administration. The FEC wanted the money to develop standards that would ensure elections are run properly, said David Mason, a Republican member of the commission and chairman of its budget committee.


Right, and notice that the figure is 5.5 million, not billion, dollars. That's about 2.5 cents per citizen, so don't EVEN try to imply that it was a sound economic decision.
 
2002-10-29 05:59:13 PM  
What's ironic is Hillary Clinton, speaking at a fund raising event for Jean Carnahan, saying that Bush was "selected" not elected.

Tell me, again, how Jean Carnahan got into office?
 
2002-10-29 06:25:23 PM  
I scoff at everyone who thinks that the US Supreme Court "selected" GW Bush as our president.

All the Supreme Court did was tell the State of Florida that they could have all the recounts they wanted, so long as they applied to the exact same standards to all ballots in all counties, and that all counties must be recounted. Democrats wanted to apply different standards as to what constitutes a vote on a county by county basis. Democrats wanted to count chads (dimpled, hanging, etc.) in heavily Democratic counties but did not want to count similar ballots in predominantly Republican districts.

Likewise, the Democrats sued on the basis that there wasn't sufficient time to recount the entire State of Florida, so they only wanted to count those districts in which they had an historical advantage. The Supreme Court ruled that the recounts could take place, but that every vote had to be counted, and each had to have the same standards apply. It's called equal protection under the law.

Third point, Gore was heavily against allowing numerous overseas absentee ballots from military personnel. These were legal ballots cast by legal citizens, yet the Dems sued to have them removed from the tally.

Now, that aside, every single recount conducted then and since by Gov officials, by the media, and by independent auditing firms has still shown that Bush won the vote in Florida.

Can someone please explain how these facts can be convoluted to Bush "stealing" the election?
 
2002-10-29 06:38:52 PM  
10-29-02 04:01:41 PM Sunburn
Holy Moly, how many times did Bush need to win the counts before people get the point that in our system of government he won?


you mean the recounts where they removed anyone whos last name is the same as a convicted felon? Obviously they used enough tricks to get you sheep to believe the votes were recounted fair and square. its complete BS
 
2002-10-29 07:21:40 PM  
"To combat population density and make sure the votes in Iowa are just as important as the votes in Chicago.

Think about it. The populations of places like Chicago, New York and Los Angeles are so dense, that if we went with purely popular vote, those three cities could decide policy for the rest of the country."

Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles are not people. They are cities. You are personifying them as if they all speak with one voice. But they don't.

1 man, 1 vote. The only fair way to do it. You want to make sure 1 vote in an area counts the same as in another? You want to make sure votes are not thrown away? Do away with the electoral college.

Read carefully, I'll provide an example.

California dishes out 54 "electoral votes" to the winner of the state. In California there are about 33 million people. 54/30,000,000=0000018. Every person contributes that fraction to CA's electoral vote.

Iowa has 7 electoral votes. Iowa has about 2.9 million people. 7/2,900,000=.0000024137.

So let's compare the ratio of what I contribute here in CA, to what someone in Iowa contributes.

.0000024137/.0000018 = 1.34. So their vote is worth about 134% of what mine is worth. Not to mention that people's votes are basically thrown away when they vote for the candidate that loses in that state.

Al Gore won more votes.

If you're so concerned about people's votes being equal then just have everyone cast 1 vote and then count them. No big deal.
 
2002-10-29 07:32:19 PM  
Bush won. He played by the rules and won according to the established rules. That's it.
 
Displayed 50 of 63 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report