Most Important Presidential Election of your Lifetime?

noel · Post by **noel** » October 12, 2004, 9:32 pm

I saw this poll on Time magazine's web site, and thought I'd post it here to see what people think.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » October 12, 2004, 9:38 pm

Yes, because I see it as really a decision: Will America become a totallitarian state, or will democracy prevail?

It's quite possible that if Bush wins or doesn't, and institutes millitia law, it will become totallitarian. If it were Dole, it might not be that way, but with the things goin on today, I am seriously spooked.

-=Lohrno

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 12, 2004, 9:52 pm

I think this is the most dramatized election yet. People are thinking in radical terms like lohrno's totalitarian state and others are scared to death of the draft because Michael Moore keeps saying it's coming when the Bush administration wants anything but a draft and actually and only a handful of democrats are for it.

I think it's a shame that people are falling for the extremes of everything. That's the great communication (and deception) age for you. Both sides are spoon fed maximum scare tactics and both sides take a single comment made by the opposition and base their campaign on it. For Kerry's side that phrase is Bush saying the war can't be won...which is taken totally out of context, partially true as Bush meant it with regards to a conventional war, etc...on Bush's side it's Kerry's flip flopping and voting for and against the war aid package.

The stretched truths and word manipulations on both sides are outrageous but people are eating it up like candy. The problem is, they don't understand it's happening on both side as their partisanship blinds them.

This is an important election but not because of the ridiculous ideas that have been put into the heads of supporters of both sides. Americans should be ashamed of themselves for accepting this form of campaigning from both sides.

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » October 12, 2004, 9:57 pm

The way I see it this year, is one side looks at Bush and fear what hell cause within the world with his I dont care about anyone but US attuide.

The other side looks at people who want Kerry to win, as in weak and people who want us to die.

So it comes down to, Kill with Bush or Be killed by voteing for Kerry.

Its very sad . Wish Gore would have ran with Clinton as vice pres. Its allowable and theres no way Bush would have won.

Xanastik Fox · Post by **Xanastik Fox** » October 12, 2004, 10:02 pm

Just because only a handful are for the draft right now, doesn't mean that when a war hits there will still be only a handful.

I think it is really important, a lot of lives are at stake should a war start, and with the threat of terrorism, this election could very well be a mark in history.

Xzion- · Post by **Xzion-** » October 12, 2004, 10:08 pm

Winnow wrote:I think this is the most dramatized election yet. People are thinking in radical terms like lohrno's totalitarian state and others are scared to death of the draft because Michael Moore keeps saying it's coming when the Bush administration wants anything but a draft and actually and only a handful of democrats are for it.

I think it's a shame that people are falling for the extremes of everything. That's the great communication (and deception) age for you. Both sides are spoon fed maximum scare tactics and both sides take a single comment made by the opposition and base their campaign on it. For Kerry's side that phrase is Bush saying the war can't be won...which is taken totally out of context, partially true as Bush meant it with regards to a conventional war, etc...on Bush's side it's Kerry's flip flopping and voting for and against the war aid package.

The stretched truths and word manipulations on both sides are outrageous but people are eating it up like candy. The problem is, they don't understand it's happening on both side as their partisanship blinds them.

This is an important election but not because of the ridiculous ideas that have been put into the heads of supporters of both sides. Americans should be ashamed of themselves for accepting this form of campaigning from both sides.

winnow, never answered the question last time so il ask you again, how would you rate Bush's performance as president on say a 1-10 scale, forget kerry or any political bullshit...Sometimes i see you in real desperation trying to defend bush on every mistake like your his godamn campaign manager, you defend bush better then midnyte/metanis (at least they admit when hes wrong) or anyone else on this board and you dont seem to agree with most of his policies,
im really starting to believe your just defending him for arguments sake or trying to play devils advocate

5-neutral/mediocre 4-pretty bad 1-worst ever 10-best ever

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » October 12, 2004, 10:09 pm

Winnow wrote:I think this is the most dramatized election yet. People are thinking in radical terms like lohrno's totalitarian state and others are scared to death of the draft because Michael Moore keeps saying it's coming when the Bush administration wants anything but a draft and actually and only a handful of democrats are for it.

Well maybe that is a little extreme, but I put it not too far outside the realm of possibility. Ever since 2002 I thought that Bush might pull the "We're at war, I have to institute military law." thing. I'll wait to see if it happens... But we're already taking steps in that direction, like the PATRIOT act, and no fly lists. It just remains to see if the American public is going to go "Ehhh, this kinda sucks." or "Thank you sir, may I have another?" The fear mongering from this admin is enormous. What purpose does the color coded terror system serve?

However you're right about it not just being from the Rep's camp , but (to put a little spin on it perhaps =P) I'd say that that's just fighting fire with fire as it were. The 90% casualty figure is a pretty good example of that. There's no real way to tell about that figure though because there are so many variables there.

Ignoring all the tactics though, look at things this administration has already done, like the PATRIOT act, and the guantanamo bay prisoners. These are concrete actions, and they are definitely steps away from freedom and democracy. The good news is these things are being fought against, so there is some hope for it.

-=Lohrno

Traz-KOE · Post by **Traz-KOE** » October 12, 2004, 10:26 pm

I said yes, not because of the candidates but because this election, more than ever, is underscoring the importance of actually getting out and voting.

Regardless of the actual result, this election will have an overwhelmingly high turnout, and possibly the highest ever (percentage-wise). That, in and of itself, is the most significant thing to me.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » October 12, 2004, 10:46 pm

Lorhno, if martial law is declared, I don't think the American people will sit idly by while it happens. Call me an optimist, but the majority of people here would totally shit a brick and react violently.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 12, 2004, 10:46 pm

The most important presidental election in our lifetime will come on the day in which we are embattled in another world war - and I'd love to see someone compare this to WW2.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 12, 2004, 10:57 pm

I think this is the most important of the past 20 year because it could bring us to that third WW...

Marb

noel · Post by **noel** » October 12, 2004, 10:58 pm

Akaran_D wrote:The most important presidental election in our lifetime will come on the day in which we are embattled in another world war - and I'd love to see someone compare this to WW2.

The question is whether or not it's the most important in your life to date, not based on futuristic hypotheticals.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » October 12, 2004, 11:00 pm

Kaldaur wrote:Lorhno, if martial law is declared, I don't think the American people will sit idly by while it happens. Call me an optimist, but the majority of people here would totally shit a brick and react violently.

I sincerely hope you're right! I also sincerely hope that the things I described do not come to pass.

-=Lohrno

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » October 12, 2004, 11:02 pm

This election is significant because I think it will be the single largest grass roots turn out in history. It will determine the course of our role in the world and the philisophical makeup of the supreme court for years to come. In essence, it is going to decide wether the capitol of this nation is Texas or DC, in my mind. Thats a bit basic, but you get the idea.

For the people who say Bush will declare martial law, even if he wanted to it would be impossible with so much of our armed forces personel over seas at present.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » October 12, 2004, 11:09 pm

Jice Virago wrote: For the people who say Bush will declare martial law, even if he wanted to it would be impossible with so much of our armed forces personel over seas at present.

Well, now that depends if he could rally/recruit enough people around to support it. I'm sure there are several miitias that wouldn't mind the job...

I know I'm probably stretching it now, but isn't it possible he might not even need to suppress many riots? I mean with the propoganda machine working properly...You don't have to look far to find right wing nutjobs...

-=Lohrno

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » October 12, 2004, 11:34 pm

This election is certainly larger than life due to the events that has recently passed as well as different media elements becoming more and more partisan.

The BIG difference between this election and those of recent years past is that more people are taking notice, and more importantly, taking action and registering to vote. Although many of these people are crawling out of the woodwork to vote against the man I choose to elect, it is cool to see such participation in our Democracy.

For those of you that are finally listening and watching our nation move forward(for better or worse), and are taking that step to finally participate, kudos to you! This is what makes our country great!

I don't care if you vote for Bush, Kerry, or whatnot, just vote. And even despite all of the extremes in the VV community, there are intelligent posters here--albeit hard to recognize out of the box due to the repetitive rhetoric by our more hateful people, right and left.

To those that speak their mind intelligently and not sit back on partisan propoganda, I salute you.

To those that continue to spew hate from either end, well, choke on a dick.

You can play partisan without acting like a total ass, but you choose to play the "I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG" card.

I will go back to my fridge for a fresh beer now.

and BTW: skölpadda

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » October 12, 2004, 11:56 pm

The current one is always the most important one.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 13, 2004, 12:57 am

Bah noel.
You have to bring logic into it.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 13, 2004, 4:22 am

Lohrno wrote:
Kaldaur wrote:Lorhno, if martial law is declared, I don't think the American people will sit idly by while it happens. Call me an optimist, but the majority of people here would totally shit a brick and react violently.
I sincerely hope you're right! I also sincerely hope that the things I described do not come to pass.

-=Lohrno

Me too! I wanna see the footage of a redneck w/ a hunting rifle going up against a depleted uranium shell from a tank he couldn't stop w/o a pit trap!

The concept that your militia could prevail against your military is too funny.

Mplor · Post by **Mplor** » October 13, 2004, 4:25 am

I voted Yes, but I've changed my mind. The LAST election was the most important of my lifetime. Gore would definitely have handled the war on terrorism better than Bush has. Kerry won't be able to undo the damage Bush has done, but he can keep it from getting worse and maybe start us on the road to recovery. If Gore were president, though, I don't think this election becomes so vital.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 13, 2004, 9:26 am

Zaelath wrote: Me too! I wanna see the footage of a redneck w/ a hunting rifle going up against a depleted uranium shell from a tank he couldn't stop w/o a pit trap!

The concept that your militia could prevail against your military is too funny.

Are you shitting me? The only real threat against the US military would come from within. With the US military's manpower and weaponry, the only thing that could topple it would be a guerilla war on its own land. An invasion of the US would be so incredibly difficult to pull off in these days that it would be virtually impossible.

If something happened internally to force the American people to rise up against its own government, then you have a Vietnam type war where you don't always know who your enemy is. Guerilla's don't fight a tank. They fight the tanker. They pick their battles and run when they don't stand a chance.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 13, 2004, 9:36 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Zaelath wrote: Me too! I wanna see the footage of a redneck w/ a hunting rifle going up against a depleted uranium shell from a tank he couldn't stop w/o a pit trap!

The concept that your militia could prevail against your military is too funny.

Are you shitting me? The only real threat against the US military would come from within. With the US military's manpower and weaponry, the only thing that could topple it would be a guerilla war on its own land. An invasion of the US would be so incredibly difficult to pull off in these days that it would be virtually impossible.

If something happened internally to force the American people to rise up against its own government, then you have a Vietnam type war where you don't always know who your enemy is. Guerilla's don't fight a tank. They fight the tanker. They pick their battles and run when they don't stand a chance.

Well, exactly, the government needs the complete support of the military. If they aren't willing to fight against their own civilians then it's not really the militia v's the government (which is why you don't really need one).

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 13, 2004, 10:08 am

Mplor.. do I dare ask how you think that Gore would have handled 9/11 better than Bush?

Xzion- · Post by **Xzion-** » October 13, 2004, 10:18 am

Akaran_D wrote:Mplor.. do I dare ask how you think that Gore would have handled 9/11 better than Bush?

He wouldnt have invaded Iraq while using 9/11 as an excuse, or put the PATRIOT act in place

Spang · Post by **Spang** » October 13, 2004, 10:25 am

he'd say "justice will be served..." and then there'd be no justice being served and a couple months later another terrorist attack would happen and he'd say the same thing, etc.

i'm not a huge bush fan nor do i agree with every decision he's made but i do respect the decisions he made just after 9/11. he didn't just say justice will be served, he made sure it got served.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 13, 2004, 10:29 am

Iraq is not aprt of 9/11, you've said that many times.
Good question dodge.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 13, 2004, 10:35 am

After watching that video I'm not even so sure about Afghanistan any more. Iraq was always a bad joke, but the horror of 9/11 was too much for me to comprehend so while I thought the announcement of war was too fast to be "considered" I could at least understand the American people supporting it.

I don't even disparage Bush for sitting around w/ those school kids for a few minutes, I was in shock for weeks.

With 3 years gone by however, you have to wonder about all the missing video footage, massive pollution of forensic evidence, etc, etc, etc that was allowed to occur.

Xzion- · Post by **Xzion-** » October 13, 2004, 10:39 am

Akaran_D wrote:Iraq is not aprt of 9/11, you've said that many times.
Good question dodge.

Of course its not, but the Bush admin tried to make a connection between the two when they were looking for a justification to go to war...if 9/11 never happened they would have never gotten the support to go invade iraq, im surprised bush didnt listen to his daddy and realize why he didnt invade the capital and pull out when he did...

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 13, 2004, 11:05 am

But again, you're dodging the question.
How would have Gore handled 9/11 better than Bush?

This is not an Iraq question.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » October 13, 2004, 11:11 am

Has Gore ever spoken on how he would of handled 9/11?

miir · Post by **miir** » October 13, 2004, 11:28 am

How would have Gore handled 9/11 better than Bush?

What would Brian Boitano do?

Akaran, there is no answer to that question, therefore it cannot be dodged.

I think Gore would have consulted with his advisors on the best course of action.
An obvious reaction would be to beef up security at airports, seaports and other transportation hubs where terrorists might potentially enter the USA.
Give the intelligence he had available at the time, Afghanistan might have been a likely target. He might also have consulted with the UN and the international community on what could be done to help fight terrorism globally.

I don't believe he would have spent an inordinate amount of time and resources to sell the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The invasion of Iraq has put the US in an even more perilous situation in the 'war on terror' due to the creation of an extremely fertile recruiting ground for terrorists.
The basis for much of the anti-american terrorism is based on resentment of US military pressence in the middle east. Adding another 130k soldiers and killing 15k Iraqis created a new generation of potential terrorists.

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » October 13, 2004, 11:32 am

miir wrote:
How would have Gore handled 9/11 better than Bush?
What would Brian Boitano do?

I literally laughed out loud when I read that. It's the perfect response to such a lame question.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » October 13, 2004, 11:35 am

I voted no. I figured either way we are fucked. American Politics has become the playground for the Rich and select few. The two parties won't even acknowledge the existence of third parties.

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » October 13, 2004, 11:39 am

Deward wrote:I voted no. I figured either way we are fucked. American Politics has become the playground for the Rich and select few. The two parties won't even acknowledge the existence of third parties.

What the country really needs is for a large majority to really feel this way. I'm not joking, either - we need to really feel this ennui and dissatisfaction in our bones. It's what will get us past this inertia and make us strive for change.

Have any of you guys ever heard of a GINI index? Ours is quite remarkable.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 13, 2004, 12:03 pm

Xzion- wrote:
Akaran_D wrote:Mplor.. do I dare ask how you think that Gore would have handled 9/11 better than Bush?
He wouldnt have invaded Iraq while using 9/11 as an excuse, or put the PATRIOT act in place

I am not at all sure that Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq. I also think that the chances of something very like the PATRIOT act would be very likely under Gore, or under most republican or democrat administrations. A substantial amount of it was a lot of old wish list items from previous proposals, 9/11 just supplied the political motivation to get it passed. Not that this excuses the people that passed it (all the people, including all the people in the senate and house that voted for it) but sadly I think it was a highly typical response from government in the wake of 9/11.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » October 13, 2004, 1:30 pm

Zaelath wrote: The concept that your militia could prevail against your military is too funny.

Okay, I wanted to add something in response to Canelek in an effort to not choke on much dick. =D But first I'll address this. That's not what I was talking about. If Bush instituted Military law, and did not have enough military to cover all bases he could raise the militias, or other people who agree with him... Yes, I know I've firmly stepped in Tin foil hat la la land at this point, but it's not entirely outside the realm of possibility. =D

So anyway, in the effort of being somewhat fair, I'd like to back up and name a few Republicans I'd much rather see running the country than Bush. Admittedly I'm pretty partisan, but I just want to show that what I think is not a partisan thing, but a Bush admin are demonstrably evil. Ok, which republicans would I rather have?

Arnold Shwarzenegger(sp?)
At least when he does something it kind of makes sense. It doesn't look like he actively hates us.

Bob Dole
This guy keeps his cool well. He doesn't come off as a frothing lunatic. Unlike some people we know.

Richard Nixon
At least he had the will to try to make peace with China. This was a good step forward. He would undoubtedly be better at foreign policy.

So, which Democrat would I not want instead of Bush? Well one comes immediately to mind but there are probably others.

Joe Lieberman. The guy is almost as evil as Bush is.

Maybe Al Gore. He kind of turned out to be a whiner (not without cause though, oh ho ho ho no no no), but I'm not sure I think I'd vote for him anyway. He just should have been more strong when the election was stolen from him I guess. That's not boding well for the leader of a country.

-=Lohrno

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » October 13, 2004, 1:58 pm

I look at it as more of a 'Hillary in 08'.

Post by **Sylvus** » October 13, 2004, 2:51 pm

I'm not going to say whether it's the most important of my lifetime, but of the 3 elections that I was old enough to vote for, this is the first that I have registered to vote and the first time that I will.

Take that as you will.

Mplor · Post by **Mplor** » October 14, 2004, 1:44 am

Akaran_D wrote:Mplor.. do I dare ask how you think that Gore would have handled 9/11 better than Bush?

When NATO invoked its charter for the first time in history and prepared to mobilize in defense of the US, Gore would not have sneered at them, marginalized them, and then insulted them. He would have led a willing world into a genuine war on terror which, as we all know, has very little to do with invading nations and much to do with international cooperation and vigilance.

I highly doubt Gore would have squandered our soldiers, treasure, and long-term alliances to invade Iraq, claiming it was a battle-ground in the war on terror. Instead, he'd have seized the opportunity to actually _lead_ the world instead of tell it to fuck off.

As for other, just-as-important issues, I'm quite certain he would have spent less than Bush has if only because he would be saddled with an antagonistic Congress who wouldn't pass any of his bills. Can't credit Gore for that, but it's definitely one reason to wish he'd been inaugurated. Also, he wouldn't have cut taxes on the wealthy, further adding to our unprecedented deficit.

I'm not saying everything Bush has done has been bad, or that Gore would have been a great president. I'm just saying I believe we would all be better off if he'd been elected ... er, inaugurated.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 15, 2004, 2:20 pm

Matthew Manweller, a political science professor at Central Washington University wrote:

In that this will be my last column before the presidential election, there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty repartee. The topic is too serious, and the stakes are too high.

This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence. Down the other lies a nation that is aware of its past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history. If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be two-fold.

First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things. Once a nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis and stood upon the moon, we will announce to the world that bringing democracy to the Middle East is too big a task for us. But more significantly, we will signal to future presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity that has characterized other civilizations. The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from that legacy, we turn away from who we are.

Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the lesson of Somalia was well learned. In Somalia we showed terrorists that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when you can defeat them in the newsroom. They learned that a wounded America can become a defeated America. Twenty-four hour news stations and daily tracking polls will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut into a fatal blow. Except that Iraq is Somalia times 10. The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is the timidity of American voters. Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grizzly photos from CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people. Our own self-doubt will take it from there. Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration without setting foot on the homeland.

It is said that America's WWII generation is its "greatest generation." But my greatest fear is that it will become known as America's "last generation." Born in the bleakness of the Great Depression and hardened in the fire of WWII, they may be the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor, and sacrifice. It is difficult to admit, but I know these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment by many (but not all) in my generation. Too many citizens today mistake "living in America" as "being an American." But America has always been more of an idea than a place. When you sign on, you do more than buy real estate. You accept a set of values and responsibilities. This November, my generation, which has been absent too long, must grasp that 100 years from now historians will look back at the election of 2004 and see it as the decisive election of our century. Depending on the outcome, they will describe it as the moment America joined the ranks of ordinary nations; or they will describe it as the moment the prodigal sons and daughters of the greatest generation accepted their burden as caretakers of the City on the Hill."

shazam! This guy has it down.

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » October 15, 2004, 3:33 pm

The guy that wrote that is an idiot, and he doesn't appear to know anything about the psyche of the American people. People doubt the justness of our cause in Iraq. It is not a commentary of the strength of will of the American people. Americans have shown time and again that we are willing and able to overcome any hardship as long we believe the cause is just.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » October 15, 2004, 3:56 pm

Kargyle wrote:The guy that wrote that is an idiot, and he doesn't appear to know anything about the psyche of the American people. People doubt the justness of our cause in Iraq. It is not a commentary of the strength of will of the American people. Americans have shown time and again that we are willing and able to overcome any hardship as long we believe the cause is just.

I thought you were Austrailian?

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » October 15, 2004, 4:26 pm

LOL. I'm from Houston. I'm not sure where you got that idea. Back in the EQ days me, Cheng, Imster, and Hayley made up the the Corps Texas crew.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 15, 2004, 4:36 pm

You've totally missed the point he was making, but proved it at the same time.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » October 15, 2004, 5:00 pm

One thing I've noticed as that some people say that this is the first time they've registered to vote because it is an important election. Do people not realize there are many more opportunities to vote on a state/local level?? When you aren't registered you aren't just missing voting on a national election every 4 years, you are missing out on all the initiatives, all of your states reps, senators, judges, governors, etc.

If you aren't voting for your senators or reps then you are giving away the power of the congress to whoever does care to vote. The power of your vote is stronger on the state/local level and though it's smaller stuff, it's still important and little initiatives can become popular and spread to other states. ALL of these things are important to vote on and If you aren't voting on the local/state level, where your vote has the most power, then you simply are not participating in your democratic process and should really look to change that.

You don't even have to leave your house any more to vote. You can sign up to have absentee ballots sent to your house and can fill them out and send them back in the mail. Don't bitch and whine when you feel your country is pulling away from you and your values if you don't vote at all.

Where our democratic process starts, and where you have the most power is on the smaller votes. Are you happy that the congress is dominated by republicans? Did you ever cast a vote for a Democrat Representitive or Senator in your region/state? Why the fuck not? If you want to change how this country works, then vote as often as you can, which is all the time on EVERY issue, because its FUCKING EASY!!!

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » October 15, 2004, 5:06 pm

Rekaar. wrote:You've totally missed the point he was making, but proved it at the same time.

And what point was he trying to make?

Xzion- · Post by **Xzion-** » October 15, 2004, 5:13 pm

Im a little ignorant on the subject still, but do you vote for senators at the same place you vote for president? Or is that a totally seperate day

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » October 15, 2004, 5:21 pm

I still think that the US should abide by the popular vote and not the electoral college.

Any election should always be won by the person who gets the most votes.

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » October 15, 2004, 5:30 pm

Well, I think we should at least get rid of the winner take all method that most states award their electoral votes in. I think that method basically disenfranchises a large portion of a states voters. Electoral votes should either be awarded on a congressional district basis, or as a ratio of popular vote to electoral votes. So if a candidate receives 60% of the votes in a state, he should get 60% of that states electoral votes.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · October 15, 2004, 5:36 pm

Kargyle wrote:The guy that wrote that is an idiot, and he doesn't appear to know anything about the psyche of the American people. People doubt the justness of our cause in Iraq. It is not a commentary of the strength of will of the American people. Americans have shown time and again that we are willing and able to overcome any hardship as long we believe the cause is just.

Plenty of us Americans believe in the cause.

VeeshanVault

Most Important Presidential Election of your Lifetime?

Do you consider this the most important presidential election of your lifetime?

Most Important Presidential Election of your Lifetime?