posted on November 13, 2000 01:53:44 PM new
Off the top of my head, I can't say for sure, but when a national figure does stop here, it's usually not much more than a 10 minute press conference at the airport.
edited to add...
I just took an informal survey of half a dozen people, and none of them remember either Bush or Gore stopping here, although one person said they thought that one of the vice-presidential candidates did, when the plane he was on developed mechanical difficulties.
[ edited by mrpotatoheadd on Nov 13, 2000 02:01 PM ]
posted on November 13, 2000 03:18:38 PM new
Rough demographic data (rounded up or down a tad to make the numbers prettier) from the 1990 Census -
There are approximately 250,000,000 people in the U.S.
Close to half (120,000,000) live in the 8 most populous of the 50 states.
Those 8 states are - California (30 mil), New York (17 mil), Texas (17 mil), Florida (13 mil), Pennsylvania (12 mil), Illinois (11 mil), Ohio (11 mil), and Michigan (9 mil).
posted on November 13, 2000 03:59:43 PM new
Does that graphic on the first page showing county by county across the U.S. show more for Bush? or am I reading that wrong
I think the electoral college should stay in place. I believe someone else said, then the FUTURE candidates would go to each state, and not focus on the large population state/cities alone. There are too many small states and/or populations that need to be heard, and that is why there is an electoral college, isn't it?
posted on November 13, 2000 04:01:36 PM new
Bush and Gore both campaigned here in WA, and we have only 11 electoral votes, I think, not a great amount, compared to CA, FL or NY.
posted on November 13, 2000 04:14:10 PM new
Shelly, the candidates came herea lot because we were considered a "swing" state. One whose votes could go either way. Before we had such an influx of people moving here from other states presidential candidates never came here. Bill Clinton was the first to start paying attention to us. Now the demographics have changed and they have to pay more attention to us! We can probably thank MicroSoft for that.
posted on November 13, 2000 04:29:33 PM new
rawbunzel, this is true, Microsoft, and Boeing too. Can they raise the amount of electoral votes in a state? I mean, Western WA population is exploding! Also they are still talking about secession; Eastern WA feels it isn't represented enough, and that Western WA is more focused on, which I do see that, but couldn't imagine 2 separate states! Though I thought I heard that about CA too, Southern CA and Northern CA, kinda similiar toe E.WA and W.WA.
posted on November 13, 2000 05:03:19 PM new
[i]"And then every state, regardless of population, gets 2 more electoral votes. It's those 2 extra electoral votes for each state
that works as the balancer"[/i].
I don't think that anyone ought to labor under the odd interpretation above. There is NO provision in the Constitution for "extras".
Each state has electoral votes equal to the number of representatives it has in the congress.
ref: the U.S.Constitution"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector".
Senators frown on being called extras--the pay isn't as good.
edited to point out that there is a cut and paste from a somewhat relevant document.
posted on November 13, 2000 05:06:37 PM new
"Can they raise the amount of electoral votes in a state?"
Yes, they can, every 10 years, based on the shift in Census data.
There are only a set total number of electoral votes in the whole country. They can be taken away from one state and added to another, every 10 years. Your state's electoral votes will be the same as the number of Congressman (by your state's population) and Senators (2 for every state) your state has.
posted on November 13, 2000 05:14:50 PM new
Perhaps Krs' confusion was caused by a post of original effort. Next time I'll try copy and paste someone elses words in my post, a format that will be more familiar.
posted on November 13, 2000 05:26:24 PM new
And Poor George is probably still awaiting a recount. Or there was a horse strike and none of the remainder of the 538 votes ever arrived.
posted on November 13, 2000 05:45:26 PM new
yeah whatever thats why there are these headlines:
*Broward County decides against hand count
*Judge refuses to stop manual recounts
*Officials set Tuesday deadline for certification
*Gore campaign joins suit to extend deadline
*Judge assigned to another suit steps aside
*Gore asks nation for patience
Patience? He will be President by God!
I'm outta here, gonna watch the Golf channel......
posted on November 13, 2000 08:17:54 PM new
Well, I think everything about this situation is fascinating, including the electoral college question. Is the system devised to add power to the landowning elite outdated? Has the increased mobility of the population made it arcane? Was it ever a good idea to begin with? Should we get rid of Senators too? If so, could Hilary be the first to go?
posted on November 13, 2000 08:45:42 PM new
I think that it's seen it's time. As I read it, it was primarily a method to transmit the will of the majority to Washington. I don't think it ever was designed to protect any interests or lack of population concentration, and even now it doesn't do that. It would have to be weighted toward those sparser areas to give them any leverage that they don't have by majority vote and it is not. Higher population areas get more votes. The map at the beginning of this thread is a pretty red picture, but it is meaningless. If there are three voters in a county and two vote for a candidate that candidate carries the county's representative two votes. But what good is that? It is then compiled at state level, a majority of the states vote dictate (in most cases) that states electoral voting. By that map many large areas are red but many of those are within states which Gore won. Ground (land) doesn't win elections. Look at CA. The bulk of the state is red, the electoral votes are blue. How does the system protect the people of those red areas? It doesn't.
Also:
I think that in this election the electoral college has worked against the majority vote and it's strange to see such vehement attacks on an institution by the supporters of the candidate who is in benefit of the vagaries of that institution.
posted on November 13, 2000 09:46:37 PM new
I don't know, but you could be wrong. It's said the founding fathers weren't all that keen on the will of the teeming masses, and preferred large landowners. And the landed class' interest was promoted with the practice of counting slaves, for Census purposes, as 4/5 of a person.
On a visual level only, the map is certainly misleading as to actual results, with those huge spaces of red. Wyoming's a big red space, New York is a small blue space. But Wyoming only has a population of about 450,000, while New York's is over 17 million.
This is a great map though, especially to illustrate the quirkiness in some areas. That little blue blob at the bottom of South Dakota, in the middle of a huge sea of the red of the surrounding states, is an Indian reservation. They vote Democratic every time, for all the good it does them.
posted on November 14, 2000 02:34:45 AM new
If you think getting rid of the electoral college would be a snap think again. 2/3rd majority, of the house, senate, and states must approve it. 18 states have 5 or less electoral votes, it wouldn't be in their best interest to abandon the electoral college. I don't see the votes to amend the constitution, and I'm glad.
posted on November 14, 2000 04:21:42 AM new
A farmer from Kansas sends his son to college in New England. His son is of voting age and shares his father's beliefs. He is a Bush supporter, and casts his vote in Massachusetts. Because he is outnumbered 2 to 1 by Democrats, his vote is wasted. This is the result of the electoral college system.
A business executive from Baltimore (Democrat) accepts a position with Gateway in their corporate headquarters. (South Dakota) This negates his vote due to being outnumbered by Republicans.
Millions of Americans relocate each year for employment, education, and retirement. They do not abandon their beliefs at the state line. The value of someone's vote should not be based on their zipcode. If 1,000 more Democrats had retired to Florida last year, the election would be over. It should not be that way.
Each American is entitled to one equal vote. This cannot be acomplished if all electors from one state vote the same way. That is not a fair reflection of the people's vote. In Florida the electors should be voting 13-12. (New Mexico 3-2, Mass. 8-4, S.D. 2-1, etc.)
Those in support of the Electoral College system draw parallels to Congress, and the way the Senate provides representation for smaller states. It does indeed, but the Senators vote on individual issues not blindly by party.
How can the 25 electors from Florida acurately reflect the will of the voters if they all vote for the same candidate. If the electoral votes were split according to the popular vote split, the margin between candidates would be less than 3, which would give every state the power and votes to determine the outcome. This would truly give an equal power to the smaller states.
posted on November 14, 2000 05:29:37 AM new
MrJim,
Yes. The founding fathers were not seers and could not envision a world such as it is now. The electoral college was designed as a method to bring the vote in from what were then seen as far away places without the need of a national gathering of all who wished to vote in one place. How else could it have been done? Even the timespans between the election, the meeting of the electoral college, and the inauguration appear to have been decided upon as the most expedicious means available to accomplish a changeover.
There was no email, not even one airplane, and the farmers couldn't leave en mass for months each four years.
posted on November 14, 2000 05:41:35 AM newI think that in this election the electoral college has worked against the majority vote and it's strange to see such vehement attacks on an institution by the supporters of the candidate who is in benefit of the vagaries of that institution.
In my very first post in the very first election thread to show up here (I don't remember which thread that was), I stated quite clearly that even though I'm a strong Bush supporter, I believe Gore should be the next President because he won the popular vote. There is no conflict here between my beliefs about the electoral college system and my support for Bush. These are the facts:
1) I'm admittedly a strong supporter of Bush
2) I'm admittedly a strong opponent of the electoral college system
3) I admittedly believe Gore should be the next President because of number 2 above
I'm not happy about number 3, but it is what I believe. The thought of Gore being sworn in as President of the United States makes me ill. But he received a plurality of the popular vote. It's quite obvious that his supporters outnumbered Bush's (barely).
To change this absurdity requires a constitutional amendment, which I hope is passed.
The bottom line is that there is no conflict between being a Bush supporter in this election and being against the electoral college. Whichever candidate is helped by it in this or any other election has no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of it.
Sorry about my mistaking your attacks as being about me. I'll step aside and defer to whomever it was that you were really addressing. And I do agree that it is not about me, it's about what's best for the country, which you and I both have strong opinions about.
posted on November 14, 2000 08:51:50 AM new
Read "I think that it's seen it's time. As I read it, it was primarily a method to transmit the will of the majority to Washington. I don't think it ever was designed to protect any interests or lack of population concentration, and even now it doesn't do that" and you'll see that we agree, abin. But of course you missed that part of the post, a portion of which you responded to above.
