Group: alt.vacation.las-vegas
Everything you always wanted to know about Vegas.
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
OT: Electoral College Op Ed
OT: Electoral College Op Ed
Thought many here might find this Op Ed interesting, no matter which
side of the Electoral College vs. Popular vote you may be on.
http :// www .boston,com /bostonglobe/editorial opinion/oped/articles/2008/07/16/the brilliance of the electoral college/
Thought many here might find this Op Ed interesting, no matter which
side of the Electoral College vs. Popular vote you may be on.
http :// www .boston,com /bostonglobe/editorial opinion/oped/articles/2008/07/16/the brilliance of the electoral college/
Re: OT: Electoral College Op Ed
Good article, Don. But I ask you to think for a moment where we might be
as a nation if Gore had been elected President in 2000 by virtue of his
winning the popular vote instead of Bush.
We would have been involved in some fashion in Afganistan, but NOT in the
mire of Iraq. We would have saved billions upon billions of dollars that
Bush has dumped into Iraq, and started to rebuild our crumbling
infra-structure. We would be eight years into combating global warming.
The price of gasoline would be higher if only because of China and India,
but we would have already gone a ways down the path to alternative fuels
and energy conservation instead of feeding the cofers of oilmen. We would
not have two more conservative Supreme Court justices that are lock step
in line with the Bobsy twins.
The good folks of Nebraska have devised a way to get around the Electoral
College----they divide their electors by popular vote.
Go Obama!!
Tom
On Jul 16 2008 8:47 AM, spencerdogg wrote:
> Thought many here might find this Op Ed interesting, no matter which
> side of the Electoral College vs. Popular vote you may be on.
>
>
>
http :// www .boston,com /bostonglobe/editorial opinion/oped/articles/2008/07/16/the brilliance of the electoral college/
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www .recgroups,com
Good article, Don. But I ask you to think for a moment where we might be
as a nation if Gore had been elected President in 2000 by virtue of his
winning the popular vote instead of Bush.
We would have been involved in some fashion in Afganistan, but NOT in the
mire of Iraq. We would have saved billions upon billions of dollars that
Bush has dumped into Iraq, and started to rebuild our crumbling
infra-structure. We would be eight years into combating global warming.
The price of gasoline would be higher if only because of China and India,
but we would have already gone a ways down the path to alternative fuels
and energy conservation instead of feeding the cofers of oilmen. We would
not have two more conservative Supreme Court justices that are lock step
in line with the Bobsy twins.
The good folks of Nebraska have devised a way to get around the Electoral
College----they divide their electors by popular vote.
Go Obama!!
Tom
On Jul 16 2008 8:47 AM, spencerdogg wrote:
> Thought many here might find this Op Ed interesting, no matter which
> side of the Electoral College vs. Popular vote you may be on.
>
>
>
http :// www .boston,com /bostonglobe/editorial opinion/oped/articles/2008/07/16/the brilliance of the electoral college/
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www .recgroups,com
Re: OT: Electoral College Op Ed
In article <8jc1l5x3rd.ln2@recgroups,com >, "DocTCW" <doctcw@aol,com >
wrote:
> Good article, Don. But I ask you to think for a moment where we might be
> as a nation if Gore had been elected President in 2000 by virtue of his
> winning the popular vote instead of Bush.
I would submit that 2000 is the best reason to keep the Electoral
College. Gore won the popluar as counted by less than five tenths of one
percent or just a little over 500,000 votes out of over 101 million
votes cast. A razor thin margin like that could very easily be
overturned (or not for that matter) by a recount.
Instead of just messing with Fl and a few counties in that single
state. Every precinct in every state would have been in play. We would
have had to argue over every little bump and smudge on every ballot.
This one came in within the margin of error of the system. While the
outcome was messy, trying to do this at every polling place would have
been much messier and even more devisive.
>
> We would have been involved in some fashion in Afganistan, but NOT in the
> mire of Iraq. We would have saved billions upon billions of dollars that
> Bush has dumped into Iraq, and started to rebuild our crumbling
> infra-structure.
Gore would have gone off on his own tangents. Nothing in a Gore
presidency assures that we would be better off (or worse off).
In article <8jc1l5x3rd.ln2@recgroups,com >, "DocTCW" <doctcw@aol,com >
wrote:
> Good article, Don. But I ask you to think for a moment where we might be
> as a nation if Gore had been elected President in 2000 by virtue of his
> winning the popular vote instead of Bush.
I would submit that 2000 is the best reason to keep the Electoral
College. Gore won the popluar as counted by less than five tenths of one
percent or just a little over 500,000 votes out of over 101 million
votes cast. A razor thin margin like that could very easily be
overturned (or not for that matter) by a recount.
Instead of just messing with Fl and a few counties in that single
state. Every precinct in every state would have been in play. We would
have had to argue over every little bump and smudge on every ballot.
This one came in within the margin of error of the system. While the
outcome was messy, trying to do this at every polling place would have
been much messier and even more devisive.
>
> We would have been involved in some fashion in Afganistan, but NOT in the
> mire of Iraq. We would have saved billions upon billions of dollars that
> Bush has dumped into Iraq, and started to rebuild our crumbling
> infra-structure.
Gore would have gone off on his own tangents. Nothing in a Gore
presidency assures that we would be better off (or worse off).
Re: OT: Electoral College Op Ed
> I would submit that 2000 is the best reason to keep the Electoral
> College. Gore won the popluar as counted by less than five tenths of one
> percent or just a little over 500,000 votes out of over 101 million
> votes cast. A razor thin margin like that could very easily be
> overturned (or not for that matter) by a recount.
If the "best reason" to keep the Electoral College is that it would be
messy to count all the votes, so let's give the office to the guy who
got fewer voters, then we *really* need to ditch it.
> I would submit that 2000 is the best reason to keep the Electoral
> College. Gore won the popluar as counted by less than five tenths of one
> percent or just a little over 500,000 votes out of over 101 million
> votes cast. A razor thin margin like that could very easily be
> overturned (or not for that matter) by a recount.
If the "best reason" to keep the Electoral College is that it would be
messy to count all the votes, so let's give the office to the guy who
got fewer voters, then we *really* need to ditch it.
Re: OT: Electoral College Op Ed
<salmoneous@aol,com > wrote in message
news:c072b89c-e11d-42ee-8343-3a7a7e283867@79g2000hsk.googlegroups,com ...
> I would submit that 2000 is the best reason to keep the Electoral
> College. Gore won the popluar as counted by less than five tenths of one
> percent or just a little over 500,000 votes out of over 101 million
> votes cast. A razor thin margin like that could very easily be
> overturned (or not for that matter) by a recount.
>If the "best reason" to keep the Electoral College is that it would be
messy to count all the votes, so let's give the office to the guy who
got fewer voters, then we *really* need to ditch it.
Isn't it amazing that you can buy a $1 package of chewing gum on a credit
card and the transaction is instantly recorded and billed to the right
account, address, etc....... yet when it comes to elections, we have to deal
with things like "hanging chads" and paper ballots, etc.
We are our own worst enemy.
George L
<salmoneous@aol,com > wrote in message
news:c072b89c-e11d-42ee-8343-3a7a7e283867@79g2000hsk.googlegroups,com ...
> I would submit that 2000 is the best reason to keep the Electoral
> College. Gore won the popluar as counted by less than five tenths of one
> percent or just a little over 500,000 votes out of over 101 million
> votes cast. A razor thin margin like that could very easily be
> overturned (or not for that matter) by a recount.
>If the "best reason" to keep the Electoral College is that it would be
messy to count all the votes, so let's give the office to the guy who
got fewer voters, then we *really* need to ditch it.
Isn't it amazing that you can buy a $1 package of chewing gum on a credit
card and the transaction is instantly recorded and billed to the right
account, address, etc....... yet when it comes to elections, we have to deal
with things like "hanging chads" and paper ballots, etc.
We are our own worst enemy.
George L
Re: OT: Electoral College Op Ed
In article <g5l56r02pt3@enews4.newsguy,com >,
"George Leppla" <george@cruisemaster,com > wrote:
>
> Isn't it amazing that you can buy a $1 package of chewing gum on a credit
> card and the transaction is instantly recorded and billed to the right
> account, address, etc....... yet when it comes to elections, we have to deal
> with things like "hanging chads" and paper ballots, etc.
>
> We are our own worst enemy.
>
We trust computers with our money, but not for our votes. Also, you
don't have politicians and lobbyists involved in credit cards. Probably
the biggest reason.
In article <g5l56r02pt3@enews4.newsguy,com >,
"George Leppla" <george@cruisemaster,com > wrote:
>
> Isn't it amazing that you can buy a $1 package of chewing gum on a credit
> card and the transaction is instantly recorded and billed to the right
> account, address, etc....... yet when it comes to elections, we have to deal
> with things like "hanging chads" and paper ballots, etc.
>
> We are our own worst enemy.
>
We trust computers with our money, but not for our votes. Also, you
don't have politicians and lobbyists involved in credit cards. Probably
the biggest reason.
Re: OT: Electoral College Op Ed
On Jul 16, 10:45 am, "George Leppla" <geo...@cruisemaster,com > wrote:
> Isn't it amazing that you can buy a $1 package of chewing gum on a credit
> card and the transaction is instantly recorded and billed to the right
> account, address, etc....... yet when it comes to elections, we have to deal
> with things like "hanging chads" and paper ballots, etc.
>
> We are our own worst enemy.
>
> George L
That's because we're livin' in a plutocracy. The rich don't want the
great unwashed masses to vote so they make it as difficult as
possible....
On Jul 16, 10:45 am, "George Leppla" <geo...@cruisemaster,com > wrote:
> Isn't it amazing that you can buy a $1 package of chewing gum on a credit
> card and the transaction is instantly recorded and billed to the right
> account, address, etc....... yet when it comes to elections, we have to deal
> with things like "hanging chads" and paper ballots, etc.
>
> We are our own worst enemy.
>
> George L
That's because we're livin' in a plutocracy. The rich don't want the
great unwashed masses to vote so they make it as difficult as
possible....
Re: OT: Electoral College Op Ed
"Double Down Now!" <double.down.now@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:7ec6784f-e2f5-40c3-8a6e-1e1a94c967f1@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups,com ...
> On Jul 16, 10:45 am, "George Leppla" <geo...@cruisemaster,com > wrote:
>
>> Isn't it amazing that you can buy a $1 package of chewing gum on a credit
>> card and the transaction is instantly recorded and billed to the right
>> account, address, etc....... yet when it comes to elections, we have to
>> deal
>> with things like "hanging chads" and paper ballots, etc.
>>
>> We are our own worst enemy.
>>
>> George L
>
> That's because we're livin' in a plutocracy. The rich don't want the
> great unwashed masses to vote so they make it as difficult as
> possible....
That's a Hamiltonian way of looking at it....
"Double Down Now!" <double.down.now@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:7ec6784f-e2f5-40c3-8a6e-1e1a94c967f1@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups,com ...
> On Jul 16, 10:45 am, "George Leppla" <geo...@cruisemaster,com > wrote:
>
>> Isn't it amazing that you can buy a $1 package of chewing gum on a credit
>> card and the transaction is instantly recorded and billed to the right
>> account, address, etc....... yet when it comes to elections, we have to
>> deal
>> with things like "hanging chads" and paper ballots, etc.
>>
>> We are our own worst enemy.
>>
>> George L
>
> That's because we're livin' in a plutocracy. The rich don't want the
> great unwashed masses to vote so they make it as difficult as
> possible....
That's a Hamiltonian way of looking at it....
Re: OT: Electoral College Op Ed
In today's world, I don't think it is the "great unwashed masses" who are
less likely to be able to vote using sophisticated means, but older people
who have no contact with computers. It might surprise you how many young
"poor people" are generally computer literate.
Tom
On Jul 16 2008 11:52 AM, Double Down Now! wrote:
> On Jul 16, 10:45 am, "George Leppla" <geo...@cruisemaster,com > wrote:
>
> > Isn't it amazing that you can buy a $1 package of chewing gum on a credit
> > card and the transaction is instantly recorded and billed to the right
> > account, address, etc....... yet when it comes to elections, we have to
deal
> > with things like "hanging chads" and paper ballots, etc.
> >
> > We are our own worst enemy.
> >
> > George L
>
> That's because we're livin' in a plutocracy. The rich don't want the
> great unwashed masses to vote so they make it as difficult as
> possible....
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http :// www .recgroups,com
In today's world, I don't think it is the "great unwashed masses" who are
less likely to be able to vote using sophisticated means, but older people
who have no contact with computers. It might surprise you how many young
"poor people" are generally computer literate.
Tom
On Jul 16 2008 11:52 AM, Double Down Now! wrote:
> On Jul 16, 10:45 am, "George Leppla" <geo...@cruisemaster,com > wrote:
>
> > Isn't it amazing that you can buy a $1 package of chewing gum on a credit
> > card and the transaction is instantly recorded and billed to the right
> > account, address, etc....... yet when it comes to elections, we have to
deal
> > with things like "hanging chads" and paper ballots, etc.
> >
> > We are our own worst enemy.
> >
> > George L
>
> That's because we're livin' in a plutocracy. The rich don't want the
> great unwashed masses to vote so they make it as difficult as
> possible....
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http :// www .recgroups,com
Re: OT: Electoral College Op Ed
In article <cbm1l5xq9g.ln2@recgroups,com >, "DocTCW" <doctcw@aol,com >
wrote:
> In today's world, I don't think it is the "great unwashed masses" who are
> less likely to be able to vote using sophisticated means, but older people
> who have no contact with computers. It might surprise you how many young
> "poor people" are generally computer literate.
>
>
Interestingly enough, the studies (at least at the time of Ca
Recall which is the last time I got around to looking) indicate fairly
consistently that it is the number (or more precisely the percentage) of
new voters that is key. When new (first time) voters go up, so do the
number of errors in the ballots. This appears to be indepedent of the
age of the elector.
Probably having a person who is tasked to running through the
methods with a first-time voter prior to voting would be a good thing.
In article <cbm1l5xq9g.ln2@recgroups,com >, "DocTCW" <doctcw@aol,com >
wrote:
> In today's world, I don't think it is the "great unwashed masses" who are
> less likely to be able to vote using sophisticated means, but older people
> who have no contact with computers. It might surprise you how many young
> "poor people" are generally computer literate.
>
>
Interestingly enough, the studies (at least at the time of Ca
Recall which is the last time I got around to looking) indicate fairly
consistently that it is the number (or more precisely the percentage) of
new voters that is key. When new (first time) voters go up, so do the
number of errors in the ballots. This appears to be indepedent of the
age of the elector.
Probably having a person who is tasked to running through the
methods with a first-time voter prior to voting would be a good thing.
Re: OT: Electoral College Op Ed
The point I was trying to make was that all young people excepting the
extreme poor seem to be very well atuned to working/playing with
electronic devices. Game Boys are ubiquitous. They should have no problems
with computerized voting booths. At least compared to older voters.
And at least here in TX there always seems to be a volunteer available to
instruct the voter on the "newest" devices (although as one might assume,
MY particular precinct is in a more affluent part of town----making one
wonder how it goes in the less affluent areas.)
Tom
On Jul 16 2008 1:04 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <cbm1l5xq9g.ln2@recgroups,com >, "DocTCW" <doctcw@aol,com >
> wrote:
>
> > In today's world, I don't think it is the "great unwashed masses" who are
> > less likely to be able to vote using sophisticated means, but older people
> > who have no contact with computers. It might surprise you how many young
> > "poor people" are generally computer literate.
> >
> >
> Interestingly enough, the studies (at least at the time of Ca
> Recall which is the last time I got around to looking) indicate fairly
> consistently that it is the number (or more precisely the percentage) of
> new voters that is key. When new (first time) voters go up, so do the
> number of errors in the ballots. This appears to be indepedent of the
> age of the elector.
> Probably having a person who is tasked to running through the
> methods with a first-time voter prior to voting would be a good thing.
----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www .recgroups,com
The point I was trying to make was that all young people excepting the
extreme poor seem to be very well atuned to working/playing with
electronic devices. Game Boys are ubiquitous. They should have no problems
with computerized voting booths. At least compared to older voters.
And at least here in TX there always seems to be a volunteer available to
instruct the voter on the "newest" devices (although as one might assume,
MY particular precinct is in a more affluent part of town----making one
wonder how it goes in the less affluent areas.)
Tom
On Jul 16 2008 1:04 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <cbm1l5xq9g.ln2@recgroups,com >, "DocTCW" <doctcw@aol,com >
> wrote:
>
> > In today's world, I don't think it is the "great unwashed masses" who are
> > less likely to be able to vote using sophisticated means, but older people
> > who have no contact with computers. It might surprise you how many young
> > "poor people" are generally computer literate.
> >
> >
> Interestingly enough, the studies (at least at the time of Ca
> Recall which is the last time I got around to looking) indicate fairly
> consistently that it is the number (or more precisely the percentage) of
> new voters that is key. When new (first time) voters go up, so do the
> number of errors in the ballots. This appears to be indepedent of the
> age of the elector.
> Probably having a person who is tasked to running through the
> methods with a first-time voter prior to voting would be a good thing.
----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www .recgroups,com
Re: OT: Electoral College Op Ed
In article <qkq1l5xarg.ln2@recgroups,com >, "DocTCW" <doctcw@aol,com >
wrote:
> The point I was trying to make was that all young people excepting the
> extreme poor seem to be very well atuned to working/playing with
> electronic devices. Game Boys are ubiquitous. They should have no problems
> with computerized voting booths. At least compared to older voters.
>
And my point was (supposed to be) that there are no indicators that
older voters have any worse problems. The rookies are the ones causing
problems. (g).
In article <qkq1l5xarg.ln2@recgroups,com >, "DocTCW" <doctcw@aol,com >
wrote:
> The point I was trying to make was that all young people excepting the
> extreme poor seem to be very well atuned to working/playing with
> electronic devices. Game Boys are ubiquitous. They should have no problems
> with computerized voting booths. At least compared to older voters.
>
And my point was (supposed to be) that there are no indicators that
older voters have any worse problems. The rookies are the ones causing
problems. (g).
Re: OT: Electoral College Op Ed
> In today's world, I don't think it is the "great unwashed masses" who are
> less likely to be able to vote using sophisticated means, but older people
> who have no contact with computers.
But old people can learn about computers. Like this guy
Q: But do you go on line for yourself?
Mr. McCain: They go on for me. I am learning to get online myself, and
I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself.
July 13, 2008 (yes, 2008)
> In today's world, I don't think it is the "great unwashed masses" who are
> less likely to be able to vote using sophisticated means, but older people
> who have no contact with computers.
But old people can learn about computers. Like this guy
Q: But do you go on line for yourself?
Mr. McCain: They go on for me. I am learning to get online myself, and
I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself.
July 13, 2008 (yes, 2008)
Re: OT: Electoral College Op Ed
And he WATCHES Drudge, like it is a TV program....I guess from
Czechoslovakia???
If McCain isn't a warmed over Bush Two, I don't know who is. Oh well,
George H.W. didn't know what a bar code was at the grocery store. Back to
the future. Are these guys REALLY so insulated from reality? Or are they
just plain STUPID?
Tom
On Jul 16 2008 1:09 PM, salmoneous wrote:
> > In today's world, I don't think it is the "great unwashed masses" who are
> > less likely to be able to vote using sophisticated means, but older people
> > who have no contact with computers.
>
> But old people can learn about computers. Like this guy
>
> Q: But do you go on line for yourself?
>
> Mr. McCain: They go on for me. I am learning to get online myself, and
> I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself.
>
> July 13, 2008 (yes, 2008)
--------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http :// www .recgroups,com
And he WATCHES Drudge, like it is a TV program....I guess from
Czechoslovakia???
If McCain isn't a warmed over Bush Two, I don't know who is. Oh well,
George H.W. didn't know what a bar code was at the grocery store. Back to
the future. Are these guys REALLY so insulated from reality? Or are they
just plain STUPID?
Tom
On Jul 16 2008 1:09 PM, salmoneous wrote:
> > In today's world, I don't think it is the "great unwashed masses" who are
> > less likely to be able to vote using sophisticated means, but older people
> > who have no contact with computers.
>
> But old people can learn about computers. Like this guy
>
> Q: But do you go on line for yourself?
>
> Mr. McCain: They go on for me. I am learning to get online myself, and
> I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself.
>
> July 13, 2008 (yes, 2008)
--------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http :// www .recgroups,com
Re: OT: Electoral College Op Ed
On Jul 16, 12:31 pm, "DocTCW" <doc...@aol,com > wrote:
> If McCain isn't a warmed over Bush Two, I don't know who is.
Doc, whether you like McCain or not he is not W.
> Oh well,
> George H.W. didn't know what a bar code was at the grocery store.
I think he didn't know how to operate an ATM card, if I am not
mistaken.
> Back to
> the future. Are these guys REALLY so insulated from reality? Or are they
> just plain STUPID?
Insulated and inundated. They have a staff member for everything.
But that doesn't mean they are 'stupid'. From what I remember, Albert
Einstein could not even write a check. And look at Donald Trump.
You'd think a guy with his savvy could do a better comb over.
--EE--
On Jul 16, 12:31 pm, "DocTCW" <doc...@aol,com > wrote:
> If McCain isn't a warmed over Bush Two, I don't know who is.
Doc, whether you like McCain or not he is not W.
> Oh well,
> George H.W. didn't know what a bar code was at the grocery store.
I think he didn't know how to operate an ATM card, if I am not
mistaken.
> Back to
> the future. Are these guys REALLY so insulated from reality? Or are they
> just plain STUPID?
Insulated and inundated. They have a staff member for everything.
But that doesn't mean they are 'stupid'. From what I remember, Albert
Einstein could not even write a check. And look at Donald Trump.
You'd think a guy with his savvy could do a better comb over.
--EE--
