Becky's presidency poll

Mike Moore...no thanks. That is like me telling you to read Bill O'Reilly's books and listen to him. I try to stay away from reading books by people who are extremely biased one way or another. Mike Moore is very one sided, and I don't really respect that in any person. I would rather listen to someone who is more middle of the road.

Maybe..maybe not.

No, it is not. If not for that system then a few states would have all the deciding power because they have the majority of the population. Large sparsely populated states like those in the South and Northwest would have their dramatically different concerns ignored. The present system is in place to ensure that Wyoming is important because those two votes might make the difference in the outcome of the election. The electorial votes are distributed based on population, so it's balanced to give the more populated states more power, but it keeps the less populated states from being completely powerless. It's the United STATES of America, not the United PEOPLE of America.

Becky

I'd rather let the people vote instead of the states.

Ice

Just curious as to know why you think that way is better?

The thing is he isn't one sided and he isn't just sprouting some belief without backing it up. Everything he says he backs up, therefore not making himself seem like some crazy radical that has a bone to pick with the president.

Tash

So what? If Nader had different opinions then Gore and felt he had to defend them he was right to run for president.
There are a lot of other "ifs" that would have made Gore won. If he had won his home state, if he hadn't lost states that were usually voting democrats, if he had won the debates vs Bush, if Nader had been the only other candidate, etc...
If some people voted for Nader instead of Gore, it's because he was standing for things for which Democrats didn't. Their mistake, not his.
Blaming other candidates means Democrats themselves don't even think their projects and ideas are strong enough. I mean, to follow them in this absurd way of thinking, Bush shouldn't run either because he's stealing votes from the Democrats too. Let them run alone and then they should be able to win.
The more candidates run, the better the choice, the closer to Democracy you get.

Ponrauil

With a country as large as the United States you can't expect that the interests and concerns of everyone are the same. Geography alone dictates otherwise. Someone better listen to the farmers in the midwest if the people in New York want bread and vegetables. Someone better listen to the farmers in the South if they want clothes on their back and chickens for their stew. Do you think Italians have the same economic concerns as Scotsmen?

The Electoral college provides a balance that doesn't allow the more populated states to have all the control. Should that happen, we'd probably see another Civil War.

Becky

That I agree with. But that's always a problem when you only have two parties that have a chance.

Ice

I don't agree with that. When you don't give your vote straight to the candidate, there's always a chance that the vote you give isn't going where you want it to go. In the States it's not that big of a problem because of the dated two party system, but it can be.

I'd suggest a relative vote - system where one vote would be counted relatively, depending on where it comes from. That way each vote would have as much weight as the other. I.E. a vote from California would be counted as one, but a vot from Wisconsin would be counted as three. It's not as simple in reality, but it would work. And when the power is truly given to the people, many more would probably end up voting.

Ice

He turns things around to suit him, as most people who are so far right or left do. There is no middle ground with Moore. He backs it up with half truths or truths twisted around to suit him. Sure, some of what he says is true, but not all of it.