I'm writing this because I think Brian's kids might read his blog, and I'll let them learn about the the word "fuck" while helping dad put something together.
A loyal reader and sloppy logician wrote:
"...then the whole Florida election came about when democrats conveiniently forgot about the Electoral College (and still do to this day)."
Are you fucking stupid? What exactly makes you think Florida is an example of anyone disregarding the Electoral College? Did they scheme to circumvent it in any way? Did they do anything in FLA that the GOP didn't try to do in NM? Do you honestly think the GOP would not have been just as, if not more, agressive while doing the same things the Dems did?
To say they forget about it when it's the only thing (other than an unprincipled SC ruling, Ralph Nader, and confused elderly voters) that kept them from winning the Presidency is beyond stupid. It's some new classification of senselessnes just below somebody that thinks abortion should be legal voting for people that make it illegal. But above thinking Daley was ever good for Chicago.
Posted by danisaacs at July 03, 2003 11:28 PM | TrackBackDamn, I feel honored now. Dan decided to lambaste me while I was on vacation. I'm getting verklepmt!
Oh and BTW, I was conviently referring to the idiots to this day who keep screaming "He's not MY president!". Last time I checked, if you were an American Citizen, he was. ;-)
I'll rant more later, 1xRTT in Western Virginia sucks...
Posted by: Restless In Roanoke on July 4, 2003 12:52 AMThen you are free to amend your text. But what you said above is not what I quoted. And there just is not any defense for what you wrote. Perhaps it was a grammatical error; you didn't structure the sentence in a way that was consistant with your thoughts. Syntactic convulution seems a hallmark of GOP Leadership. But what you actually wrote was just stupid.
Your sentence means : "Democrats forgetting about the EC brought about the mess in Florida".
Your explanation means the converse.
And let's not talk about the thousands of hard-core Republicans that said the same thing about Clinton for 8 years. Because that would make you look like a hypocrite.
Posted by: Annoyed in Apex on July 4, 2003 09:10 AMThe results depended on which votes were counted. But that nitpicking is beyond the scope of my free time. And eliminating the Electoral College is not something that Dems just now want. Or is it even something most of them want. You can find enough Republicans that would be saying the same thing (and were actually prepared to) if the chips had fallen the other way. Many people, regardless of political affiliation, think it's unfair that a person in North Dakota has a vote that counts more than one in California.
Regardless, whatever the level of Dem dislike of the EC, you cannot accurately claim that this dislike caused the Florida mess. That is the point I made, and you've ignored.
And he's not a GWB drone. GWB is himself a drone. He's an enthusiastic part of the Machine he once raged against.
Posted by: Proportionally Representationally Dan on July 8, 2003 11:48 AMActually, the EC prevents areas like North Dakota or Indiana from being overlooked from the presidency. I think the stat was out there that it would only take winning 60% of the popular vote in 10 states to win the election if it was done on a purely popular basis. I don't have tons of time to look for it right now, but I think that was the last number I heard thrown out.
No, I don't think that the Dems dislike of the EC caused the Florida mess, but it sure as hell galvanized your party around it.
Posted by: Brian on July 8, 2003 12:03 PM*MY* party? My ticket was pretty much Libertarian across the board in the last three elections. And I split with available Green candiates when I was in Ohio.
I understand the point of the EC. But that does not mean that the system constitutes equal representation when the votes are not equal. The Senate exists to insure their needs are addressed at the Federal Level.
Maybe you were watching a different channels than I, but I recall most of the focus being on the vote in FLA. The popular vote was most often raised when Bush et al. claimed they had a "mandate."
And if you don't think that, then why did you say it?
I understand the point of the EC. But that does not mean that the system constitutes equal representation when the votes are not equal. The Senate exists to insure their needs are addressed at the Federal Level.
[sarcasm]
Those of us in fly-over country really appreciate your concern.
[/sarcasm]
Maybe you were watching a different channels than I, but I recall most of the focus being on the vote in FLA. The popular vote was most often raised when Bush et al. claimed they had a "mandate."
Yeah, the whole "mandate" thing was a crock, I will give you that. Just like the "Contract with America". Everytime the right tries to appease the media, it just comes off looking stupid. Wish they would stop that...but it also doesn't mean their policies and messages are 100% bad.
Posted by: Brian on July 8, 2003 01:41 PMAs long as your congressional representation (where appropriations originate) remains intact, I fail to see why the vote of someone in Wyoming should have counted more than twice as much as your vote did.
One person, One vote. Not 1 person, .42 votes.
Of course it's more complex than that. But on that simple level, it makes an appealing argument. One need not be fueled by dislike of any previous outcomes to recognize the disparity.
Posted by: Arguably Dan on July 8, 2003 01:59 PM