On Nov 3, 11:18*pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article ,





*Drifter wrote:
Telamon wrote:
In article ,
*"Brenda Ann" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
.
..
In article ,
"Brenda Ann" wrote:

"BCBlazysusan" wrote in message
...
On Nov 2, 9:08 pm, "Brenda Ann" wrote:
wrote in message

..
.
On Nov 2, 5:04 pm, Telamon
wrote:
SNIP

At last, I am a centrist, and a Constitutionalist. I was fully prepared
to
vote for Ron Paul, but with such a poor showing, was not going to just
throw
my vote away (the USPS did it FOR me, however)
I'm sorry to hear that Brenda.
That I was going to vote for Ron Paul, or that I didn't get the chance to
vote at all? (USPS BYTES)

I'm sorry that you did not get a chance to vote.

Sorry here too Brenda. back a few years, you could take your passport
to an American embassy, and fill out what they called an embassy ballet..
if i remember, up to the first of Nov. and it would go out by cable, or
telex, or the famous embassy pouch. for some strange reason, R.R.
stopped it. after all these years i still get a kick when i vote, makes
me feel good inside.

You bet. Tomorrow I go to my polling place to vote and be a part of the
process.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am going to say this, I have never stated this (I don't think- may
be wrong) on the internet but this is unfortunately the real way I
feel. I just have never been convinced that my vote could 'literally'
decide who is going to be the Commander in Chief. If I am wrong there
then there is someone out there- whoever they are- that at that exact
moment of counting the votes is the one that is choosing the leader of
the free world. I really (unfortunately) believe the saying that "If
voting "truly" made a difference, the government would outlaw it." I
may ruffle some feathers by saying that, but I have had the sneaking
suspicion that voting is one of the greatest hoaxes (among others)
that the gubiment ever created. I don't know. I hope and pray I am
wrong, but the government doesn't allow "The People" to decide
anything ie; The Bailout etc. etc. etc. They don't trust that people
can make the right decisions for themselves so they are the ones that
do it irregardless what the people really want or what makes them more
affluent. I don't know- hope I didn't upset anyone too terribly bad
but I just felt the need to say it. duck- n- cover

BCBlazysusan wrote:

On Nov 3, 11:18 pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article ,





Drifter wrote:
Telamon wrote:
In article ,
"Brenda Ann" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
.
..
In article ,
"Brenda Ann" wrote:

"BCBlazysusan" wrote in message
...
On Nov 2, 9:08 pm, "Brenda Ann" wrote:
wrote in message

..
.
On Nov 2, 5:04 pm, Telamon
wrote:
SNIP

At last, I am a centrist, and a Constitutionalist. I was fully prepared
to
vote for Ron Paul, but with such a poor showing, was not going to just
throw
my vote away (the USPS did it FOR me, however)
I'm sorry to hear that Brenda.
That I was going to vote for Ron Paul, or that I didn't get the chance to
vote at all? (USPS BYTES)

I'm sorry that you did not get a chance to vote.

Sorry here too Brenda. back a few years, you could take your passport
to an American embassy, and fill out what they called an embassy ballet.
if i remember, up to the first of Nov. and it would go out by cable, or
telex, or the famous embassy pouch. for some strange reason, R.R.
stopped it. after all these years i still get a kick when i vote, makes
me feel good inside.

You bet. Tomorrow I go to my polling place to vote and be a part of the
process.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am going to say this, I have never stated this (I don't think- may
be wrong) on the internet but this is unfortunately the real way I
feel. I just have never been convinced that my vote could 'literally'
decide who is going to be the Commander in Chief. If I am wrong there
then there is someone out there- whoever they are- that at that exact
moment of counting the votes is the one that is choosing the leader of
the free world. I really (unfortunately) believe the saying that "If
voting "truly" made a difference, the government would outlaw it." I
may ruffle some feathers by saying that, but I have had the sneaking
suspicion that voting is one of the greatest hoaxes (among others)
that the gubiment ever created. I don't know. I hope and pray I am
wrong, but the government doesn't allow "The People" to decide
anything ie; The Bailout etc. etc. etc. They don't trust that people
can make the right decisions for themselves so they are the ones that
do it irregardless what the people really want or what makes them more
affluent. I don't know- hope I didn't upset anyone too terribly bad
but I just felt the need to say it. duck- n- cover

1 (one) vote may not count for all that much out of millions of votes, but what if
all of the people who think that their 1 (one) vote doesn't count don't vote?

Elections can, and are, lost because of all the individuals who think that their 1
(one) vote doesn't count.

Go Vote!

And vote NoBama!

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

1 (one) vote may not count for all that much out of millions of votes, but
what if
all of the people who think that their 1 (one) vote doesn't count don't
vote?

Elections can, and are, lost because of all the individuals who think that
their 1
(one) vote doesn't count.

If only the "popular vote" was counted, then every vote would count. But
the way everyone's vote is compartmentalized into states (the "electoral
college" scam), all it takes is one person voting in each state to determine
the winner.

Example: You want to vote for candidate Tweedle Dee, but you say **** it I
don't feel like voting. Your state goes for Tweedle Dee, but candidate
Tweedle Dum wins the election.

Explain to me again how "every vote counts". Your vote would have made
absolutely no difference at all, because of the "electoral college"
bull****. If popular votes counted, then your vote COULD have made a
difference.

The fact that it is possible get the most actual votes, yet lose the
election is proof that the "electoral college" bull**** is an absurd way to
elect a national leader. The person with the most votes should win, not
based on where those votes came from.

Bob Campbell wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

1 (one) vote may not count for all that much out of millions of votes, but
what if
all of the people who think that their 1 (one) vote doesn't count don't
vote?

Elections can, and are, lost because of all the individuals who think that
their 1
(one) vote doesn't count.

If only the "popular vote" was counted, then every vote would count. But
the way everyone's vote is compartmentalized into states (the "electoral
college" scam), all it takes is one person voting in each state to determine
the winner.

Example: You want to vote for candidate Tweedle Dee, but you say **** it I
don't feel like voting. Your state goes for Tweedle Dee, but candidate
Tweedle Dum wins the election.

Explain to me again how "every vote counts". Your vote would have made
absolutely no difference at all, because of the "electoral college"
bull****. If popular votes counted, then your vote COULD have made a
difference.

The fact that it is possible get the most actual votes, yet lose the
election is proof that the "electoral college" bull**** is an absurd way to
elect a national leader. The person with the most votes should win, not
based on where those votes came from.

But then the power would all be concentrated in the states with major population
centres.

You Liberal/Democrat/Marxists need to stop whining.

"dxAce" wrote in message
...
But then the power would all be concentrated in the states with major
population
centres.

Why? They already have the most "electoral college" votes anyway. What
would change?

I'll tell you what would change. EVERY VOTE WOULD COUNT! That's why it
won't happen, and national politics will continue to concentrate on "the
states with major population centres".

You Liberal/Democrat/Marxists need to stop whining.

I'm neither Liberal/Democrat/Marxist nor whining. The last time I voted
was in 88, and I voted for Bush. But hey, nice attempt to label me just
because you disagree with my point.

Bob Campbell wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...
But then the power would all be concentrated in the states with major
population
centres.

Why? They already have the most "electoral college" votes anyway. What
would change?

Can't figure it out, can you, Bob?



I'll tell you what would change. EVERY VOTE WOULD COUNT!

Every vote does count, Bob, it's just that you don't quite get it.

That's why it
won't happen, and national politics will continue to concentrate on "the
states with major population centres".

You Liberal/Democrat/Marxists need to stop whining.

I'm neither Liberal/Democrat/Marxist nor whining. The last time I voted
was in 88, and I voted for Bush. But hey, nice attempt to label me just
because you disagree with my point.

OK, but you are a whiner.

"dxAce" wrote in message
...
The fact that it is possible get the most actual votes, yet lose the
election is proof that the "electoral college" bull**** is an absurd way
to
elect a national leader. The person with the most votes should win, not
based on where those votes came from.

But then the power would all be concentrated in the states with major
population
centres.

Centres? Are our Canadian neighbours rubbing off on you, Steve?

Also, you think that states with major populations centers don't already
control the elections? Montana is a huge state, but still has only 3
electoral votes. Like it or not, the vast majority of the populace is
concentrated in or near the big cities..

Brenda Ann wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message
...
The fact that it is possible get the most actual votes, yet lose the
election is proof that the "electoral college" bull**** is an absurd way
to
elect a national leader. The person with the most votes should win, not
based on where those votes came from.
But then the power would all be concentrated in the states with major
population
centres.

Centres? Are our Canadian neighbours rubbing off on you, Steve?

Also, you think that states with major populations centers don't already
control the elections? Montana is a huge state, but still has only 3
electoral votes. Like it or not, the vast majority of the populace is
concentrated in or near the big cities..


Just like the Israelis turning into Nazis, Steve is becoming Canadian.

On Nov 4, 1:42 pm, dxAce wrote:
Bob Campbell wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message
...

1 (one) vote may not count for all that much out of millions of votes, but
what if
all of the people who think that their 1 (one) vote doesn't count don't
vote?

Elections can, and are, lost because of all the individuals who think that
their 1
(one) vote doesn't count.

If only the "popular vote" was counted, then every vote would count. But
the way everyone's vote is compartmentalized into states (the "electoral
college" scam), all it takes is one person voting in each state to determine
the winner.

Example: You want to vote for candidate Tweedle Dee, but you say **** it I
don't feel like voting. Your state goes for Tweedle Dee, but candidate
Tweedle Dum wins the election.

Explain to me again how "every vote counts". Your vote would have made
absolutely no difference at all, because of the "electoral college"
bull****. If popular votes counted, then your vote COULD have made a
difference.

The fact that it is possible get the most actual votes, yet lose the
election is proof that the "electoral college" bull**** is an absurd way to
elect a national leader. The person with the most votes should win, not
based on where those votes came from.

But then the power would all be concentrated in the states with major population
centres.

You Liberal/Democrat/Marxists need to stop whining.

No, just exactly the opposite.

Popular vote would give every person in the USA *exactly* the same
vote for president in a single national election.
Whereas the electoral college OVER-REPRESENTS low-population states,
because they get 3 "FREEBIE" electoral votes no matter how small the
state population is. Theoretically, a state could have 1 resident
with 3 electoral votes, to take the silly extreme, vs. a tiny fraction
of a millionth of an electoral vote in a large state.

It may come as a revelation, but a lot more people live in cities and
surrounding suburbs, than live in rural areas.
States with big population centers also have more voters who need
represented.

wrote in message
...
On Nov 4, 1:42 pm, dxAce wrote:

But then the power would all be concentrated in the states with major
population
centres.

You Liberal/Democrat/Marxists need to stop whining.

No, just exactly the opposite.

Popular vote would give every person in the USA *exactly* the same
vote for president in a single national election.
Whereas the electoral college OVER-REPRESENTS low-population states,
because they get 3 "FREEBIE" electoral votes no matter how small the
state population is. Theoretically, a state could have 1 resident
with 3 electoral votes, to take the silly extreme, vs. a tiny fraction
of a millionth of an electoral vote in a large state.

It may come as a revelation, but a lot more people live in cities and
surrounding suburbs, than live in rural areas.
States with big population centers also have more voters who need
represented.

Devil's advocate time. I would like to see the electoral college done away
with, too.. but there is some built-in regulation the

Yes, even a state with a tiny population, such as Montana, Wyoming, and
Alaska, has 3 votes in the electoral college. This is because every state
has two senators and a minimum of one member of the House of
Representatives. However, additional House members are added based directly
upon population of each state. This does tend to even out the electoral
votes a bit so that, in general, the electoral college is somewhat
representative of the popular vote... and then there are elections like this
one. These happen because the cities tend, in general, to be liberal, and
vote Democrat by a small margin (usually around 60/40 or thereabouts),
whereas small towns and rural areas tend to be more conservative, and vote
Republican by a somewhat larger margin (closer to 80/20). Based on
populations, this means the popular vote ends up more or less equal (usually
no more than 5 points plus or minus). The electoral college, however, votes
preferentially to elect on the basis of large population centers, so the
electoral college numbers can skew quite far from the norm (as with this
election).

The results are generally the same, either way. Very seldom does the
electoral college go a different direction from the popular vote, but it can
and does happen occasionally (as with the 2000 election).