Corzine - your votes belong to me....

[carl_g]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080114/ap_on_re_us/popular_vote

what a jerk fugface.

[CBRBob]

Just another way for the liberal democrat socialists to try and power grab. They didn't win in a fair fight in 2000 so they want to make the rules favor them so they have to win. Crybaby motherfrackers. Just another step toward SOCIALISM in NJ.

[CBRBob]

Here ya go, if you want to let corzine know he is a jerkoff......
http://www.nj.gov/governor/govmail.html

[IrocRob]

I can't argue with eliminating the electoral college.
It's a huge waste of time, effort, and money.
It would be relatively easy to go with a popular vote count
for the primaries and the general election.
And wouldn't it be a more accurate view of what the voting population wants?

[jcblitz]

I can't argue with eliminating the electoral college.
It's a huge waste of time, effort, and money.
It would be relatively easy to go with a popular vote count
for the primaries and the general election.
And wouldn't it be a more accurate view of what the voting population wants?

I agree. I don't know much about it, but the way I understand it is that it was a way in early America to prevent reckless voting. Information was really hard to get to the masses so you more or less had an uniformed public (they didn't have liberal blogs back then Bob) voting for someone they know very little about. But now that information is more freely available and easily accessible, there isn't much need for a middle man anymore, at least in this aspect. Plus they're really under no obligation to vote for who the people that elected them want them to vote for. This is really just forcing them to represent the public regardless of the current elected officials party affiliation. I could be completely off, I don't live in NJ anymore so fuck you all and enjoy your $800 a month EZ Pass bill.

[Ant]

I really don't see this as a bad thing either. :moocow:

[Mike295]

if i am looking at this the right way that will mean the candidate will actually have to spend time and money in NJ to get the popular vote.

[carl_g]

What it means is... If the NJ popular vote selects "candidate A" but "candidate B" gets more votes overall, nationwide, then "candidate B" gets NJ's electoral votes.

If this goes through then presidential candidates will only campaign in the most densely populated areas and no other states' votes will matter.

[jcblitz]

What it means is... If the NJ popular vote selects "candidate A" but "candidate B" gets more votes overall, nationwide, then "candidate B" gets NJ's electoral votes.

If this goes through then presidential candidates will only campaign in the most densely populated areas and no other states' votes will matter.

I just reread it and I think you're right. I don't like that. Seems like a bandaid rather than fixing the root problem.

Gov. Jon S. Corzine signed legislation Sunday that approves delivering the state's 15 electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. The Assembly approved the bill last month and the Senate followed suit earlier this month.

Just count the peoples votes, doesn't seem that hard to me.

[IrocRob]

This is not a bad idea. Read the whole thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College

This proposal calls for an interstate compact whereby individual states agree to allocate their electors to the winner of the national popular vote. The agreement is triggered only upon a certain threshold of states enacting electoral reallocation legislation. The state legislatures together would then establish a direct vote and effectively circumvent the Electoral College system if enough electoral votes switch. The National Popular Vote plan recommends that the present manner of allocating electors shall remain in force until enough states have signed on as to account for a majority of electoral votes.

The proposal centers on Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, which provides, "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."^ Many partial versions of this plan have emerged over the years.

Maryland is the first state to have passed the legislation. On April 10, 2007, the Governor of the State of Maryland, Martin O'Malley, signed a bill into law providing that, should enough states adopt the same law, the whole of the Maryland's electoral votes would go to the presidential candidate with the greatest number of votes nationally for his or her electors, instead of going to the candidate whose electors receive the most votes within the state. [7]

New Jersey Gov. Jon S. Corzine signed legislation on Sunday January 14 2008 that approved delivering the state’s 15 electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote in the presidential election. The compact would take effect only if enough states — those with a majority of votes in the Electoral College — agreed to it. Republicans criticized the bill as undermining federal elections.

[IrocRob]

...Just count the peoples votes, doesn't seem that hard to me...

"Counting the people's votes" is easy....electing a president by popular vote alone would require a constitutional ammendment. THAT'S not easy at all.

Enacting legislation such as this is a way of switching to a popular vote
model without the trouble of a constitutional ammendment.

[SAXON117]

I believe in the popular vote. but I also say FUK Corzine!

[FDNYDANO18]

Most modern Polititians are attempting an end run on the US Constitution....they find the fact that it was written by people infinitely smarter than themselves inconvienient. It protects the people from power mad lawyers, and so they desire to shred it or work around it. An ignorant populace is a despot's best friend.....thats why everyone is made to know all about what that idiot Paris Hilton and her type are up too as opposed to what is really important. Liberty dies while everyone is partying.

[carl_g]

"Counting the people's votes" is easy....electing a president by popular vote alone would require a constitutional ammendment. THAT'S not easy at all.

Enacting legislation such as this is a way of switching to a popular vote
model without the trouble of a constitutional ammendment.
It's a bullshit way of saying fuck the constitution let's do it our way now..

[IrocRob]

It's a bullshit way of saying fuck the constitution let's do it our way now..

What is it you don't like? The idea of a popular vote or the methods that
must be used to achieve one? So far there are only two governors who have
signed this legislation, and it will only take effect if a majority is reached.

We have methods of communication that are so far beyond what the
founding fathers had to work with; so much so that the electoral college
is no longer a required part of the process. Do I think that an ammendment
should be passed to change to a popular vote model? Yes, I do. I also think
that you should be REQUIRED to vote; but that's another story.

This legislation will never have any direct impact on the general election,
it is simply the first step towards a popular vote model.

[FDNYDANO18]

What is it you don't like? The idea of a popular vote or the methods that
must be used to achieve one? So far there are only two governors who have
signed this legislation, and it will only take effect if a majority is reached.

We have methods of communication that are so far beyond what the
founding fathers had to work with; so much so that the electoral college
is no longer a required part of the process. Do I think that an ammendment
should be passed to change to a popular vote model? Yes, I do. I also think
that you should be REQUIRED to vote; but that's another story.

This legislation will never have any direct impact on the general election,
it is simply the first step towards a popular vote model.

Which according to the U S Constitution requires a constitutional amendment. Ammendments to the Constitution are difficult to achieve for that very reason....remember...these are the same polititians who dont want to require ID to vote...harder to cheat that way

Big Dog and Pony Show

[CBRBob]

I don't know much about it, but the way I understand it is that it was a way in early America to prevent reckless voting. Information was really hard to get to the masses so you more or less had an uniformed public (they didn't have liberal blogs back then Bob) voting for someone they know very little about. But now that information is more freely available and easily accessible, there isn't much need for a middle man anymore, at least in this aspect.

If any of you think that the masses actually know what the frack they are doing, just look at that 'when did 9/11 take place' video. I know that is probably England but the general public are lemmings. They hear free this and that and off they go. They hear global warming shoved down their throats and off they go. Go to vote without actually thinking of how the reality of what the rest of what these people will do will effect them.

Just imagine if they sold Ducati 1098s for 5K(but you have to own it for 4 years). Wow what a deal! Yes, but the valve adjustments that you MUST have done EVERY year will be 2K! So what looked like a deal cost you 8K plust whatever else you needed to do to it. Then you find out the price was 2K because the people that bought Vespa scooters really couldn't afford to service them, so they got the service for free. :moocow:

[FDNYDANO18]

If any of you think that the masses actually know what the frack they are doing, just look at that 'when did 9/11 take place' video. I know that is probably England but the general public are lemmings. They hear free this and that and off they go. They hear global warming shoved down their throats and off they go. Go to vote without actually thinking of how the reality of what the rest of what these people will do will effect them.

Just imagine if they sold Ducati 1098s for 5K(but you have to own it for 4 years). Wow what a deal! Yes, but the valve adjustments that you MUST have done EVERY year will be 2K! So what looked like a deal cost you 8K plust whatever else you needed to do to it. Then you find out the price was 2K because the people that bought Vespa scooters really couldn't afford to service them, so they got the service for free. :moocow:

I love analogies ...... and that is a great one :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: Well Done

[bondo]

I love analogies ...... and that is a great one :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: Well Done


+1 :roflmao:

[bondo]

What it means is... If the NJ popular vote selects "candidate A" but "candidate B" gets more votes overall, nationwide, then "candidate B" gets NJ's electoral votes.

If this goes through then presidential candidates will only campaign in the most densely populated areas and no other states' votes will matter.

bingo!
densely populated areas = democrats (and tree-huggers :nod2: )

In the last presidential election, if you threw out the votes from NYC and LA... Bush would have won by a landslide. No one in the news talks about that.

Why is it that the Democrats always seem to be attempting to change the rules about voting? Last time, I recall it was Hillary supporting legislation that people in prison should vote. They are not out for the little guy. They are out for themselves.

[bondo]

... Information was really hard to get to the masses so you more or less had an uniformed public (they didn't have liberal blogs back then Bob) voting for someone they know very little about.

But now that information is more freely available and easily accessible, there isn't much need for a middle man anymore, at least in this aspect.

You've got to be kidding.
"Incorrect and biased information" is more freely available in writing, now.
50-80 years ago, it was a bunch of guys talkin' down at the barber shop.

reference:
-chain emails about every one of the candidates
-blogs on both sides
-90% of the media and universities are now democrats


Few people will vote for someone who will really make a difference because so many people will vote for what they think is best for them in the short term... not what's good the country in the long term.

Steering the country towards socialism is not good for the long term.

from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
- Karl Marx (Hillary, Obama, etc)

[Kennedy]

How about "Survival of the fittest"

[bondo]

How about "Survival of the fittest"

That's a right wing ideal.
Dems tend to disagree with that :)

[jcblitz]

You've got to be kidding.
"Incorrect and biased information" is more freely available in writing, now.
50-80 years ago, it was a bunch of guys talkin' down at the barber shop.


reference:
-chain emails about every one of the candidates
-blogs on both sides
-90% of the media and universities are now democrats


Few people will vote for someone who will really make a difference because so many people will vote for what they think is best for them in the short term... not what's good the country in the long term.

Steering the country towards socialism is not good for the long term.

from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
- Karl Marx (Hillary, Obama, etc)

Can you get me your source for those reference usages or did you intercept some chain letter with a link to some blog sent sent by some faggot democrat who took a break from hugging a tree in between abortions and stealing CBRBobs tax money to send out an email to keep the conspiracy going?

And what do you consider short term and long term?

[CBRBob]

You want socialists in power? You want big government control over most everything? Move to a different country! Don't frack this one up. We have enough problems with govt. as is and many of you want to make them your parents that steal from you.......insane!

[Kennedy]

That's a right wing ideal.
Dems tend to disagree with that :)

We would be so much better off

[jcblitz]

You want socialists in power? You want big government control over most everything? Move to a different country! Don't frack this one up. We have enough problems with govt. as is and many of you want to make them your parents that steal from you.......insane!

Well first, you make it sound like the "non-socialists" are going to shower you with money and give you 40 acres and a mule. The government has gotten bigger under a "non-socialist" (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31 , http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7689 , let me know if those are too liberal for you, I'll turn my socialist filter on google off). You're also saying "You want big government control over most everything?". We'll we've lost a lot of rights under Bush so I'm not sure what they don't control anymore anyway. But no, I want much less government and for them to mind their own business. And I'm not moving to a different country, I'd like to see this one restored to what it's supposed to be. Not what it has become. However, if you would like to not pay taxes to support it and laugh at the homeless, I'm sure there are other countries that can meet your needs. I want Ron Paul for president, he'll rain fire and brimstone down on the government.
-
Edit: Here you go, enjoy fantasy land. http://www.clickpress.com/releases/Detailed/8537005cp.shtml

[FDNYDANO18]

Well first, you make it sound like the "non-socialists" are going to shower you with money and give you 40 acres and a mule. The government has gotten bigger under a "non-socialist" (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31 , http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7689 , let me know if those are too liberal for you, I'll turn my socialist filter on google off). You're also saying "You want big government control over most everything?". We'll we've lost a lot of rights under Bush so I'm not sure what they don't control anymore anyway. But no, I want much less government and for them to mind their own business. And I'm not moving to a different country, I'd like to see this one restored to what it's supposed to be. Not what it has become. However, if you would like to not pay taxes to support it and laugh at the homeless, I'm sure there are other countries that can meet your needs. I want Ron Paul for president, he'll rain fire and brimstone down on the government.
-
Edit: Here you go, enjoy fantasy land. http://www.clickpress.com/releases/Detailed/8537005cp.shtml


Truely helpful post.....

ps: George Bush (either or) is NOT a Conservative.... He is a New World Order Republican.... which makes him the Lesser of 2 evils when compared to the DemocRATS/Socialists/Communists.

Mr Franklin,what type of government have you given us Sir?.... Benjamin Franklin:"A Republic,if you can keep it."

[carl_g]

We would be so much better off
But that goes against everything that you have posted prior to this.. :lol:

[CBRBob]

I never said the Reps will shower me with money. They just wont tax me out of existence to pay off people who wish to rape the system to sit at home and collect because someone promised them the world.

You want much less govt but the Dems ALWAYS grow govt. I DON'T want big govt control over everything, the dems do. Jeez there were THOUSANDS of bills put forth in NJ this last month and ONLY 3000 passed. 3000!

[IrocRob]

Well, since we seem to have gone WAY off topic, I'll weigh
in with ALL politicians suck and are only in it for themselves.

Republican "small government" ideals are better than Democratic
"Entitlement" ideals, but in the political world we live in they all suck.

Ron Paul may well rain "fire and brimstone" down on Washington DC,
but he still won't get a damn thing done while trying to work with a
Congress and Senate that he doesn't "belong" to.

Rant Over...We now continue with our regularly scheduled program...:lol:

[Kennedy]

But that goes against everything that you have posted prior to this.. :lol:

I haven't posted in this thread ;)

[carl_g]

I haven't posted in this thread ;)
ok Sorry in the other politically based threads. :)

[Kennedy]

ok Sorry in the other politically based threads. :)

I really don't like democrats or republicans in fact I hate them all.

As my American Government and Politics Prof. used to say

"We have the best politicians money can buy."

[CBRBob]

Yep, and Corzine is going to insure that!

[bondo]

Can you get me your source for those reference usages or did you intercept some chain letter with a link to some blog sent sent by some faggot democrat who took a break from hugging a tree in between abortions and stealing CBRBobs tax money to send out an email to keep the conspiracy going?


:lol: they are stealing your tax money too, it's not just CBRBob!
I did some research on this 6+ months ago and found enough info to raise an eyebrow. Can't find my notes... here's one reference:

Media = almost 90% democrat shown by this small survey. reference Journalist Donations (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/)
MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans.

How does that effect public opinion? ...combined with "citizen journalists", Mikey Moore, etc
Example: Poll says 35% of dems think Bush knew about 9/11 in advance.reference (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/general_current_events/president_bush/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance )
That is amazing.

Over the years, I've seen and participated in a few news worthy events. In each of them, the media skewed the facts and rearranged things out of pure ignorance or simply to make the story more exciting. The media is supposed to be unbiased. yeah right.
AP / CNN / NBC / CBS / ABC / PBS / MTV - liberal
Fox - conservative

Education system is mostly liberal. No secret about that either.
Majority of schools/universities are unionized and therefore mostly democrat.
Environment skews your opinion. reference Social Proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Proof)

Nothing wrong with dems or unions in the mainstream.
Problems occur when things are taken to an extreme... and that goes for any party. Check out: www.cpusa.org (http://www.cpusa.org)


And what do you consider short term and long term?
depending on the issue
short term is immediate - 2 years
long term is 2-30 years

[jcblitz]

Education system is mostly liberal. No secret about that either.
Majority of schools/universities are unionized and therefore mostly democrat.

Well a simple google search could have told you that :)

"College of liberal arts", 1,090,000
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&channel=2PSP&rlz=&q=%22college+of+liberal+arts%22&btnG=Google+Search

"College of conservative arts", 7
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22college+of+conservative+arts%22&btnG=Search

[bondo]

scary stuff

unfortunately, lemmings vote.

[jcblitz]

Well actually, I just found this article. http://www.paullockaby.com/journal/?id=2006/04/11/226974496

It links to the sources for these numbers

October 2005: 33% Democrat, 25% Republican, 38% Independent/Unaffiliated
March 2005: 33% Democrat, 28% Republican, 36% Independent/Unaffiliated
October 2004: 34% Democrat, 29% Republican, 33% Independent/Unaffiliated
March 2004: 32% Democrat, 24% Republican, 41% Independent/Unaffiliated
October 2003: 27% Democrat, 31% Republican, 38% Independent/Unaffiliated
April 2003: 29% Democrat, 26% Republican, 41% Independent/Unaffiliated
October 2002: 29% Democrat, 26% Republican, 40% Independent/Unaffiliated
October 2001: 29% Democrat, 31% Republican, 39% Independent/Unaffiliated
April 2000: 34% Democrat, 28% Republican, 33% Independent/Unaffiliated

[FDNYDANO18]

Independant/unafiliated= uninvolved.... uninformed

[CBRBob]

"College of liberal arts", 1,090,000
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&channel=2PSP&rlz=&q=%22college+of+liberal+arts%22&btnG=Google+Search

"College of conservative arts", 7
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22college+of+conservative+arts%22&btnG=Search

Yep, liberal arts are the classes you take to fill in credits for your REAL major (AKA basket weaving etc).

Dano...exactly!! :nod2:

[bondo]

Well actually, I just found this article. http://www.paullockaby.com/journal/?id=2006/04/11/226974496

It links to the sources for these numbers

October 2005: 33% Democrat, 25% Republican, 38% Independent/Unaffiliated
March 2005: 33% Democrat, 28% Republican, 36% Independent/Unaffiliated
October 2004: 34% Democrat, 29% Republican, 33% Independent/Unaffiliated
March 2004: 32% Democrat, 24% Republican, 41% Independent/Unaffiliated
October 2003: 27% Democrat, 31% Republican, 38% Independent/Unaffiliated
April 2003: 29% Democrat, 26% Republican, 41% Independent/Unaffiliated
October 2002: 29% Democrat, 26% Republican, 40% Independent/Unaffiliated
October 2001: 29% Democrat, 31% Republican, 39% Independent/Unaffiliated
April 2000: 34% Democrat, 28% Republican, 33% Independent/Unaffiliated

The article provides stats for the students... not the faculty.

I'm talking about the people who are responsible for educating the impressionable minds of our children with unbiased information... or at least a fair impression of both sides of a story.
Add to that, democrats are more likely to be demonstrating, marching, picketing and protesting. With the exception of the extreme end of the abortion issue, you rarely see republicans forcing themselves.

Extreme on either side doesn't help anything.


Independant/unaffiliated= uninvolved.... uninformed
+1
add unaffiliated = hide your head in the sand, "who cares" or "I have no idea" or "I have no idea what my own values are"