88Comrade2000 Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 I heard or read this somewhere that part of the reason that Bush lost the popular vote was by the fact that some Christian conservaties stayed home the last election. Some of them were upset with his allowing gays at the convention and paying lip service. Also, some where geniually turned off by the reports of his drunk driving conviction. I'll admit that that revelation, almost caused me to vote for a third party candidate. My question, when it comes to voting: Do you place morality(religious conviction, etc..) above anything else or do you do anything to keep the opponent of your views out? Even if your not comfortable with the candidate that is presented to you, to you give in a little in your personal morality/convictions and vote for the guy anway? You don't want the opponent to take power, since it could be worse with him in control- in your mind anyway. This is probably more geared towards republicans than democrats, but they can answer to. For me: Depends on the situation. I wasn't going to vote for Gore last time, no matter what. His views were just to opposite mine. I wasn't sold on Bush but didn't really have an alternative. Though I almost went third party- to register my anti-gore vote, instead of voting a pro-Bush vote. Hell, AM i even making sense? Time to sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 A great book I just finished on this very topic. "Second Coming" by Mark Rozell. It details how the Christian Coalition has led to the demise of the GOP in Virginia. Interesting read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 A great book I just finished on this very topic. "Second Coming" by Mark Rozell. It details how the Christian Coalition has led to the demise of the GOP in Virginia. Interesting read. LMAO!! Say what? The Demise of the GOP in Virginia huh? Well, as a Virginian I can honestly say that I haven't seen any demise of the GOP. In fact, I think Virginia is prob one of the most if not thee most conservative & Republican states in the Union. Granted, we have a Democratic gov. However, a democrat here is nothing like a democrat in New England or the West Coast. Warner would be considered a 'right wing nut' by some liberal democrat standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 Read the book to explain the premise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Read the book to explain the premise. Ok, can I pick it up at a book store or amazon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 Either at Amazon or more likely a college bookstore. He's a professor at Catholic so if you are in the city, I bet they have a copy or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 I haven't read the book, but Virginia is in no danger of ever using it's electoral votes on a democrat... Va is so GOP is almost makes you not want to vote if your candidate is Dem or independant. Oh... and to answer the question: It depends for me, I don't have a problem with something that is not that far out of touch with reality (like Clinton BJ's or Bush DUI's), they are still human and while I have never been unfaithful or driven drunk, It's not something that would automatically eliminate me from voting for them. I do think that driving drunk is much worse than cheating on your wife only because you are risking other people's lives while driving drunk, but while being a cheater, you are not endangering someone's life. When I choose who I am going to vote for, I try to look at the big picture, because no one candidate will represent all of my views, usually I have ended up voting against one person rather than for them. This time will probably be the same. I wish it wasn't that way, but I can only hope for the day that 3rd party candidates have a realistic chance to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 If you look at the state races in VA it's eesentially a 3 party race. The Dems, The GOP, and the new Christian right GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 Ok,, your'e talking about within the state... I honestly don't even keep up with that, I was only referring to the Presidential race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 Well we know liberals dont vote because of religious or moral convictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 My top issue with a politician is his stance on taxes and government spending. Unless he's just a dog, that issue alone will probably get my support. Also, it may be of issue or it may not, but, some 5 million absentee ballots were not counted in California because the state already had a margin high enough that even if all 5 million went one way it wouldn't have mattered. Typically the GOP gets three to 1 absentee ballots, even in California. Some think if those ballots were counted Bush would have edged out the popular vote as well . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 Originally posted by Art My top issue with a politician is his stance on taxes and government spending. Unless he's just a dog, that issue alone will probably get my support. Also, it may be of issue or it may not, but, some 5 million absentee ballots were not counted in California because the state already had a margin high enough that even if all 5 million went one way it wouldn't have mattered. Typically the GOP gets three to 1 absentee ballots, even in California. Some think if those ballots were counted Bush would have edged out the popular vote as well . Art, I would probably tend to agree with you about the absentee ballots. I personally don't like the electoral college system, but not over sour grapes from the past election, I'm like you, Bush probably would have won based on the absentee ballots. I don't like the current system because if my state always votes one way, then if I don't agree with the candidate, why should I vote?? The popular vote doesn't matter so there is no incentive to put in my 2 cents. I would much rather see a national vote total elect the winner... why it isn't that way baffles me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFunky1 Posted April 29, 2003 Share Posted April 29, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama I do think that driving drunk is much worse than cheating on your wife only because you are risking other people's lives while driving drunk, but while being a cheater, you are not endangering someone's life. Driving drunk does place people in more immediate danger... unfortunately cheating on your wife can lead to her getting diseases the other woman might have... even if the man were to wear a condom. Adultery is not a victimless crime. People might not die, but hearts are broken and lives shattered. How many men do you know who lost their wives and kids because of an extra marital fling? I am like most people, depends on when the adultery or drunk driving occured. If say Bush had been convicted 3-5 years before he ran for President I would have factored it in. I think his supposed conviction (I think it was dismissed, or something like that) was to be removed from his record. Did Clinton smoke pot... yep. Did Bush have a cocaine problem... most likely. Do I care? Nope. Honestly, adultery ticks me off just a little more than someone getting a dui... not that I condone driving under the influence by any means because of how it endangers innocent lives... I guess with adultery it is more of the dishonor and disrespect you bring to your wife, and family, after promising to be faithful to her. I think they are both wrong. I would hope my choices for President would have neither as part of their background. As to Kilmer's book review. What is the authors bias? Republican or Democrat? I think you said he teaches at Catholic something or other.... Does he like or dislike Protestants. I think alot of the dislike of some of the GOP towards the Christian Coalition and Christian Right Wing is that they want to pull the GOP more towards the right... Honestly if the CC wasn't part of the GOP I think the GOP would be more centrist and possibly left leaning. I like to think of the Christian Coalition as a counter-weight to guys like Arlen Spechtor (sp). Some think the GOP should be more centrist to draw votes from other communities... I think it should stay where it is, or possibly become even more conservative... not extremist conservative like a Pat Buchannon... I've rambled enough... time to get busy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 29, 2003 Share Posted April 29, 2003 The founding fathers were right on the money with the Electoral College. If we had a popular vote election, NY, Chicago, LA and DC metro area would decide who leads our country. Taking away the representation of Montana, ND, Wyoming etc. How about this instead, each state divides their electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote in the state? They do this in Maine and New Mexico already. Of course the Dems would cry when they lose 20+ electoral votes in Cali. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 29, 2003 Share Posted April 29, 2003 DaFunky, Rozell is a right leaning professor. But his expertise is on elections, press relations, and the presidency. He wrote a great book on Carter and his press relation nightmares (a fairly pro Carter book) and has written a couple of books on Conservatism as a politcal belief. Though he teaches at Catholic, he doesnt have any bias pro or con towrds that or any other religion. At least none that comes forth in the book. It doesnt go into the morality driving the political position of the CC, but rather adresses the affects on the party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Kilmer... I totally don't understand how the Electoral College is better. If there are 10,000,000 people in the US, who ever more of them vote for should win... how hard is that? What is the down side? How can their be a down side? Who ever gets more votes wins. That's how it should be. The way the system is now, if Cali goes Dem in a close call, all of those millions of GOP votes are wasted, they no longer count. That's BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Code, it works because it gives representation to the smaller less populated states. Without it, nobody in Wyoming should even bother to vote. I know it's hard to imagine this because our system has created the way candidates campaign and it creates their issues. But think what would happen if Presidential candidate knew he only needed to win in LA, Chicago and NY. How much attention would spent on farming issues? Or Appalachia? Or mining? It would create a system where single issue candidates could have a serious chance at winning. As it stands now, a broad platform is needed to attract voters and reach out for more in each state. It gives representation to all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Originally posted by Art My top issue with a politician is his stance on taxes and government spending. Unless he's just a dog, that issue alone will probably get my support. Also, it may be of issue or it may not, but, some 5 million absentee ballots were not counted in California because the state already had a margin high enough that even if all 5 million went one way it wouldn't have mattered. Typically the GOP gets three to 1 absentee ballots, even in California. Some think if those ballots were counted Bush would have edged out the popular vote as well . Art, I agree with the first part of your statement. That's about how I decide who to vote for as well. The second part is a reflection of denial by "some people" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 Actually, Jack, the second part is a truth. I didn't assert what the outcome might have been. I simply told the truth that millions of absentee ballots, normally heavily in Republican favor, weren't counted because the state was already certified. The margin was slender enough that the thought has been put forth that even a somewhat below normal split of the uncounted votes would have actually altered the total popular vote. Remember, though, my man won. My man is the President. I have no reason to be in denial. I merely think it's an interesting tidbit to consider, much like it is an interesting tidbit to know Bush won Florida as indepently verified by the news organizations who did count the votes in question. Denial would be saying either of these statements isn't true. But, if you feel some moral victory in the belief you won Florida or you won the popular vote, then great. Have at it. I'll just keep smiling at the President . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 Originally posted by Art Actually, Jack, the second part is a truth. I didn't assert what the outcome might have been. I simply told the truth that millions of absentee ballots, normally heavily in Republican favor, weren't counted because the state was already certified. The margin was slender enough that the thought has been put forth that even a somewhat below normal split of the uncounted votes would have actually altered the total popular vote. Remember, though, my man won. My man is the President. I have no reason to be in denial. I merely think it's an interesting tidbit to consider, much like it is an interesting tidbit to know Bush won Florida as indepently verified by the news organizations who did count the votes in question. Denial would be saying either of these statements isn't true. But, if you feel some moral victory in the belief you won Florida or you won the popular vote, then great. Have at it. I'll just keep smiling at the President . You're right those are all just water under the bridge now. The fact is Bush won Florida and Gore won the popular vote. Everything else is theory. Your guy is the President for now too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 Like Art, I vote first and foremost for whoever I believe will curtail spending the most. It was clear neither Bush nor Gore had any intention of doing so, which is why I voted for Harry Browne. It's also why I voted for a Dem for the House back when I lived in Montgomery County, because I was so disgusted with Connie Morella. As for voting according to a candidate's religious convictions, I think that's just plain stupid and naive. Great case in point - Bush 41, who ran in '80 as a pro-choice Republican, then after passing the 2nd largest tax increase adjusted for inflation in history, as well as producing the largest deficits, suddenly "found" religion and spent the '92 campaign getting endorsements from televangelists. Gee, how sincere.... This was the final straw that led me to abandon the GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Code, it works because it gives representation to the smaller less populated states. Without it, nobody in Wyoming should even bother to vote. I know it's hard to imagine this because our system has created the way candidates campaign and it creates their issues. But think what would happen if Presidential candidate knew he only needed to win in LA, Chicago and NY. How much attention would spent on farming issues? Or Appalachia? Or mining? It would create a system where single issue candidates could have a serious chance at winning. As it stands now, a broad platform is needed to attract voters and reach out for more in each state. It gives representation to all. That doesn't make sense, Why wouldn't you vote in Wyoming? Your vote will count for the national total... With the Electoral college, it's a winner take all situation, I know that Virgina ALWAYS votes Republican in the Presidential election, if I don't want to vote GOP, why should I vote at all? But if the total votes is what counted, I would have every incentive to vote because it wouldn't matter who got the most votes in my state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 If every person in Wyoming voted the same way, they still wouldnt make a dent in the votes from LA etc. But more importantly, candidates would completely ignore the issues important to that state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 If every person in Wyoming voted the same way, they still wouldnt make a dent in the votes from LA etc. But more importantly, candidates would completely ignore the issues important to that state. I understand where you are coming from there, however, that is basically giving more voting power to fewer people. I don't agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 Yes, it gives more power to the people of the smaller states, but it gives the smaller states equal representation on the whole. Remember the original idea was for the states to have more power than the Fed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.