Tweet
Now, if the US is really so technologically advanced. How hard would it be to put in a computerized voting system and leave no doubts.
-
"The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists."
-Joan Robinson -
and i thank those green bast**** every dayOriginally posted by Victor Galis
To be fair, it was only more people for Gore, thanks to Nader who made sure neither candidate would get over 50%.
Hoya SaxaComment
-
Originally posted by Saint Marcus *does the DL dance*
DL??? nope
Hoya SaxaComment
-
Damn all those people who run the GPUSA like it's the CPUSA."The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists."
-Joan RobinsonComment
-
yes I do. under a straight system, I have no doubt that more people would have voted for bush. Due to the intricacies of the electoral college system, the popular vote is different than it would be under a straight system. Republicans are less likely to vote in a state in which Democratic support reaches 60%. The reverse is also true. The only states that reach realistic levels of voter participation are the so-called battleground states. Like Florida.Originally posted by Saint Marcus and you think that's right? weird idea of fair you have. Most people voted for Gore, yet he lost, and you think that's fine?Hoya SaxaComment
-
True, but this way we will never know."The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists."
-Joan RobinsonComment
-
How would you guarantee privacy in computerized voting system?Originally posted by Victor Galis
Now, if the US is really so technologically advanced. How hard would it be to put in a computerized voting system and leave no doubts.
With computers, it would be easy to see who voted for whom, and you really do not want to give the current ruler that information..."In some of its more lunatic aspects, political correctness is merely ridiculous. But in the thinking behind it, there is something more sinister which is shown by the fact that already there are certain areas and topics where freedom of speech, in the sense of the right to open and frank discussion, is being gradually but significantly eroded." -- Judge Neil DenisonComment
-
we use computers here in 99% of the disticts. works like a charmQuod Me Nutrit Me DestruitComment
-
-Maybe, but I would think accurate vote counting would be important.How would you guarantee privacy in computerized voting system?
With computers, it would be easy to see who voted for whom, and you really do not want to give the current ruler that information..."The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists."
-Joan RobinsonComment
-
you guys must have gone through this before on this board. It's the same reason each U.S. state has two Senators. A further separation of powers beyond the three branches. The electoral college system slightly shifts the focus of voting power away from the most populous states to those with a lesser population. Not so much that a state like Wyoming has undue power, just so that its voice is heard.Originally posted by Victor Galis -How so? Every vote would be as good as every other vote. Now only votes in states that are close count.Hoya SaxaComment
-
-I know that and I don't agree with it. Scrap the senate and add a house elected by PR.you guys must have gone through this before on this board. It's the same reason each U.S. state has two Senators."The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists."
-Joan RobinsonComment
-
You gotta learn to respect your superiors, boy!Originally posted by NY Hoya
so what?
I love being beaten by women - LorizaelComment
-
Are you really naive enough to think that when Bush's victory was on the line, and the govenor of the state supreme court which decided the election-that decision would NOT have been effected by the state govenor, and Georg's brother Jeb?Originally posted by NY Hoya
I'm quite serious. I never said our elections were democratic. They aren't. The U.S. is not a democracy.
Are you educated on the American system? Jeb Bush cannot "tell" any court to find one way or another in a decision. Separation of powers and whatnot. W won the election legally, he had the majority of the electoral votes. The popular vote makes no difference in U.S. elections due to the electoral college, and surely would have been different under a different electoral system.
He won it legally over the table, but illegally under the table......you honestly think his brother didnt influence that supreme court decision(though obviously not publicly)?
Its not a democracy because the minority can, and often do decide who becomes president, and more so because the people did not decide who is president......the Bush's decided who was president and im my eyes George W. Bush is a dictator who took power illegally.Comment
-
spoken like a true pinko!Originally posted by Kamrat X
You gotta learn to respect your superiors, boy!
I think I'll just relax with my (non-cuban) cigar and scotch on the rocks.....
Hoya SaxaComment
-
Why? we like it here. If enough people decide to scrap the system we will do so. As it is, candidates know how the system works and should play by those rules.Originally posted by Victor Galis
-I know that and I don't agree with it. Scrap the senate and add a house elected by PR.Hoya SaxaComment
Comment