Wirehead Studios

O SHI!  :wtf:

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071003/NEWS03/71003010

That's the LAST thing the world needs now, with the wars and upcoming election states going rouge isn't going to help anything in the least...



I can't help but think shit like this might not have happened if Gore was elected (as he should have considering he won the popular vote) instead of that retarded monkey a bunch of sporking tools re-elected.

Never happen. And if al Gore were elected president wed all be drinking Zimas and ridding segways.

The law says popular vote does not elect presidents.  Regardless of what one feels about the electoral college system, until the constitution is amended to change the process that's how it has to be done.  There is good reason for it being done that way.  If elections were held strictly by popular vote, then smaller states would have no voice, and only big cities would with huge populations would have a say in the election process.  That's the same reason the Senate was formed was so that all states - regardless of size or population - have some form of representation in the federal government.  The founders knew that populations are disparate and that rural areas - which are kind of necessary for growing food for all those city folk - need representation as well as the urban centers.  One may disagree with the system, but that's why it works.  The United States government is not a democracy.  It is a Constitutional Republic.  In a republic, the population elects representatives to decide issues.  A pure democracy is "mob rule" - a strict majority will decide everything.  That's what you're asking for when you say popular vote should elect a president.  That cannot happen in a republic.  If minorities of any kind (not just ethnic - think farmers, miners, oil workers - anyone who lives in small towns out in the country, and smaller states) are to have any say then you cannot have a pure democracy.

Now regarding the popular vote... I remember Republicans voicing the same complaint when their candidate lost the election but won the popular vote back in the 1990's.  GHW Bush and Bob Dole both won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote against Bill Clinton.  I don't hear anyone who says Gore should have been president due to his winning the popular vote also say that Bush Sr. And Dole should have been elected during the 1990's for the same reason.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander, so if anyone continues to bring up the popular vote argument I will insist that they concede Clinton's presidency in turn if they wish to have any shred of intellectual honesty in their argument.  If it's just about winning and being mad about not getting one's way, then I will call it for what it is - whining.  Besides, you have the Queen Bitch of the Universe running for 2008.  I'm sure there won't be any gloating on the Left when she's coronated in 2009....  -_-

Now as for secession...  I agree with Woodsman.  It won't happen.  There's always fringe groups wanting to bail out of the union.  The only time there was any real secession was the beginning of the Civil War.  There's not enough public backing for secession for it to be a serious issue.

Last time I checked, the system doesn't work very well and probably hasn't for quite some time... at least not for the people that it's supposed to be representing.

And Kajet, I would disagree to some extent. While it may not be in the Union's best interest to let local governments split, a greater deal of state-level independence should be implemented. As it is, the federal government has a tenancy to often force feed us largely unwanted laws while outlawing many beneficial local ones.

Bad grammar on my part.  That should have read:  "That's why it works the way it does."  I will wholeheartedly agree that government is very much broken.

I don't know... I highly doubt that if Gore was elected there'd be legal marijuana and the world would be skipping around in some highly flamboyant (read flamingly gay) peaceful fashion but I also doubt he would have the mindset of "We must find and punish the terrorists responsible for... ah spork that lets bomb iraq, Why? 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 ect." Instead he might have prevented those terrorist attacks and/or caught Bin Laden (of course that job should have been Clinton's or Bush Sr.'s)

Agreed.

Ah, gotcha ya'! :thumb: