PureBasic Forums - English

http://media.news.com.au/multimedia/med ... tml?id=699

So that's what it's all about...

That's not quite the way it works. In 2000 Gore actually got more votes in Florida but the Supreme Court prevented an accurate count. Scalia voted for Bush and that's all that counted. It's based on a principle called one man one vote.

Personally, I think we should abandon the electorial colege so that the next president is chosen purely by simply counting how many votes they got from the voting population.

This is because there have been times where the electorial college actually chose the loser of the election when only the number of votes recieved by the candidates is considered.

Dewey did defeat Truman really... just there were a few hanging chads in the state where Truman's brother was governor.

The second time was when the people thought the voting machines would be touchscreen. And the default was set for Republican... so when they pressed ENTER... Dubya came back again...

Thank all the gods that two terms is the limit!

I reckon that because the USA has so much influence the rest of the world should be allowed to vote in US elections!

Also the voting method should be Swedish or Australian (preferential).

Nahhh Texans should be the only ones allowed to vote... I mean we kicked that idiot out of the Governors chair in OUR state... heheheh...

I just saw a documentary about FD Roosevelt that said he had four terms because of the war.

hagibaba wrote:I just saw a documentary about FD Roosevelt that said he had four terms because of the war.

so thats why they stayed in Iraq!

pdwyer wrote:

hagibaba wrote:I just saw a documentary about FD Roosevelt that said he had four terms because of the war.

so thats why they stayed in Iraq!

hagibaba wrote:I just saw a documentary about FD Roosevelt that said he had four terms because of the war.

Yeah, and until then there were no term limits on the presidency.

It was durring his fourth term that the opposing party successfully got term limits added to the constitution, they did it because they didn't want him to be able to run again. Funny thing is, it came back and bit them in the ass when one of their own got elected.

Personally, I'm opposed to term limits.

George Bush Sr. prooved that we don't need term limits, if a president (or any other elected politician) isn't liked, they won't win the next election.

But if they are doing a good job and people like them, why should they be kicked out after two terms?

It's a bit of a safety net for avoiding dictatorships perhaps.

Saddam got 99% of his vote remember so he always stayed in. Now admittedly the US has a many more checks and balances in it's electoral system but the voting machine issue gave people a bit of a scare and was a good reality check as to need for transparancy.

Or it could be like the (myth? / urban legend?) nasa suicide pill

"We can thing of many reasons why you wouldn't need this but it's the reasons we can't think of which is why we do it" ... but then, apparently they don't so it's not a very good arguement for me to use

There are good arguments for having a term. Paul mentioned one.

I think all pollies (at state and national level at least) should be forced to take a sabbatical after a certain time in office, say max 8 years or 2-3 terms, and for a certain period, say 3 years or 1 term, whichever is the greatest.

Kick the buggers out onto the streets for a time, sans perks.

pdwyer wrote:It's a bit of a safety net for avoiding dictatorships perhaps.

True, like so many things, it's a double edged sword.

pdwyer wrote:Now admittedly the US has a many more checks and balances in it's electoral system but the voting machine issue gave people a bit of a scare and was a good reality check as to need for transparancy.

True, and one of the reasons I'm opposed to the touch screen systems, no paper backup should a recount be needed. I won't use them. If where I live decides to go all touch screen, I'll vote absentee for no other reason than that it creates a paper backup of my vote.

pdwyer wrote:It's a bit of a safety net for avoiding dictatorships perhaps.

Saddam got 99% of his vote remember so he always stayed in.

That's like saying bush won florida

Politics is a big facade, it doesn't matter who you vote for, the president has already been chosen. The funny part is the fact that most Americans think that their government system is somehow above a dictatorship.

Heathen wrote:The funny part is the fact that most Americans think that their government system is somehow above a dictatorship.

Bush proved that wrong by invading Iraq, that decision had already been made before he went to the UN for approval, hell, as far as I'm concerned he'd made that decision before he was even elected!

If ever there was a dictator in the White House, Bush is it! He doesn't give a damn what anybody or any country thinks of what he does, he's going to do it irregardless.

All I can say is that this election is going to be very interesting to watch. The Republicans are going get their asses kicked because of Bush.

It will also be interesting to see who the Democrats choose as their candidate. Obama and Hillary are popular but at some point the Democrats are going to have to ask themselves, "Can a black or a woman win the general election?"