Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?

"sanjian" wrote
Ace wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:02:24 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

So, by your own admission, in *The Great Democracy*, some people's
votes count, others don't?

When did this great Republic turn into a democracy???

1776 or there-abouts

A democracy exists when there is an Executive, Legislative, and a
Judicial branch of government. We are also a Federal Republic because
we elect people to represent us in daily government affairs. For example,
Iraq was a Republic, but it was not a democracy.

"D. Strang" wrote:


A democracy exists when there is an Executive, Legislative, and a
Judicial branch of government.



That is your definition of democracy?

So if there is a guy (or gal) as head of the executive committe (or some
such group), and some other group that passes laws, and a judiciary
that's it?

Sounds sort of like some communist countries that come to mind.
Certainly must be a lot more democracies that I thought there were.

I always understood democracy had something to do with the poplation at
large electing their rulers in a free vote - must have been mistaken.

Dave

D. Strang wrote:
"Leslie Swartz" wrote
WE DON'T KNOW- AND PROBABLY CAN'T EVER KNOW- WITH OUR CURRENT
TECHNOLOGY AND PROCESSES!

I know. It was Bush: 271 votes, he won (actually if I remember, he
won 3 times during recounts).

At least. Most of us stopped counting.

D. Strang wrote:
"sanjian" wrote
Ace wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:02:24 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

So, by your own admission, in *The Great Democracy*, some people's
votes count, others don't?

When did this great Republic turn into a democracy???

1776 or there-abouts

A democracy exists when there is an Executive, Legislative, and a
Judicial branch of government. We are also a Federal Republic because
we elect people to represent us in daily government affairs. For
example, Iraq was a Republic, but it was not a democracy.

That's a strange definition of democracy.

In article EylJc.1429$8v2.407@lakeread01, "sanjian"
wrote:

D. Strang wrote:
"sanjian" wrote
Ace wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:02:24 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

So, by your own admission, in *The Great Democracy*, some people's
votes count, others don't?

When did this great Republic turn into a democracy???

1776 or there-abouts

A democracy exists when there is an Executive, Legislative, and a
Judicial branch of government. We are also a Federal Republic because
we elect people to represent us in daily government affairs. For
example, Iraq was a Republic, but it was not a democracy.

That's a strange definition of democracy.



Saddam had once studied law but hadn't completed the progam. He decided,
as president, that he would like the degree. So, he showed up at the
oral exams with two bodyguards, and looked at the professors while
cleaning his fingernails with the blade sight of his pistols.

After the professors retired to deliberate, one said "Shocking! He does
not demonstrate the slightest knowledge of Iraqi law."

A wiser professor countered. "No. He has just given us a demonstration
that he understands current Iraqi law, perfectly."

In article ,
Ace wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:52:05 -0700, Steve Hix
wrote:

In article ,
Ace wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:47:07 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
wrote:

Is it following the law to vote along partisan lines? Or do you
think
that was pure coincidence?

Go play with your chads. Chicago and New York screwed-up by
trying to trust the Cubans to elect them. The Cubans don't like Gore.
They don't like Kerry either. The Democrats have missed the boat
down there since 1963.

Who won the popular vote?

Who won the Grammy?

I see. When you find an uncomfortable question you answer with a
different question.

I'll give you a hint. George Bush wasn't the winner.

According to the Constitution, he was.

You've heard of the document, I suspect.

Is that the one riddled with various ad-hoc amendments, and provides
for children to kill each other with their daddy's guns with wanton
abandon?

I see that you're not.

Pity.

Ace wrote in
news
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:14:01 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

Not what I'm saying at all.

In "The Great Republic" (NOT "Democracy") all votes are certainly not
counted.

Some by default, some by desing.

Oh By The Way- this fact of error rates in ballot counting apply to all
countries using those systems . . . not just the U.S.

So the system is flawed?

All systens are flawed.
Its a matter of reducing the margin of error to an acceptable
level for a reasonable cost.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

Ace wrote in
:

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:34:53 -0500, "D. Strang"
wrote:

No. They are equal. Everyone in the same state has the same 1 vote.
People from other states also have 1 vote, but their state may have
more electors. This is taught in most American high schools, and you
will probably learn it soon unless you drop out.

How is it, then, that the person who wins most votes isn't elected?
Surely there is at least on section of the community whose votes count
for less than another section of the community.

Two words.
Electoral College.
Simply put add the number of Senators and Representatives a state
sends to Washington. That is its number of electors.
How states determine who those electors vote for depends on the
state in question but assume for simplicity if you win the popular
vote in a state you get all that state's electoral votes.
You could win 49 states by one vote each, not get any votes, hell not
even be on the ballot in oh say California and thus loose the popular
vote by some 10s of millions of votes yet still have a landslide in
the electoral college ( 400+ to 57 IIRC )

BTW - I did not attend high school in either of the two American
continents.

OK.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

Ace wrote in
:

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:31:44 -0500, "D. Strang"
wrote:

"Ace" wrote

So the system is flawed?

Yes. But the flaws would be exaggerated with a popular vote. The
Electoral vote reduces the impact of the flaws. No voting system
is perfect, except in a dictatorship.

The Swiss model seems pretty good to me.

What? A bunch of men with swords showing up in the town square
and yelling at each other?

The Swiss Confederation is a different model. Hell, the Cantons
control who gets to be a citizen.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 22:58:50 +0100, Ace
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:29:00 -0500, "D. Strang"
wrote:

"Ace" wrote

So who has the greater number of votes cast in their favour?
Bush or
Gore?

Bush. He had the most electoral votes.

You change the question. Who had the greater number of votes cast
in
their favour?

I and several others in this forum have tried to inform you that
while
the popular vote is entertaining, it isn't the method described in
the
U. S. Constitution for selection of the chief executive.

In other words, it doesn't matter who got the greater number of
popular votes. That might not be the perfect system in some minds,
but
in a federation it works to provide some balance in the
representation
between large and small states.

Now, start paying attention, because there is going to be a test.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Dang Ed, where you been?