Slashdot Mirror

wait wait wait! are you telling me that bush got a greater percentage of the popular vote that clinton ever did?

I think he was refering to other things, like the Battle of 1912, which, when you do remember, you all seem to think you won.

It is, especially because the original "Rolling Thunder" campaign failed to impress its target audience.

I hand my crown for King of Bad Jokes to you, good sir.

Isn't that usually how elections work?

Well, we fended you off in 1812. I suppose we could muster up the strength to help you out this time. Or maybe we will just take a less risky approach and marry you all into Canada. What do most American's prefer?

61.7%, according to this

The War of 1812, a draw...

In a nutshell, the US declared war. They _invaded_ Canada and had their ass handed to them in a serious of land engagements (but they defeat the invincible British Navy in numerous skirmishes). In the obscure "Battle of Bladensburg", British forces burn down the White House, for which it didn't get it's name. It ended in stalemate and a treaty was signed which effectively legitimized American Independence.

Yep that's a solid win according to Webster (of the dictionary/companion to american history fame). Interesting how history is re-written by the "victor", or is it guy with the largest mouth.

http://www.fairvote.org/turnout/preturn.htm
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
http://www.fec.gov/pages/htmlto5.htm
http://www.multied.com/elections/

Look at some of the figures on that last link. The last time the turnout went above even 70% was 1900 - and that was a 2 party election. Hell the turnout 1896 was almost 80%, and that was a 2 party election too. So I'm legitimately curious about this, guys - if what I'm saying is a bunch of crap then why in the last century have voter turnouts held around the 50%-60% range? Are we waiting for something? The right issue, or set of issues? The right guy? The right scandal? I'd honestly like to know.

See the War of 1812 where Canada kicked American butts! YEY!

Seriously though, I have to agree 100% with you. A notion that wants to dominate others will bancrupt itself, sooner or later. That was the reason why Rome collapsed - it could not afford its Army. And then there is the incompetend leadership with the lead in the water (lead pipes) and all.

The only way to keep an "empire" intact, is to make all of its participants equal. Anything else will tear it appart.

We American have never fought a war with UK so that why I don't know where it's at.

What? Me fail history and geography?

Nope, it's quite possible. We fought a war with them.

Your calling environmental legislation "over the top" just tells me how brainwashed you already are. No, the environmental alarmists are not right but neither is loosening air quality standards until children as young as 6 start dying of lung cancer!

Arnold's election was an issue of voters not taking the election seriously and a whirlwind of often unjustified negative press surrounding Gray Davis.

And your problem with Hillary? Sure, she's a heinous bitch but she's reasonably intelligent and a lot smarter than most people in politics. Maybe you just feel uncomfortable around assertive women. I know how you right wingers love traditional gender roles!

George W. Bush is the worst president since Hoover, except Hoover didn't manipulate the people into an unjustified war and lie about government intelligence; a war that then, somehow, resulted in billions and billions of dollars in contracts for the vice president's former employer from which our VP still receives money. I'm not a raving liberal, just a liberal and everything I've said is true, no matter what you may have heard on the big circle jerk that is Fox "News".

Sure, the stereotype of "middle america" is unflatteringand not 100% true (no stereotype is) but it holds true for the vast majority (as in 80%, not Bush's insane definition that lies around 40%). Hell, look at the people that elected Bush. And don't tell me it was because Gore sucked. Gore was a victim of the media. While the media let Bush's tax cut fairy tale slide, Gore was pounced on at every turn, including being taken to task for things that were either true or that he never really said.

To summarize, you are an asshole bigot who should just go home, watch a bunch of stock cars crawl around a circle several hundred times, and fuck your sister. You know you want to. Stay out of politics and don't bother voting in 2004. I hate you.

You'll probably get it too -- the country is so evenly divided that the winner of the 2004 presidential election will very likely not have a majority. I don't see how it would help, though... two of the last three Presidential elections were won that way (2000 and 1992), and people pretty much shrugged it off each time.

While it's true no American president was ever elected with a minority of the electoral vote,

[BZZT!]
"I'm sorry, thank you for playing, next contestant please..."

John Quincy Adams, 1824. Andrew Jackson had both a higher popular vote and electoral college vote, but neither had a majority. Under constitutional provisions, the top three candidates were voted on by the house; the fourth threw his support behind Adams, giving him enough for a victory. (Additional reference source)

The 1876 Hayes/Tilden election also might qualify, as an electoral commission of dubious provenance decided the fates of votes from 4 disputed states, with Hayes finally winning by a single electoral vote.

And, of course, the Florida electoral votes would have been enough to swing the 2000 election, if you want to bring those shenanigans back up....

First, you have to survive the guard bears.

Second, you have to find us.

You think we're spread out for no reason? HELL NO, the mad cow makes us loco. We'll mess you up, burn down the White House, crazy shit like that.

Is that the same government we have elected?

No. It's the government elected by Electoral College, an obsolete instutution that hardly any democratic country uses these days. You - the voters - have elected Al Gore, who won the popular vote, but he was turned down by the electors. First such occurence since 1888 and a MAJOR signal that America needs a significant upgrade of its voting system. Electoral College is sooo last century... no, not even that, it's actually sooo last century before the last century!

Technically all wars since 1928 in which America was involved have been illegal as per the Kellogg Peace treaty where it was agreed upon and signed that War will be outlawed. Show's how much that did.

When cars that are supposed to protect their drivers in a collision instead drive the steering column through their chest, people do.

Actually, it was one person in particular who jump-started (pardon the pun) the consumer safety revolution. As I understand -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- the car companies had very little interest in "expensive" safety modifications until activists like Ralph Nader shamed and sued them into submission.

People care. The owners of the Mom & Pop store on the corner care. Corporations, however, don't care about anything but return on shareholder investment.

"Counsel for the Commonwealth, Paul Roberts said..... Ng had co-written an essay for his information technology law course on 'open source software licensing.'"

Hmm, who is this Paul Roberts? I decided to check him out. A little snooping around led me to an article BY a Mr.Paul Roberts about the Commonwealth of Massachusetts QUESTIONING the effectiveness of Open Source Software, as well as this link detailing Mr. Roberts life from 1841 to 1910 - a life beginning in Gates County, NC.

Finally I discovered this picture of a CD.

All coinsidence? I will let you decide.

push for the abolition of the electoral college

The Democrats were really mad that they lost, I know. Keep in mind that if the roles were reversed, they would probably be very happy with the electoral college. Democrats and Republicans are about political power over every other issue. For the record, the electoral college functioned exactly as it was intended to: to remove power from population centers. You might want to read Hamilton's writings in Federalist #68.

More like one works for his money and the other uses his powers as a convicted monopolist to extort it.

The parent poster was wrong. He claimed that Linus begs for money when, in fact, he is gainfully employed, exchanging value-for-value. Gates willfully uses fraud to make money. He is not a capitalist; instead, he is a con-man.

Yeah, that's how all those state-by-state vote counts got around... by not counting votes. I dunno if you're trolling or are just stupid, but you're certainly wrong.

Ralph Nader brought the automotive industries up to safety standards. I'm too young to remember the public's preception of him, but it sounds like we need someone like him around again. Microsoft has enough defects inside it's operating system to make it the 2000's equivalent of the Ford Pinto. They should be held accountable.

What about the users though? This isn't the 70's and information is readily available about Microsoft's security practices. Why do they do it? Is it like riding a rollercoaster that has a 6 junction split at the end, only 2 of which leads to the egress queue, 3 of which leave you hanging on the top of a hill until you debug the rollercoaster, and the final split has a jump through a fiery ring with no landing zone? I mean come on, they all saw the rollercoaster... They all knew the ramifications of their actions.. What about them?

-B

I turned this up with a quick google:

http://www.multied.com/elections/1992pop.html (Beware popups) 43.3% according to that.

Too bad we don't have access to some sort of vast, worldwide, computer-based information network so we could find out if he was indeed making an actual historical reference.

If my math is right, that means that less than 29% of the registered voters actually voted for Bill Clinton in 1992.

No matter what happens this year, the President will have a greater mandate than Clinton did in 1992.

-S