From: jester@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Jester)
Newsgroups: alt.overlords
Subject: Re: 92' Elections
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:01:49 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

bjmccall@cco.caltech.edu (Benjamin John McCall) writes:
>jester@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Jester) writes:
>>no you see, according to the wonderful laws in our country, even if
>>Clinto does get the 270 needed electoral votesto win, he MUST get the
>>popular vote majority..... There have been I believe 4 cases inthe 
>>past Benjamin Harriosn, Richard Nixon, John Adams, and one other
>>that did not receive the majority of the popular vote, but did receive
>>the majority of the electoral vote, and they won when the Congress
>>voted them into office.
>
>Get the net!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>Can you possibly be that mis-informed?

I don't know, can I? I mean I can try harder if youlike to make an ass of myself

>According to the Constitution, the _national_ popular vote doesn't mean
>squat in the Presidential election!  The states determine electors in whatever
>manner they choose (nowadays always by popular vote of that state's residents),
>and those electors vote for the President.

Pardon me if I ask a really dumb question then....what is the point for
voting?????? I thought there was some reason, but you've
just convinced me to burn my absentee ballot.....

I'm positive that the popular vote is used for something other than
'the device which the electoral votes are supposed to be cast for'
course i could be wrong.....

>In case you doubt my analysis here, the text of the 23rd amendment is
>attached.  Of course, I neglected to mention what happens if the House
>or Senate can't decide...

I belive you..i just got my wires crosses....

>>I'm not so sure about this. I know he won;t win, butI will be willing to bet 
>>that he might take a few small states......Mind you VP candidate makes
>>not a president.Bush won in 1988 with Quayle as his VP, so as you
>>can see VP's don't havemuch to do withthe swing vote.
>
>Understood about VP candidates.  But Perot isn't gaining the momentum he
>needs to get a plurality in any state.  Of course, the race has changed
>dramatically before, so nothing any analyst says is set in stone.

good point........some weenie might try to assinate a candiate....

>But if you would be willing to bet that Perot might carry at least one
>state, please tell us which one(s)!!!!!!!!!!!!

who is us?? I feel that Perot has in his repitoire to carry maybe
one teensy weensy state..like rhode island..or something....
course when dukakis ran, he only took like 5-6 states..so i might
be wrong..

>And even if Perot does take a small state or two, it won't matter!  Clinton
>is way ahead in the electoral vote, so Perot doesn't even have a chance
>of throwing things into the House/Senate if he does take a few states...

I never said it did..i just said that he might take one...

>If you have suspicions to the contrary, please enumerate which states you think
>Perot may take, and count the electoral votes!!!!!!!!

well, I'm not into politics that heavey..so i can't really propose which
state would be the easiest for Perot to win..sorry

>>> Face it, Bush has failed - why would he
>>>possibly want to talk about the issues?
>>i know...he just keep saying so and so about Clinton and his 
>>anti-war demonstartions..like who cares.......
>Apparently the people in Bush's staff do...

i think i'll go out and kill them...

Jester
SOGDAC
-- 
Join the Omnipotent Overlords of the Omniverse today. Add to intelligent    	
political, environmental, and social discussions. Buck the growing trend of 
apathy in the world today, and most importantly have some well earned fun.  
Read all about us on alt.overlords or e-mail : jester@sage.cc.purdue.edu    
Newsgroups: alt.overlords