The first step in setting up a parallel government?
November 27, 2000 2:04 PM Subscribe
that would be pretty interesting to witness the establishment of an autocratic government...
posted by kidsplateusa at 2:15 PM on November 27, 2000
posted by gyc at 3:10 PM on November 27, 2000
posted by Optamystic at 3:11 PM on November 27, 2000
No, a "coupe de tat" is the permanent-body-art equivalent of a mobile locksmithing service.
-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 3:36 PM on November 27, 2000
posted by owillis at 3:49 PM on November 27, 2000
posted by snakey at 3:49 PM on November 27, 2000
On the same note, I saw a map w/ a breakdown of the votes by county, and the vast majority of Gore's votes were entirely in the biggest cities. If popular vote was all that counted, people in rural areas would not be represented. (Not to denounce Gore, this is just an example.)
Am I making any sense? I dunno if I worded this all too well..
posted by sonofsamiam at 4:04 PM on November 27, 2000
posted by grimmelm at 4:29 PM on November 27, 2000
As I’ve stated before, the electoral college is infinitely better than relying solely on the popular vote to elect the president.
As per the topic at hand: Cheney is initiating a PR coup so he can sweep into office a little easier. Why are we recounting, anyway? Nader lost. Move on.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 4:37 PM on November 27, 2000
posted by holgate at 5:22 PM on November 27, 2000
posted by harmful at 5:40 PM on November 27, 2000
Because the popular vote has a great deal to do with the legitimacy of an incoming president. Clinton was perceived as an extremely weak president because he only received 42 percent of the popular vote in 1992. Look at what Republicans like a Newsday editorialist were saying about him after he won:
... Clinton won his electoral victory against an unpopular Republican president, fatally wounded by a weak economy, by only a minority of the votes cast. About 57 percent of the voters did not want him as president, but voted for Bush, Ross Perot or some other candidate.
And Clinton won a majority of the vote in only one state, his home base of Arkansas (remember Michael Dukakis?). In 47 states, the majority of voters preferred somebody else. (Clinton got about half the vote in two states.)
This kind of criticism was made about Clinton for four years, and now it appears we'll have a president whose showing in the 1992 vote makes Clinton look like a landslide winner. You can say what you want about the Electoral College, but it doesn't deny the fact that under a one-person, one-vote count George W. Bush was America's second choice. That's a huge albatross.
(Newsday source: Phineas R. Fiske, Nov. 11, 1992)
posted by rcade at 8:05 PM on November 27, 2000
Which just goes to show what a lousy criticism that was. The same arguments were made about Kennedy and Reagan.
On the flip side, landslide winners like Lyndon Johnson often piss away their percieved legitimacy and end up declining to run for re-election.
As far as Bush being the "number two choice," that's irrelevant under our constitution. If the popular vote was significant, Bush could hav erun up the score in Texas and other places where he was strong by organizing for igher turnout. instead, he devoted those resources to racking up electoral votes, rather than raw popular vote. The events of his Presidency and how he handles them will be far more important than his vote taly - after all, he got more popular votes than Clinton ever did in 92 or 96.
posted by mikewas at 8:28 PM on November 27, 2000
posted by tiaka at 4:33 AM on November 28, 2000
posted by snakey at 8:18 AM on November 28, 2000
posted by dhartung at 10:18 AM on November 28, 2000
« Older Everquest guide suicides. Or maybe not. | Mmmm...free goo. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by m.polo at 2:09 PM on November 27, 2000