England and America

[Jemistad]

I live in England. Since George Bush basically runs Great Britain, I think I should be able to vote in the next presidential elections. Maybe England could be a new 51st state.

[The-Enforcer]

At 7/26/04 12:37 PM, Jemistad wrote: I live in England. Since George Bush basically runs Great Britain, I think I should be able to vote in the next presidential elections. Maybe England could be a new 51st state.

No sorry dude. If you want to vote in an american election you have to move here, live here for 7 years and then take a test. You can do it by 2012.

Personally I think 50 states is enough. GB is a great ally of the United States and we share a long history with one another. Besides Tony Blair and Parliament run your country and last I heard George Bush isn't party of the Labour party. So Tony is making decisions for you now. Oh well, you'll have a chance to get a good conservative in Parliament next time you guys decide to hold elections.

[Jemistad]

There's nothing wrong with labour. Tony Blair is under the whip. I think in some areas George Bush has more of an influence than Tony Blair.

[antiklaus]

At 7/26/04 12:37 PM, Jemistad wrote: I live in England. Since George Bush basically runs Great Britain, I think I should be able to vote in the next presidential elections. Maybe England could be a new 51st state.

I wouldn't argue. The true vote is in the electorate anyways. Your vote would weigh as heavily as any of ours, which is to say not at all.

[The-Enforcer]

At 7/26/04 03:01 PM, antiklaus wrote:
I wouldn't argue. The true vote is in the electorate anyways. Your vote would weigh as heavily as any of ours, which is to say not at all.

Your vote helps carry the state in which you reside...you should know that by now.

[antiklaus]

At 7/26/04 03:07 PM, The_Enforcer wrote:

At 7/26/04 03:01 PM, antiklaus wrote:
I wouldn't argue. The true vote is in the electorate anyways. Your vote would weigh as heavily as any of ours, which is to say not at all.

Your vote helps carry the state in which you reside...you should know that by now.

helps?

An elector is not bound by contract to vote any specific way. They can turn their nose at the popular vote and pass their votes to anyone they see is fit.

ie. I stand by my statement.

[The-Enforcer]

At 7/26/04 03:49 PM, antiklaus wrote:

An elector is not bound by contract to vote any specific way. They can turn their nose at the popular vote and pass their votes to anyone they see is fit.

Well I can see you are an idiot. How many times has it happened in our countrys history?

i.e. you're a moron who doesn't know what he's talking about.

[antiklaus]

At 7/26/04 03:53 PM, The_Enforcer wrote:

At 7/26/04 03:49 PM, antiklaus wrote:

An elector is not bound by contract to vote any specific way. They can turn their nose at the popular vote and pass their votes to anyone they see is fit.

Well I can see you are an idiot. How many times has it happened in our countrys history?

it has happened once. but that doesn't refute the fact that it can happen again. You are using totally spurious logic to come to your conclusion.

If process A determines the presidency, which USUALLY follows process B, but is not required by A, then its pretty clear process A is the determinant, not B. You are citing example wholy on the history of process B. But it doesnt work that way, and you are well aware of it.

i.e. you're a moron who doesn't know what he's talking about.

I would call you a moron but for the insult it would imply to the actual morons out there.

You are trying to elevate a corellation to process, which doesn't hold water, and you know it.

[Jemistad]

Stop squabbling you two.

[The-Enforcer]

At 7/26/04 04:11 PM, antiklaus wrote:

You are trying to elevate a corellation to process, which doesn't hold water, and you know it.

Yeah I mean the process has only worked for 230 years. With a track record like that it raises a lot of doubts, doesn't it?

[Jemistad]

I note the sarcasm, but 230 years isn't really a long time. America is a young nation with a poor history.

Personally - I don't think it works either.

[The-Enforcer]

At 7/26/04 04:17 PM, Jemistad wrote: I note the sarcasm, but 230 years isn't really a long time. America is a young nation with a poor history.

Personally - I don't think it works either.

you can think what you want. Perhaps you should ponder why America is the most powerful, richest, and successful country in the world.

I can give you the answer: Our system works, despite what antiklaus would have you believe.

[Jemistad]

you can think what you want. Perhaps you should ponder why America is the most powerful, richest, and successful country in the world.

I can give you the answer: Our system works, despite what antiklaus would have you believe.

America is the most powerful country in the world because its president is trigger happy.
It is the richest because it is the largest. England and Germany have the largest GDP/area landmass.
Successful - what do you mean successful??

America has the largest amount of gun crimes/population. North America has only a few hundred years of (white) history - most of it containing slavery and civil wars.

America is not particularly great - it's just big. Remember the British Empire was the largest empire since the roman one.

[Celly07]

Personally, the electoral collage has never ever failed, but the system is bad, becuae if lets say alot of people in TX vote for kerry, but the majority cote for bush, our vote would be cast out and not even matter. I think we need the popular vote to run the election.

[Memorize]

i hate electorial votes because they decide wheather or not your vote counts. they can do this for whoever they want to win. its almost like your votes dont count since the president only wins from electorial votes, at least thats how clinton was voted twice.

[Camarohusky]

At 7/26/04 12:37 PM, Jemistad wrote: I live in England. Since George Bush basically runs Great Britain, I think I should be able to vote in the next presidential elections. Maybe England could be a new 51st state.

I'm gonn ahave to weto that 51st state option there... If anybody's gonna be our 51st state, it will be Canada. Sorry England, Canada beat you to it.

[RedSkunk]

At 7/26/04 03:53 PM, The_Enforcer wrote: Well I can see you are an idiot. How many times has it happened in our countrys history?

Well, it happened in the last election... sooooo...

[Spookshow]

I thought the electoral college voted with their state and who ever had the most votes in all of the states won?

Florid had 13 I thing, all went to Bush.

[specimen56]

Am I completely mal-informed, but at some point was there talk about britain actually joining the US...

[Spookshow]

It was a joke man. If anything Puerto Rico is more likely than the UK.

[Einzelgaenger]

At 7/26/04 04:11 PM, antiklaus wrote:

At 7/26/04 03:53 PM, The_Enforcer wrote:

At 7/26/04 03:49 PM, antiklaus wrote:

An elector is not bound by contract to vote any specific way. They can turn their nose at the popular vote and pass their votes to anyone they see is fit.

Well I can see you are an idiot. How many times has it happened in our countrys history?

it has happened once. but that doesn't refute the fact that it can happen again. You are using totally spurious logic to come to your conclusion.

yup, it happened at least once. Roger MacBride, bless his soul, voted Libertarian because Nixon was a ass-backwards Neo-Con.

[Slizor]

Firstly, with regards to the electoral college, the electors have to make decisions on how to split their votes (do they do it in a proportional way, do they do it in a winner takes all way?) Because of this the system will be, and has been, unfair - there is too much wiggle room.

Personally - I don't think it works either.

you can think what you want. Perhaps you should ponder why America is the most powerful, richest, and successful country in the world.

I can give you the answer: Our system works, despite what antiklaus would have you believe.

That's an entirely assinine argument. According to your logic I could argue that Affirmative Action works because it is part of the system and that system is the "most powerful, richest and successful".

Is there any reason you're such an idiot? A disability? Inbreeding? Mental Condition?

[bombkangaroo]

i'd say the system works because it achieves the result that it was intended to.

the real dtermining factor in wethe or not to change the system would be to determine wether or not the electorate wants a system that achieves what the current one does.

[Spookshow]

If the system worked so well we all wouldn't be on Newgrounds saying ALOT of the things we say about things like Jailtime and morals.

[D2Kvirus]

Blair runs our country?!? How - he's hardly ever in it.

When our so-called leader has a family trip to Tuscany, keeps up his other job as Foreign Minister for the US (a direct quote from Nelson Mandela), or handing over the reigns to lackies and underlings (including Mandleson), I think we reserve the right to vote in a country we don't live in. Ity's just following the principles of Blairism.

[Jemistad]

What yo' on about, Willis?

[Alejandro1]

At 7/27/04 07:29 AM, Einzelgaenger wrote: yup, it happened at least once. Roger MacBride, bless his soul, voted Libertarian because Nixon was a ass-backwards Neo-Con.

So that's why Nixon won 49 states in that election (1972)?

[D2Kvirus]

At 7/27/04 05:38 PM, Jemistad wrote: What yo' on about, Willis?

Since he can't run a country when he's hardly ever in it (or even when he is), can't we just vote in Tuscan local elections? Face it, the turn-out will be higher than most UK by-elections anyway...

[AbstractVagabond]

No, Iraq is the 51st state.

At 7/28/04 03:48 PM, Ovalshine wrote: No, Iraq is the 51st state.

Technically speaking, the 51st state is the 51st state. A film with Robert Carlyle and Samuel L. Jackson.