Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

Euler · 2004-10-22 21:13:10

Eliminating the electoral college marginalizes people in smaller states by wiping out any influence of smaller states as states while retaining state boundaries for federal funds. Pander to California, Texas and New York, ignore the small states, they don't have enough warm bodies to matter. All the promises and goodies go elsewhere, the small population states become the electoral serfs to the big states, always subject to their whims. If a direct-vote scheme is to be truly equitable we have to marginalize the concept of states, one voter one vote can't be meaningfully implemented when state boundaries still define federal funds and profound legal divisions.

It would not marginalize people in small states, it would just make them equally important as every one else. While small states have less people to vote, it is also proportionately cheaper to fund the activities of small states because they have less people.

The current system marginalizes everyone that is not in a swing state. The new system would not marginalize anyone. It would even increase the importance of many small states because they would not vote as states.

Something would have to give. The American system was not designed as though the Union were a single entity, yet direct elections would treat it as such.

The system is not working the way that it was designed to work right now. The Union is a single entity, even if it was not intended to be that way, and the people are directly voting for the president, even if they were not supposed to. This change would simply acknowledge the political realities of the present and make the system work in a more reasonable way.

The electoral college is perfectly rational if one understands US history and the ideas behind our Constitution. I know that sounds condescending and that is not my intent, but it must be stressed. A direct vote for the Presidency is no less alien to our system than Presidents with life terms would be. Either could be implemented with a single amendment, either would undermine the rest of the Constitution in innumerable subtle ways.

I know that the framers of the Constitution did not intend for the people of the states to directly elect the president. They wanted the people to appoint people whose judgment they trusted to chose the president for them. That does not change the fact that the people do directly elect the president rather than appointing people to choose for them. If you think that directly electing the president is undermining the Constitution, then the Constitution has already been undermined. Unfortunately, due to the constraints that the Constitution imposes, it has been undermined in a very irrational way. That is why the Constitution should be updated to accommodate the current system in a more rational way.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-23 00:00:37

I see no need to include state divisions in the presidential election.

From a purely practical, non-Constitutionally bound perspective I increasingly see no need for state divisions at all. It's rapidly becoming an arcane and wasteful practice, a useless level of government that serves primarily to double efforts and bleed money. Yet the Constitution is written specifically to accomodate those states as separate entities. I am concerned that we might update the Constitution into obsolescence. Maybe I'm just being overly paranoid, but many Constitutional "fixes" tend to spawn two new problems in place of the old one.

Canada and Britain are Parliamentary Democracies. The features of the US government that identify it as a Republic to me are separate executive from legislative branches, and election of the executive by a body other than voters.

I generally use something similar to ths:
De*moc"ra*cy\, n.; pl. Democracies. [F. d['e]mocratie, fr. Gr. dhmokrati`a; dh^mos the people + kratei^n to be strong, to rule, kra`tos strength.] 1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.

However, as the term has been generalized to mean almost any system with elections it has become increasingly meaningless. Differing word usage can confound rational discussion to no end.

The system is not working the way that it was designed to work right now. The Union is a single entity, even if it was not intended to be that way, and the people are directly voting for the president, even if they were not supposed to. This change would simply acknowledge the political realities of the present and make the system work in a more reasonable way.

It's perfectly reasonable as is. The desire to change it is not rooted in reason so much as in ideologic leanings. We all have our biases and preconceptions of how the world should work.

But I'm not the one who wants to change the Constitution.

C M Edwards · 2004-10-25 14:54:53

The United States of America is too large a country - too many people over too large an area - to give equal weight to everyone's vote. For its orderly function, people must have a greater voice in their local affairs than those living a thousand miles away. Quite frankly, the average person is too ignorant of daily events occurring that far from home to make informed decisions.

The United States is not a true democracy. It is a collection of oligarchies, each responsible for its own distinct sphere of influence. Some of those oligarchies are democratic; some are bureaucratic; others are dictatorships. Some are, on paper, capable of running themselves, but not one of them is capable of running the entire country alone.

And when I say "not capable", I'm not talking about their budgets, military power, or anything that could be made up with additional resources. The shortfall is in the way each oligarchy makes its own individual decisions. No one decision making style is capable of addressing all the decisions that need to be made in this country any more than one person is capable of gathering all the information they need to vote equally informed with someone living one thousand miles away. It's an impossibility. It can't be done.

People who claim that all decisions in a nation of 300 million people should be made by direct democracy make my blood run just as cold as those who claim that all decisions should be made by their fuhrer and his secret police.

RobertDyck · 2004-10-25 19:16:05

People who claim that all decisions in a nation of 300 million people should be made by direct democracy make my blood run just as cold as those who claim that all decisions should be made by their fuhrer and his secret police.

You argue against deomcracy; very interesting. However, I argued for the executive of the federal government to be elected by citizens. That means eliminating the Electoral College; let voters elect their president: 1 voter, 1 vote.

Palomar · 2004-10-26 05:17:05

However, I argued for the executive of the federal government to be elected by citizens. That means eliminating the Electoral College; let voters elect their president: 1 voter, 1 vote.

*I myself have a bit of trepidation about letting go of the Electoral College and going entirely 1 voter, 1 vote. Here's why: Last month my husband attended a (nonpolitical) celebration in the city. A long-time friend of his showed up and they talked. She's 40 years old and adamantly refuses to vote for John Kerry or ANY Democrat. Her reasoning? Bill Clinton was an adulterer, thus all Democrats are tainted by him and NO Republican would ever cheat on his or her spouse because the Republican candidates are chummy with evangelical Christianity (and because of that association are therefore better, more moral, etc., etc.).

?

I've also known people who will vote either Republican or Democrat because it's a family tradition.

Are all Americans that way? No, of course not. But enough are, it seems.

If most people would THINK about and STUDY the candidates, the issues, etc., before punching the button or dropping the ballot or throwing the lever I'd be all for "get rid of the EC entirely." Until then however...

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-26 05:50:04

People who claim that all decisions in a nation of 300 million people should be made by direct democracy make my blood run just as cold as those who claim that all decisions should be made by their fuhrer and his secret police.

I wholeheartedly concur.

Back to the specific issue of the electoral college, I've come to realize that I have another reason for my gut-level opposition to "one voter-one vote".

As I've already explained repeatedly, the electoral college exists because the US was never meant to be a single national block, but a federation of sovereign states. The federal government is granted strong but narrowly defined powers while the member states govern their own internal affairs.

Also noteworthy is the US history of expansionism. We have been a remarkably successful expansionist power not by subjugating neighbors and turning them into vassals, but by assimilating neighbors and welcoming them into our union as equal partners. As sovereign member-states of our federation.

To eliminate the electoral college entails not only a further erosion of the basic federalist structure on which we were founded, but would in a very real sense cut off any propsects for further American expansion on the old model. Yet another sphere in which the state is bypassed.

Okay, so what? you might say. The age of expansion is over, time to finalize the borders once and for all and get on with the flowering of democracy and all that.

A valid position, and one I suspect many here will take. However, we live in an increasingly interconnected world. Further, the idea of some form of world government has been simmering for years, often equated with some inevitable and benign evolution of the UN. I have no problem with global government any more than I have with city government, the issue is not what but how it functions. The US Constitution provides a framework that with little or no modification could be the foundation for a free federation spanning not only a continent, but the world if need be. The UN, only functional.

We have a model for a better future right here, and I'd hate to see it set back just to satisfy some fetish for democracy.

RobertDyck · 2004-10-26 07:14:54

the idea of some form of world government has been simmering for years, often equated with some inevitable and benign evolution of the UN. I have no problem with global government any more than I have with city government, the issue is not what but how it functions. The US Constitution provides a framework that with little or no modification could be the foundation for a free federation spanning not only a continent, but the world if need be. The UN, only functional.
We have a model for a better future right here, and I'd hate to see it set back just to satisfy some fetish for democracy.

I have news for you; the US is not going to expand. Canada has no desire to join; in fact the province of New Brunswick was founded by refugees from the 13 colonies after the declaration of independence. Ontario went through a period of rapid expansion due to refugees. Canada has the most similar culture, if Canada will not join then what makes you think any other country will? Do you intend to militarily conquer and subjugate the world by force? That was tried with Canada in 1812. Most of the world is aware that America is trying to assimilate it; that's why al Qaeda attacked. There are many others who feel just as passionately against American assimilation, they just don't believe killing people is the way to preserve their culture. If America has abandoned any pretence of democracy and is rapidly destroying freedom for a police state, why would anyone want to join?

Right now America's greatest enemy is not al Qaeda or anyone else from the outside. America's greatest enemy is from within. A couple weeks ago one American told me that Carnivore (the device that spies on email over the internet backbone) has been ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. Good for you, that's one step away from the world of George Orwell's book "1984". How many other battles have been lost?

Palomar · 2004-10-26 07:32:34

Most of the world is aware that America is trying to assimilate it

*Are you referring to big business and pop culture, etc.? If so -- Many other nations and cultures/societies emulate us, copy us, want our blue jeans and movies and Coca-Cola...just to name a few. If this wasn't so, they would have rejected our products years ago. Their nations, their right to refuse. The john is just as guilty as the hooker. It's consensual choice.

are many others who feel just as passionately against American assimilation

*And so they should stop buying our products, stop imports, quit copying and emulating us. Right? I'm not being snide, just trying to be logical.

A Frenchman, for instance, in the past decade or so had been trying to introduce Halloween decorations and pop culture into France, to build up a business empire there. After talk of war in Iraq and especially after the actual invasion, most French have (according to a news article I read) aggressively resisted and denied Halloween products, imagery, etc., opting instead for some Christian religious observance (can't recall its name). That's entirely their right, of course.

If I weren't a U.S. citizen and I didn't like U.S. culture and etc. on my home turf, I'd fight to get rid of it/keep it at bay. Otherwise I'd feel no basis for complaint. ::shrugs::

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-26 07:55:50

I have news for you; the US is not going to expand. Canada has no desire to join; in fact the province of New Brunswick was founded by refugees from the 13 colonies after the declaration of independence. Ontario went through a period of rapid expansion due to refugees. Canada has the most similar culture, if Canada will not join then what makes you think any other country will?

I'm speaking of keeping the option open as part of a long-term national strategy, not annexing Canada tomorrow. No one is going to come knocking on the door next week, but neither is it a foregone conclusion that the present balance in the world is somehow locked in. There are many people out there who expect some form of increasing global governance, most of them people I vehemently disagree with on several points. However, I cannot deny the possibility and therefore would prefer a proven system based on sound principles to whatever misguided neo-socialist concoction that could evolve otherwise. If we get our own house back in order, membership could be more attractive. Long-term I must again stress.

Keeping the option requires us to do nothing, actually implementing it requires returning to the Constitution in some areas. Further distancing ourselves from it kills the option aside from the other problems it raises while gaining nothing but a warm feeling inside that we can directly vote for President now. Yippee.

And I assure you that neither I nor any other disagreeable border-dwelling American expansionist seeks to force Canada into the Union. Having an English-speaking foreign country within running distance has its advantages.

Of course, in many ways admitting Canada's provinces as states under a strict constructionist Constitutional interpretation wouldn't be all that different, except for such things as the gaping hole in criminal law that would be left without the Canadian federal government. A debate for other people in another time, at any rate.

A couple weeks ago one American told me that Carnivore (the device that spies on email over the internet backbone) has been ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. Good for you, that's one step away from the world of George Orwell's book "1984". How many other battles have been lost?

I have mixed feelings on this one. Sure, I don't like the government snooping into private correspondence. On the other hand, we're talking about e-mail here. Anyone who expects privacy when sending something over the internet is a bit naive.

Actually, Carnivore has since be recoded and renamed to something less predatory. Even if the court has ruled against it, I'm quite certain it's still doing its work.

Palomar · 2004-10-26 08:02:16

Most of the world is aware that America is trying to assimilate it; that's why al Qaeda attacked.

*Want to comment on this again.

Church authorities in the 17th and 18th centuries regularly attacked the secular philosophers over differences (often drastic) of opinion, ideologies, etc. Just the fact that someone goes on the attack doesn't mean they are in the right. :-\

Al-Qaeda has attacked nations not sympathetic to the Iraqi war and who don't fawn all over the U.S. What's the explanation for that?

What if John Kerry IS elected President, his policies and actions are more in favor of what the rest of the Western world likes, etc. -- and we continue getting attacked? What will be the explanations or accusations then?

Al-Qaeda isn't, IMO, some mere reactionary "we want to save our culture against the Yankee Imperialists" group. They'd like to conquer the world and have us all subjected to their ideologies, standards and ways of living.

No thank you.

--Cindy

::edit:: This thread seems to have suddenly run dry. :hm: Do I have something stuck in my teeth? A booger on my blouse somewhere I can't see? Halitosis? Dontcha just love it when you're the last to reply and the topic just hangs there suddenly? :;): :laugh:

C M Edwards · 2004-10-26 13:34:59

::edit:: This thread seems to have suddenly run dry. :hm: Do I have something stuck in my teeth? A booger on my blouse somewhere I can't see? Halitosis? Dontcha just love it when you're the last to reply and the topic just hangs there suddenly? :;): :laugh:

Uh oh! It's that Cindy person again. Doesn't she realize? :;):

What if John Kerry IS elected President, his policies and actions are more in favor of what the rest of the Western world likes, etc. -- and we continue getting attacked? What will be the explanations or accusations then?
Al-Qaeda isn't, IMO, some mere reactionary "we want to save our culture against the Yankee Imperialists" group. They'd like to conquer the world and have us all subjected to their ideologies, standards and ways of living.
No thank you.

Al Qaeda has repeatedly shown that it is out to get the rest of the world as well. Infidel Yankee Imperialists are just the most tempting target.

Electing Kerry or Bush will make no difference to Al Qaeda, and no one should form their opinion based on the mistaken assumption that it will. The US will be attacked regardless of who its president is at the time.

However, it might make a difference to the rest of the world.

C M Edwards · 2004-10-26 14:06:10

As I've already explained repeatedly, the electoral college exists because the US was never meant to be a single national block, but a federation of sovereign states.

Actually, the particular system used for weighting each state's vote exists because the US was originally meant to be a federation of states. The electoral college came to exist because delivering votes on horseback from Georgia to New York was a pain in the behind.

I like weighted votes.

Because the votes are weighted, an individual voter in a less populous states (like Louisiana) casts a vote that is slightly more likely to influence the election outcome than an individual voter in a more populous state (like Florida). Being from a little podunk state, I kinda like that. Since winning my little podunk state's electoral votes offers less bang for the buck than winning a larger state's, that tends to keep those big nasty presidential candidates off bothering someone else, allowing my neighbors and I to avoid television commercial poisoning. I kinda like that, too.

So, I get to say a little bit more and vote with a little bit clearer head. I also get a presidential election that's more like the world series in baseball than a simple vote tally. (It doesn't matter how many total points the teams get. If they want the penant, they've got to win the games.)

Flattering, comfortable and entertaining. What's not to like about the electoral college?

John Creighton · 2004-10-26 14:20:13

I am from Canada wouldn’t be opposed to joining the states if they had a medical system like the French, didn’t waste so much on war and weren’t such a police state. A lower crime rate in the US would be nice to. Oh yeah and I don’t know if I really want to get into this war in Iraq mess. Maybe some better protection of fresh water could be warnted too. The clear advantage is then I would be able to more easily look for jobs on both sides of the border. Actually I may even be willing to except the short comings. How many people have family on both sides of the border? If it was one country it would save the hassle of people emigrating back and forth for jobs or weddings. Oh yeah I also think the sensor ship laws in the states are to extreme.

John Creighton · 2004-10-26 14:28:53

Hmmm…Someone mentioned weighed votes. Maybe the weight would be the reciprocal of the population density.. Hmmm …. Alaska voters would like this. Of course why do it by states, why not divide the states into smaller districts and give rural people more say. Of course that might not be a good idea if it discourages people from living in a city.

Palomar · 2004-10-26 14:35:47

Oh yeah I also think the censorship laws in the states are to extreme.

*What censorship laws? ??? Please elaborate?

Are you referring to expletives being "bleeped" out on TV, that sort of thing?

--Cindy

John Creighton · 2004-10-26 14:37:21

To much outcry over Janet Jackson’s nipple. Let Howard Stern say what he wants.

Are you referring to expletives being "bleeped" out on TV, that sort of thing?

Yeah I think there is more of that in the US as well. I find it real funny when they scramble the lips but maybe they do that on Canadian TV to. I am not sure. Another beef they spend too much money on the war on drugs and why in some states to you have to be 21 to drink. It doesn’t bother me now since I am 26 except it would meen less university students at the bar.

C M Edwards · 2004-10-26 15:40:47

Hmmm…Someone mentioned weighed votes. Maybe the weight would be the reciprocal of the population density.. Hmmm …. Alaska voters would like this. Of course why do it by states, why not divide the states into smaller districts and give rural people more say. Of course that might not be a good idea if it discourages people from living in a city.

Reciprocal of the population density would make Alaska, Oregon & Montana the key swing votes of the US. (That's the makings of a Libertarian president for sure!) No chance of that passing, though.

Dividing into districts is similar to what's already done to chose congressmen and the electoral college. And it really does give rural people slightly more say.

I'm curious: Does Canada use district divisions to choose members of its parliament? If so, Canada also has a weighted vote system for chosing its Prime Minister, much like the US has for chosing its President. The number of votes in the US electoral college is roughly the number of US congressmen. I assume the number of votes for Canadian prime minister is roughly the number of Canadian MP's - or at least the House of Commons. It would be roughly the same system, except that we have given ours a name and hold it up for the Green party to throw rocks at...

RobertDyck · 2004-10-26 16:05:41

I'm curious: Does Canada use district divisions to choose members of its parliament? If so, Canada also has a weighted vote system for chosing its Prime Minister, much like the US has for chosing its President. The number of votes in the US electoral college is roughly the number of US congressmen. I assume the number of votes for Canadian prime minister is roughly the number of Canadian MP's - or at least the House of Commons. It would be roughly the same system, except that we have given ours a name and hold it up for the Green party to throw rocks at...

Canada has the parliament system. That means we do have ridings (districts), that each elect one Member of Parliament (MP) to the house. Which ever party has the most members elected to the house is automatically the government, and the leader of that party is automatically Prime Minister. That means Canada doesn't directly elect its head of government either. I thought the US had an advantage over Canada in that you elect your president separately than your Representative and elect the President directly, but the Electoral Collage ruins that.

The US does have one advantage: in Canada the senate is proportional by population as well. Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister, and the senate effectively acts as a committee for the house to proof-read bills. I heard that only 3 bills in Canadian history were passed by the House of Commons but failed in the Senate. Members in the house get very upset when the senate does this; they don't think an appointed body should have the authority to do so. Most people in western Canada want a triple-E senate: Equal, Effective, and Elected. That means an equal number of senators per province, an effective senate that actually does its job, and directly elected. The two provinces with larger populations don't want that to happen because they would loose power. However, western Canada has made it clear they won't permit any constitutional amendment until a triple-E senate is passed. The US already has a triple-E senate. Senators weren't always elected; they used to be appointed by state governments. The 17th amendment passed in 1913 made US senators directly elected.

RobertDyck · 2004-10-26 16:32:35

An advantage Canada has is representation of more than 2 parties in debates. Our last election had leaders from Liberal, Conservative, NDP, and Bloc Québécois parties. The Green party complained they weren't represented, but it did include every party with at least 1 member elected to the house. The Green party gained party status as far as Elections Canada is concerned; that's based on a minimum proportion of popular vote and next election it gives them some money. However, under parliamentary rules they still aren't a party because they have fewer than 12 members elected; the Green party has none. Rules for inclusion in the debates will come up again next election, but at least we have more than 2 parties.

C M Edwards · 2004-10-27 09:18:12

Canada has the parliament system. That means we do have ridings (districts), that each elect one Member of Parliament (MP) to the house. Which ever party has the most members elected to the house is automatically the government, and the leader of that party is automatically Prime Minister.

So, technically, when you vote for your local member of parliament, you're voting for prime minister at the same time.
How cool! I'd have loved to see one of my local congressmen as president.

I thought the US had an advantage over Canada in that you elect your president separately than your Representative and elect the President directly, but the Electoral Collage ruins that.

Advantage may be too strong a word.

However, in an important sense we do elect our president separately. The US Electoral College is still technically a legislative body independent of Congress. It includes no congressmen. Its members are chosen by the states, not congress. It meets only once every four years, it's only function is to chose the president, and - technically - it could vote any way it wants.

Recently, state laws (not national laws) have turned it into little more than a rubber stamp for the states' votes (which are weighted according to the number of congressmen that state has), and there are a lot of very credible arguments for eliminating it and just allowing each state government to place its vote directly rather than sending dignitaries (the electors) to do it for them. Unfortunately, someone has come up with the idea that US voters can only understand addition, not multiplication, so that's unlikely to happen.

One person, one vote is apparently all the poor, ignorant plebes can understand, and the only way we can justify more than one vote is to send more than one person.

It does raise a question, though: Isn't an intermediate, rubber stamp vote equivalent to a direct vote?

Palomar · 2004-10-27 10:35:45

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … _dc_2]Here we go again... :down:

*Morons can't get their act together. Time to strip FL of some of their electoral votes? I think so. Any state exhibiting this much confusion and incompetence shouldn't rank with OH and PA as one of the highest in electoral vote numbers. Give FL maybe...5.

Yeah, I know it's probably not possible, but damn...

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2004-10-27 11:40:33

Between chads, missing votes by mail and the early voting electronic machine with no means to verify actual votes cast why have them vote at all. Just flip a coin heads Bush wins tails Kerry does and be done with the possibility of it ending up in court again.

Palomar · 2004-10-27 12:20:32

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … ssault]And I suppose Lee Harvey Oswald was just "exercising his political expression" too!

*<expletives deleted> Dumbass.

Nov. 3 is going to be an interesting day in more ways than one. This is about the 5th incident of elections-related violence I've read about in the past 1-1/2 months.

--Cindy

C M Edwards · 2004-10-27 13:17:04

Time to strip FL of some of their electoral votes? I think so. Any state exhibiting this much confusion and incompetence shouldn't rank with OH and PA as one of the highest in electoral vote numbers. Give FL maybe...5.

Yeah, reduce their voting power to punish them for stupidity! How dare these morons seek equal representation with better run states! We should... er, hold on.

*-Quick glance at home state's political history, including reduction of electoral votes due to driving off all the smart people, followed by quick count of home state's electoral votes-*

Um, perhaps we're being too hard on Florida here. The emphasis on their importance in the 2000 election was all artificial, anyway, and there's no reason to create animosity.

What's a few hanging chads between fellow citizens?

Palomar · 2004-10-27 13:40:08

Time to strip FL of some of their electoral votes? I think so. Any state exhibiting this much confusion and incompetence shouldn't rank with OH and PA as one of the highest in electoral vote numbers. Give FL maybe...5.
Yeah, reduce their voting power to punish them for stupidity! How dare these morons seek equal representation with better run states! We should... er, hold on.
*-Quick glance at home state's political history, including reduction of electoral votes due to driving off all the smart people, followed by quick count of home state's electoral votes-*
Um, perhaps we're being too hard on Florida here. The emphasis on their importance in the 2000 election was all artificial, anyway, and there's no reason to create animosity.
What's a few hanging chads between fellow citizens?

*Sorry, I don't feel I'm being too hard on Florida. OH and PA don't have these kinds of problems it seems.

I cringe to think the future of this nation -- including international relations, etc. -- might be "decided" in a candidate's favor because of such ineptitude.

And of course I didn't mean to imply -only- FL has had ballot troubles, confusion, etc.; my own state had missing ballots/counts in 2000. But with only 5 Electoral Votes and only a couple hundred missing (bad enough!), still the fate of the entire nation wasn't hanging by the outcome here.

If they can't handle the responsibility which comes from being an EV heavy-weight, take it away from them until they wise up and get their act together. :-\

More strength and power = more responsibility and accountability, IMO.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-10-22 21:13:10

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#77 2004-10-23 00:00:37

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#78 2004-10-25 14:54:53

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#79 2004-10-25 19:16:05

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#80 2004-10-26 05:17:05

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#81 2004-10-26 05:50:04

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#82 2004-10-26 07:14:54

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#83 2004-10-26 07:32:34

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#84 2004-10-26 07:55:50

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#85 2004-10-26 08:02:16

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#86 2004-10-26 13:34:59

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#87 2004-10-26 14:06:10

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#88 2004-10-26 14:20:13

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#89 2004-10-26 14:28:53

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#90 2004-10-26 14:35:47

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#91 2004-10-26 14:37:21

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#92 2004-10-26 15:40:47

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#93 2004-10-26 16:05:41

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#94 2004-10-26 16:32:35

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#95 2004-10-27 09:18:12

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#96 2004-10-27 10:35:45

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#97 2004-10-27 11:40:33

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#98 2004-10-27 12:20:32

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#99 2004-10-27 13:17:04

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#100 2004-10-27 13:40:08

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

Board footer