1 in 3 Uk adults have never been to church.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Well thats due to the fact moderates and others didn't vote for him.. My point being that 36 million people are huge in swaying elections for both congress and presidency alike.. In which they could swing upwards to a dozen states in their favor..

GabuEx

But that doesn't make any sense. One person, one vote means that every person has just as much ability to sway the election as any other person. People who think that Obama is a Muslim are people who probably weren't going to vote for him even if he was white as a lily.

We are talkinga bout a active voter vase of 36 million.. If that 36 million were active in voting, they could topple any amount of states to their side.. California in the last election only had a voter turn out of some 13 million out of the 50 million + of its population.. That was considered a huge figure.. Then you look at states like Florida and/or Michigan in which they each ahve over 10 electroal votes, both were won by votes that were under a million difference between the two.. Meaning that a large population of 36 million can cost the election.. I don't know how much clearly I can be with this, perhapes people should study election politics? If this 36 million were predominately active in voting, that would be astonishing..

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Are you kidding me?!?! 36 million americans have HUGE influence if they all mobilized for voting..

sSubZerOo

Twelve percent of the population? :| Sure, if they were the only people who voted. California alone has more people.

You don't get it do you.. If those 36 million are all voters.. They could swing at least a dozen states.. Thats HUGE.. Furthermore that fails.. California has 55 electoral votes.. Thats more electoral votes then some 15 states put together..

They would have to be proportioned properly throughout the states to have influence, one of the reasons I think the electoral college is a terrible system.

I've been to church a couple times, and I never found it particularly uplifting anyhow.

GabuEx

We are talkinga bout a active voter vase of 36 million.. If that 36 million were active in voting, they could topple any amount of states to their side.. California in the last election only had a voter turn out of some 13 million out of the 50 million + of its population.. That was considered a huge figure.. Then you look at states like Florida and/or Michigan in which they each ahve over 10 electroal votes, both were won by votes that were under a million difference between the two.. Meaning that a large population of 36 million can cost the election.. I don't know how much clearly I can be with this, perhapes people should study election politics? If this 36 million were predominately active in voting, that would be astonishing..

sSubZerOo

Well yes, if you could get all thirty-six million people to move to the same state at the same time and then all vote the same way, they would do some serious electoral damage.

And if I could get a unicorn for Christmas, that would be pretty awesome. :P

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Twelve percent of the population? :| Sure, if they were the only people who voted. California alone has more people.

topgunmv

You don't get it do you.. If those 36 million are all voters.. They could swing at least a dozen states.. Thats HUGE.. Furthermore that fails.. California has 55 electoral votes.. Thats more electoral votes then some 15 states put together..

They would have to be proportioned properly throughout the states to have influence, one of the reasons I think the electoral college is a terrible system.

Not quite seeing as many states like Florida and Michigan won by only half a million for example.. People seem to not understand that a active 36 million peopel voting base (if they are voting of course), has a huge impact on elections and can cost the presidency if possible..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

We are talkinga bout a active voter vase of 36 million.. If that 36 million were active in voting, they could topple any amount of states to their side.. California in the last election only had a voter turn out of some 13 million out of the 50 million + of its population.. That was considered a huge figure.. Then you look at states like Florida and/or Michigan in which they each ahve over 10 electroal votes, both were won by votes that were under a million difference between the two.. Meaning that a large population of 36 million can cost the election.. I don't know how much clearly I can be with this, perhapes people should study election politics? If this 36 million were predominately active in voting, that would be astonishing..

GabuEx

Well yes, if you could get all thirty-six million people to move to the same state at the same time and then all vote the same way, they would do some serious electoral damage.

And if I could get a unicorn for Christmas, that would be pretty awesome. :P

.......No Your clearly not able to read what I am trying to say.. California was seen as a landslide and Obama only won by 3 million votes, less then 10% of a 36 million voting base.. Other bigstates like Michigan, and Florida won with around 500k votes going to Obama over McCain.. 1% of that 36 million could possibly cause states like those to fall to who ever they choose.. 36 million is huge for a active voting base.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

You don't get it do you.. If those 36 million are all voters.. They could swing at least a dozen states.. Thats HUGE.. Furthermore that fails.. California has 55 electoral votes.. Thats more electoral votes then some 15 states put together..

sSubZerOo

The electoral college ultimately decides the election outcome. :|

I get it quite nicely. I get that you seem to believe that 36 million people can somehow organize their efforts to such a degree that they disperse unanimously into "dozens" of states and voice themselves so loudly that they will force the swing in their respective states. That's absurd, has never happened with such a small minority, and can't happen anyway--unless the President or some other highly influential political figure (no, not a talk show host, but a political leader in Washington) rallied them together and organized their efforts in the appropriate states, which would likely have small voice in the process anyway.

That is not "HUGE," that is not even a remote blip on the political radar. In a country of over 300 million people, 36 million people, regardless of what they're voting for, have little influence; and the influence they may or may not have is easily overcome. The last election should demonstrate that easily.

YES THATS HUGE.. The voter turn out is always low..

It's never been THAT low.

And many of these states elected officials win at best by a million or less votes in many races..

Goodie, but we're talking about the President, not a state-elected official. The election process is a tad different for the two of them, you see.

It doesnt' takea rocket sciientist

Indeed.

to understand that a 36 million voter base witha specific agenda can have a HUGE outcome..

Not when one state in the union outnumbers them. Not when there are checks and balances in place to prevent such an outcome.

If this were NOT the case, elected officials

Again, we're talking about the President.

wouldnt' campaign so much in getting certain minority votes and the other thing.. FURTHERMORE California has 50 million people, the majority do not vote..

They have 55 Electoral Votes.That's all they need, really.

A mere 2 million voter increase can upset the balacne and have a canidate win..

No it can't.

And we live in a winner takes all electiosn in which the majority decide to which the electroal goes to..

No we don't. George W. Bush won by the Electoral Vote, as did Rutherford Hayes and Benjamin Harrison.

So a close election could turn into a landslide when 1 % of those people..

Not by the definition of "landslide."

3.6 million voted within california.. Which is a huge figure..

No it isn't, unless they're the only people voting. The only case when that's a huge figure is when they're electing a state official, because then only the Californian vote counts.

thus upsetting the balance.. and all 55 of those electoral votes go to the canidate they voted for..

The average voter does not determine who the electoral vote goes to.

California during that election Obama won by a landslide of a mere 3 million votes.. 8 million, to 5 million.. 10% of 36 million could have changed that..

Yet, Obama would still have won the election.

For other states like Michigan, Flordia, it was under 1 million and they both have electoral votes over 10.. 36 million base is a SUPERMELY large voting population to worry about.. Especially when states as large as California had a whooping 13 to 14 million out of 50 million people who voted.

No it isn't. It never has been. If every single one of them voted against Obama (and that would not be the case, as I've pointed out three times), they would not sway the national voter average or the electoral college vote nearly enough to give the President a victory. They have no national political power.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

The electoral college ultimately decides the election outcome. :|

I get it quite nicely. I get that you seem to believe that 36 million people can somehow organize their efforts to such a degree that they disperse unanimously into "dozens" of states and voice themselves so loudly that they will force the swing in their respective states. That's absurd, has never happened with such a small minority, and can't happen anyway--unless the President or some other highly influential political figure (no, not a talk show host, but a political leader in Washington) rallied them together and organized their efforts in the appropriate states, which would likely have small voice in the process anyway.

That is not "HUGE," that is not even a remote blip on the political radar. In a country of over 300 million people, 36 million people, regardless of what they're voting for, have little influence; and the influence they may or may not have is easily overcome. The last election should demonstrate that easily.

Theokhoth

YES THATS HUGE.. The voter turn out is always low..

It's never been THAT low.

And many of these states elected officials win at best by a million or less votes in many races..

Goodie, but we're talking about the President, not a state-elected official. The election process is a tad different for the two of them, you see.

It doesnt' takea rocket sciientist

Indeed.

to understand that a 36 million voter base witha specific agenda can have a HUGE outcome..

Not when one state in the union outnumbers them. Not when there are checks and balances in place to prevent such an outcome.

If this were NOT the case, elected officials

Again, we're talking about the President.

wouldnt' campaign so much in getting certain minority votes and the other thing.. FURTHERMORE California has 50 million people, the majority do not vote..

They have 55 Electoral Votes.That's all they need, really.

A mere 2 million voter increase can upset the balacne and have a canidate win..

No it can't.

And we live in a winner takes all electiosn in which the majority decide to which the electroal goes to..

No we don't. George W. Bush won by the Electoral Vote, as did Rutherford Hayes and Benjamin Harrison.

So a close election could turn into a landslide when 1 % of those people..

Not by the definition of "landslide."

3.6 million voted within california.. Which is a huge figure..

No it isn't, unless they're the only people voting. The only case when that's a huge figure is when they're electing a state official, because then only the Californian vote counts.

thus upsetting the balance.. and all 55 of those electoral votes go to the canidate they voted for..

The average voter does not determine who the electoral vote goes to.

California during that election Obama won by a landslide of a mere 3 million votes.. 8 million, to 5 million.. 10% of 36 million could have changed that..

Yet, Obama would still have won the election.

For other states like Michigan, Flordia, it was under 1 million and they both have electoral votes over 10.. 36 million base is a SUPERMELY large voting population to worry about.. Especially when states as large as California had a whooping 13 to 14 million out of 50 million people who voted.

No it isn't. It never has been. If every single one of them voted against Obama (and that would not be the case, as I've pointed out three times), they would not sway the national voter average or the electoral college vote nearly enough to give the President a victory. They have no national political power.

.................If you actually look at the PRESIDENTIAL elections.. Places like Michigan and Flordia were won by Obama by under a million votes.. And the majority state popular vote decides the electoral.. Not overall.. And that is my point.. That you seem not to understand.. That many of these states that were key to Obamas victory was won by voting figures that was under 1 million infront of McCain..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Twelve percent of the population? :| Sure, if they were the only people who voted. California alone has more people.

topgunmv

You don't get it do you.. If those 36 million are all voters.. They could swing at least a dozen states.. Thats HUGE.. Furthermore that fails.. California has 55 electoral votes.. Thats more electoral votes then some 15 states put together..

They would have to be proportioned properly throughout the states to have influence, one of the reasons I think the electoral college is a terrible system.

the purpose of the electoral college is to allow states with smaller populations a say in national elections. If there was no electoral college, all a presidential candidate would have to do is go to California, New York, Texas, Florida and the other states with the big populations. The smaller states, such as New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Montana, would be ignored completely because they don't have enough people. In such a system, majority rule would inevitably lead to a form of oppression against minority voters.

the Electoral College, for whatever flaws it has, is an excellent system for that reason alone.

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

You don't get it do you.. If those 36 million are all voters.. They could swing at least a dozen states.. Thats HUGE.. Furthermore that fails.. California has 55 electoral votes.. Thats more electoral votes then some 15 states put together..

sSubZerOo

They would have to be proportioned properly throughout the states to have influence, one of the reasons I think the electoral college is a terrible system.

Not quite seeing as many states like Florida and Michigan won by only half a million for example.. People seem to not understand that a active 36 million peopel voting base (if they are voting of course), has a huge impact on elections and can cost the presidency if possible..

But not if they're not spread out properly. Chances are a big chunk of that 36 million live in states that voted with their views anyways.

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

You don't get it do you.. If those 36 million are all voters.. They could swing at least a dozen states.. Thats HUGE.. Furthermore that fails.. California has 55 electoral votes.. Thats more electoral votes then some 15 states put together..

Theokhoth

They would have to be proportioned properly throughout the states to have influence, one of the reasons I think the electoral college is a terrible system.

the purpose of the electoral college is to allow states with smaller populations a say in national elections. If there was no electoral college, all a presidential candidate would have to do is go to California, New York, Texas, Florida and the other states with the big populations. The smaller states, such as New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Montana, would be ignored completely because they don't have enough people. In such a system, majority rule would inevitably lead to a form of oppression against minority voters.

the Electoral College, for whatever flaws it has, is an excellent system for that reason alone.

And it is the MAIn reason why 36 million is something to worry about that.. Where only 5% of that vote base in key states can swing the outcome of the entire election.. Yet againI am trying to tell people this.. If you look at the election results.. Many top states Obama won with voting figures under 1 million ahead of McCain, and that was seen as a big victory.. That is why 36 million vote base for a specific agenda if they are all active voters are HUGE HUGE.. And if your the canidate that ignores such "tiny" bases (when in reality they are massive compared to the voter turn out), they are going to lose..

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

You don't get it do you.. If those 36 million are all voters.. They could swing at least a dozen states.. Thats HUGE.. Furthermore that fails.. California has 55 electoral votes.. Thats more electoral votes then some 15 states put together..

Theokhoth

They would have to be proportioned properly throughout the states to have influence, one of the reasons I think the electoral college is a terrible system.

the purpose of the electoral college is to allow states with smaller populations a say in national elections. If there was no electoral college, all a presidential candidate would have to do is go to California, New York, Texas, Florida and the other states with the big populations. The smaller states, such as New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Montana, would be ignored completely because they don't have enough people. In such a system, majority rule would inevitably lead to a form of oppression against minority voters.

the Electoral College, for whatever flaws it has, is an excellent system for that reason alone.

Minorities still get no say in national elections if they aren't the majority in their state. Imagine being a republican living in new york.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

We are talkinga bout a active voter vase of 36 million.. If that 36 million were active in voting, they could topple any amount of states to their side.. California in the last election only had a voter turn out of some 13 million out of the 50 million + of its population.. That was considered a huge figure.. Then you look at states like Florida and/or Michigan in which they each ahve over 10 electroal votes, both were won by votes that were under a million difference between the two.. Meaning that a large population of 36 million can cost the election.. I don't know how much clearly I can be with this, perhapes people should study election politics? If this 36 million were predominately active in voting, that would be astonishing..

sSubZerOo

Well yes, if you could get all thirty-six million people to move to the same state at the same time and then all vote the same way, they would do some serious electoral damage.

And if I could get a unicorn for Christmas, that would be pretty awesome. :P

.......No Your clearly not able to read what I am trying to say.. California was seen as a landslide and Obama only won by 3 million votes, less then 10% of a 36 million voting base.. Other bigstates like Michigan, and Florida won with around 500k votes going to Obama over McCain.. 1% of that 36 million could possibly cause states like those to fall to who ever they choose.. 36 million is huge for a active voting base.

But those thirty-six million voters are already voting. They are American citizens, after all; turnout was up in 2008; and the question of Obama's ancestry came about before the 2008 election. Thus it is reasonable to suppose that they are included in the tally of votes. It's not like there's this mystical untapped thirty-six million voters who would create a Republican landslide if only they would all vote.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

They would have to be proportioned properly throughout the states to have influence, one of the reasons I think the electoral college is a terrible system.

topgunmv

Not quite seeing as many states like Florida and Michigan won by only half a million for example.. People seem to not understand that a active 36 million peopel voting base (if they are voting of course), has a huge impact on elections and can cost the presidency if possible..

But not if they're not spread out properly. Chances are a big chunk of that 36 million live in states that voted with their views anyways.

It dpeends entirely the poitn being is a base of 36 million is MASSIVE of active voters.. I mean seriously do people even look at the actual voter turn out? It was around 120 million last, and that was considered a huge success in voter turn out.. 36 million makes over 25% of that number.. That is why you can never claim that "36 million is nothign) or what not.. Because it isn't.. A president wins his position through cattering voters through those groups..

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

YES THATS HUGE.. The voter turn out is always low..

It's never been THAT low.

And many of these states elected officials win at best by a million or less votes in many races..

Goodie, but we're talking about the President, not a state-elected official. The election process is a tad different for the two of them, you see.

It doesnt' takea rocket sciientist

Indeed.

to understand that a 36 million voter base witha specific agenda can have a HUGE outcome..

Not when one state in the union outnumbers them. Not when there are checks and balances in place to prevent such an outcome.

If this were NOT the case, elected officials

Again, we're talking about the President.

wouldnt' campaign so much in getting certain minority votes and the other thing.. FURTHERMORE California has 50 million people, the majority do not vote..

They have 55 Electoral Votes.That's all they need, really.

A mere 2 million voter increase can upset the balacne and have a canidate win..

No it can't.

And we live in a winner takes all electiosn in which the majority decide to which the electroal goes to..

No we don't. George W. Bush won by the Electoral Vote, as did Rutherford Hayes and Benjamin Harrison.

So a close election could turn into a landslide when 1 % of those people..

Not by the definition of "landslide."

3.6 million voted within california.. Which is a huge figure..

No it isn't, unless they're the only people voting. The only case when that's a huge figure is when they're electing a state official, because then only the Californian vote counts.

thus upsetting the balance.. and all 55 of those electoral votes go to the canidate they voted for..

The average voter does not determine who the electoral vote goes to.

California during that election Obama won by a landslide of a mere 3 million votes.. 8 million, to 5 million.. 10% of 36 million could have changed that..

Yet, Obama would still have won the election.

For other states like Michigan, Flordia, it was under 1 million and they both have electoral votes over 10.. 36 million base is a SUPERMELY large voting population to worry about.. Especially when states as large as California had a whooping 13 to 14 million out of 50 million people who voted.

No it isn't. It never has been. If every single one of them voted against Obama (and that would not be the case, as I've pointed out three times), they would not sway the national voter average or the electoral college vote nearly enough to give the President a victory. They have no national political power.

sSubZerOo

.................If you actually look at the PRESIDENTIAL elections..

You mean the ones where 36 million people had ZERO impact on the outcome? All of them?

Places like Michigan and Flordia were won by Obama by under a million votes..

So what? There are 48 other states out there, plus the Electoral College.

And the majority state popular vote decides the electoral..

No it does not. The electoral vote is decided by representatives elected by popular vote in their own states, and these electors pledge to vote for a candidate when he elects (for example, a Democratic elector will pledge himself to a Democratic candidate to vote for him). Occasionally there are faithless electors, but these people never have any influence whatsoever because it's nothing more than a political statement.

Not overall.. And that is my point.. That you seem not to understand.. That many of these states that were key to Obamas victory was won by voting figures that was under 1 million infront of McCain..

Al Gore won the popular vote, and lost to George Bush. That wasn't due to popularity.

the purpose of the electoral college is to allow states with smaller populations a say in national elections. If there was no electoral college, all a presidential candidate would have to do is go to California, New York, Texas, Florida and the other states with the big populations. The smaller states, such as New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Montana, would be ignored completely because they don't have enough people. In such a system, majority rule would inevitably lead to a form of oppression against minority voters.

the Electoral College, for whatever flaws it has, is an excellent system for that reason alone.

Theokhoth

Not to derail the thread, but how is that materially different from the way it is right now, where the popular vote in a majority of the states is basically assured, which results in the candidates camping out in the so-called "swing states" for most of the election and utterly ignoring the other states?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Well yes, if you could get all thirty-six million people to move to the same state at the same time and then all vote the same way, they would do some serious electoral damage.

And if I could get a unicorn for Christmas, that would be pretty awesome. :P

GabuEx

.......No Your clearly not able to read what I am trying to say.. California was seen as a landslide and Obama only won by 3 million votes, less then 10% of a 36 million voting base.. Other bigstates like Michigan, and Florida won with around 500k votes going to Obama over McCain.. 1% of that 36 million could possibly cause states like those to fall to who ever they choose.. 36 million is huge for a active voting base.

But those thirty-six million voters are already voting. They are American citizens, after all; turnout was up in 2008; and the question of Obama's ancestry came about before the 2008 election. Thus it is reasonable to suppose that they are included in the tally of votes. It's not like there's this mystical untapped thirty-six million voters who would create a Republican landslide if only they would all vote.

No but Obama needed the majority of middle/independent voters to win.. My point being is this, I never argued thatthey would wint he election.. All I ascerted was that 36 million active voters ARE A HUGE Number and can cost a election including a presidential one.. Hence why I said that 12% of 300 million if active voters are a HUGE number.. That is.. IT..

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

They would have to be proportioned properly throughout the states to have influence, one of the reasons I think the electoral college is a terrible system.

topgunmv

the purpose of the electoral college is to allow states with smaller populations a say in national elections. If there was no electoral college, all a presidential candidate would have to do is go to California, New York, Texas, Florida and the other states with the big populations. The smaller states, such as New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Montana, would be ignored completely because they don't have enough people. In such a system, majority rule would inevitably lead to a form of oppression against minority voters.

the Electoral College, for whatever flaws it has, is an excellent system for that reason alone.

Minorities still get no say in national elections if they aren't the majority in their state. Imagine being a republican living in new york.

That's why the Electoral College exists. ;)

No but Obama needed the majority of middle/independent voters to win.. My point being is this, I never argued thatthey would wint he election.. All I ascerted was that 36 million active voters ARE A HUGE Number and can cost a election including a presidential one.. Hence why I said that 12% of 300 million if active voters are a HUGE number.. That is.. IT..

sSubZerOo

But on the other side, there are millions upon millions of reliable Democratic voters. So how can one say that this group is somehow more impactful than any other group? Just because "thirty-six million" sounds like a big number?

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Not quite seeing as many states like Florida and Michigan won by only half a million for example.. People seem to not understand that a active 36 million peopel voting base (if they are voting of course), has a huge impact on elections and can cost the presidency if possible..

sSubZerOo

But not if they're not spread out properly. Chances are a big chunk of that 36 million live in states that voted with their views anyways.

It dpeends entirely the poitn being is a base of 36 million is MASSIVE of active voters.. I mean seriously do people even look at the actual voter turn out? It was around 120 million last, and that was considered a huge success in voter turn out.. 36 million makes over 25% of that number.. That is why you can never claim that "36 million is nothign) or what not.. Because it isn't.. A president wins his position through cattering voters through those groups..

If you've seen a chart or read a news story saying that these people are primarily from last election blue states, then you have a point.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Theokhoth

.................If you actually look at the PRESIDENTIAL elections..

You mean the ones where 36 million people had ZERO impact on the outcome? All of them?

Uhh yeah it did most certainly make the outcome for a number of states..

Places like Michigan and Flordia were won by Obama by under a million votes..

So what? There are 48 other states out there, plus the Electoral College.

These were just examples, most states through out the United States Obama or McCain won by a few hundred thousand and tops just over 1 million..

And the majority state popular vote decides the electoral..

No it does not. The electoral vote is decided by representatives elected by popular vote in their own states, and these electors pledge to vote for a candidate when he elects (for example, a Democratic elector will pledge himself to a Democratic candidate to vote for him). Occasionally there are faithless electors, but these people never have any influence whatsoever because it's nothing more than a political statement.

Electroal vote is decided by the state popular vote to the particular state.. I never argued otherwise..

Not overall.. And that is my point.. That you seem not to understand.. That many of these states that were key to Obamas victory was won by voting figures that was under 1 million infront of McCain..

Al Gore won the popular vote, and lost to George Bush. That wasn't due to popularity.

Yes it most certianly was.. bush won the popular vote in a few key states.. It doesn't matter if he lost completely in states like New York, because Bush just won in states through popular vote of ones like Florida.. Which gave him the electoral.. hence he won.. If this were a completely popular vote I would agree 36 million doesn't mean much.. But in a plural election environment where its not proportional, a few hundred thousand votes can decide the entire electoral college for a key state..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

But not if they're not spread out properly. Chances are a big chunk of that 36 million live in states that voted with their views anyways.

topgunmv

It dpeends entirely the poitn being is a base of 36 million is MASSIVE of active voters.. I mean seriously do people even look at the actual voter turn out? It was around 120 million last, and that was considered a huge success in voter turn out.. 36 million makes over 25% of that number.. That is why you can never claim that "36 million is nothign) or what not.. Because it isn't.. A president wins his position through cattering voters through those groups..

If you've seen a chart or read a news story saying that these people are primarily from last election blue states, then you have a point.

It doesn't matter where they are from.. A active voter base of this size will always be a threat.. If a politicain doesn't see it as this durign elections, then they are liable to loose the election... If this were not true you wouldn't see Obama and McCain in battle ground states only there to sway a few hundred thousan voters.. A MUCH smaller figure then millions..

sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Theokhoth

Jesus how many times must I say this.. The electoral college doesn't have to follow a popular vote of a state.. But it does.. That is the point.. That is WHY GORE LOST.. Because he got huge popular votes in states like Newyork.. But they were only one electoral college.. While Bush was able to "just" win a few key states like Florida by a few 10 thousand.. Whihc mae that state electoral vote go to him.. I never argued that overall popular vote makes the victor, nor have I ever stated that.. That is infact the main point why 36 million is a huge figure when many of these electoral colleges are being won over in popular state elections of a few hundred thousand..

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]sSubZerOo

Jesus how many times must I say this.. The electoral college doesn't have to follow a popular vote of a state.. But it does.. That is the point.. That is WHY GORE LOST.. Because he got huge popular votes in states like Newyork.. But they were only one electoral college.. While Bush was able to "just" win a few key states like Florida by a few 10 thousand.. Whihc mae that state electoral vote go to him.. I never argued that overall popular vote makes the victor, nor have I ever stated that.. That is infact the main point why 36 million is a huge figure when many of these electoral colleges are being won over in popular state elections of a few hundred thousand..

Gore lost because he lost the electoral college vote, barely, but he still lost it. The electoral college was set up to create a two party system, which I would say is for the better. If we went by popular vote there would be all different kinds of parties and no one would know what they were voting for (they barely do as it is).

Jesus how many times must I say this.. The electoral college doesn't have to follow a popular vote of a state.. But it does.. That is the point.. That is WHY GORE LOST.. Because he got huge popular votes in states like Newyork.. But they were only one electoral college.. While Bush was able to "just" win a few key states like Florida by a few 10 thousand.. Whihc mae that state electoral vote go to him.. I never argued that overall popular vote makes the victor, nor have I ever stated that.. That is infact the main point why 36 million is a huge figure when many of these electoral colleges are being won over in popular state elections of a few hundred thousand..

sSubZerOo

Considering that Gore won the national popular vote by less than 1 million votes, how would 36 million voters not be able to make an impact there, too?

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]sSubZerOo

Jesus how many times must I say this.. The electoral college doesn't have to follow a popular vote of a state.. But it does.. That is the point..

But it doesn't follow popular vote BECAUSE OF the popular vote. That is MY point. The Electoral College generally agrees with the popular vote (not DUE TO the popular vote), but the two HAVE CLASHED in the past, and the Electoral College won each time.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] The Electoral College vote is not decided by popular vote. Why do I keep saying this? The electoral vote may (and usually does) agree with the popular vote, but if the Electoral vote contradicts the popular vote (as it has three times in the past), then the election is decided based on that, not popular vote.

Z0MBIES

Jesus how many times must I say this.. The electoral college doesn't have to follow a popular vote of a state.. But it does.. That is the point.. That is WHY GORE LOST.. Because he got huge popular votes in states like Newyork.. But they were only one electoral college.. While Bush was able to "just" win a few key states like Florida by a few 10 thousand.. Whihc mae that state electoral vote go to him.. I never argued that overall popular vote makes the victor, nor have I ever stated that.. That is infact the main point why 36 million is a huge figure when many of these electoral colleges are being won over in popular state elections of a few hundred thousand..

Gore lost because he lost the electoral college vote, barely, but he still lost it. The electoral college was set up to create a two party system, which I would say is for the better. If we went by popular vote there would be all different kinds of parties and no one would know what they were voting for (they barely do as it is).

Am I talking to a wall? Thats what I just said.. That Gore may have won overwhelming in some states like New York where he indeed got overall more popular vote int he entire country.. But he still lost, because though Bush did not wint he overall popular vote it did not matter.. He won just barely in a few battle ground states like Flordia by very little.. I never contended that country wide popular vote decided elections, EVER.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] The Electoral College vote is not decided by popular vote. Why do I keep saying this? The electoral vote may (and usually does) agree with the popular vote, but if the Electoral vote contradicts the popular vote (as it has three times in the past), then the election is decided based on that, not popular vote.

Theokhoth

Jesus how many times must I say this.. The electoral college doesn't have to follow a popular vote of a state.. But it does.. That is the point..

But it doesn't follow popular vote BECAUSE OF the popular vote. That is MY point. The Electoral College generally agrees with the popular vote (not DUE TO the popular vote), but the two HAVE CLASHED in the past, and the Electoral College won each time.

What you are speaking of is electoral college not followign the state popular vote.. This rarely has happened... And was not the deciding factor of the 2000 election.. The deciding factor was that Bush won the popular vote in several key battle ground states, to which the electoral votes were given to him.. And what happened during the 2000 election has only happened once or twice in history.. I never argued that the entire popular vote of the entire country meant anythign.. I have always contended it was about the state popular vote in which the electoral college historically has always voted for the winner of their state popular election..

Well having been around for a long, long time and having the Pope get Europe around into a Holy War with the Muslims for a couple of centuries. I can understand why many there would not be very religious.

In about 20 years, 1 in 3 UK adults will go to mosques.

I serious hope that churches in UK would take this survey seriously and start finding ways to appeal to those people. They need to start changing things, because having sermons and singing hymns isn't working anymore.hiphops_savior

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="mfp16"] I really hope we see an openly atheist president in the US in my life time, I don't really see it happening though.mfp16

I don't believe it will ever happen.

I don't go to church because I am not an active practicipant of any organized religion. Why would I go? I went when I was a kid, but no longer.

I doubt society will exist in a few hundred years

[QUOTE="hiphops_savior"]I serious hope that churches in UK would take this survey seriously and start finding ways to appeal to those people. They need to start changing things, because having sermons and singing hymns isn't working anymore.lightleggy

OK seriously...why do atheist want for all the world to abandom their beliefs and become atheist as well? Cant you accept that not everyone think the same as you guys? all I see in this thread is basically atheist saying "GREAT NEWS!!!! RELIGION WILL SOON DISSAPEAR!" If you dont want to believe in anything, fine, but let the others believe in what they want.lightleggy

I'm not even an atheist but I have to say that the problem is religion forces it's beliefs on others and into legislation, which is why some atheists want religion to dissapear, so it can no longer be shoved onto them.

I hate most churches, and the religious "ways" of most Christians, but I am Christian myself.

These stats don't surprise me.

It's pretty sad honestly. Not enough compassion in the pews imo...

Whoo, 33.3% of the way there.

Seriously though, I can relate, maybe there would be more people who could get into religion and stick with it easier if sitting in a stuffy building with people you hate and singing crappy centuries-old songs wasn't a prerequisite.

Whoo, 33.3% of the way there.

Seriously though, I can relate, maybe there would be more people who could get into religion and stick with it easier if sitting in a stuffy building with people you hate and singing crappy centuries-old songs wasn't a prerequisite.

theone86

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Whoo, 33.3% of the way there.

Seriously though, I can relate, maybe there would be more people who could get into religion and stick with it easier if sitting in a stuffy building with people you hate and singing crappy centuries-old songs wasn't a prerequisite.

battlefront23

Who knows, maybe the reason all these fundies are so stuck on these issues is because they have to spend part of their weekend with people they hate singing songs they don't like, there's a chance they might not be so confrontational if they weren't so self-abusive.

Who knows, maybe the reason all these fundies are so stuck on these issues is because they have to spend part of their weekend with people they hate singing songs they don't like, there's a chance they might not be so confrontational if they weren't so self-abusive.

theone86

Nice. The rest of the world should follow suit.

[QUOTE="lightleggy"]OK seriously...why do atheist want for all the world to abandom their beliefs and become atheist as well? Cant you accept that not everyone think the same as you guys? all I see in this thread is basically atheist saying "GREAT NEWS!!!! RELIGION WILL SOON DISSAPEAR!" If you dont want to believe in anything, fine, but let the others believe in what they want.Pixel-Pirate

I'm not even an atheist but I have to say that the problem is religion forces it's beliefs on others and into legislation, which is why some atheists want religion to dissapear, so it can no longer be shoved onto them.

Atheists have forced people to become atheists as well (ie Soviet Union, People's Republic of China, etc. etc.). Stalin killed over 120,000 priests for being priests.

Not that I'm a fan of organized religion, but I don't understand why so many people here seem determined to push religion completely out of the societal picture. There's a difference between a secular society and one that actively discourages or even represses religion. And I think they miss a substantial part of why many people belief in certain religions in the first place.

Those stats actually suprised me in that i thought there would be less people going to church. In general, it seems like going to church and chirstianity is becoming out-dated over here, people simply are'nt as religous as they used to be (not counting muslims and other ethnic miorities).

I'd also say that of course people can identify with a religion. wether you realise it or not, the UK society (where i live) is built on moral and ethical values taken from religion (mostly christianity).