Reply #43 By: Solnac - 1/10/2005 8:51:53 PM 'll tell you what. You show me a case of where someone got 51% of the popular vote and didn't get the electoral vote and I'll quit beating the horse. But do not use the 2000 election. I won't even have to. Link Synopsis: in 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election by 1 electoral vote, and did not have the pouplar vote. Sure, tell me that's digging too deep and I'm extreme. But you did ask for an example, here it is

Thank you *whoman69*, Okay Solnac try again! Your example has been shown to be faulty at best.

Thank you *whoman69*, Okay Solnac try again! Your example has been shown to be faulty at best

The fact that the election was disputed does not erase the fact that election was won by a person who did not receive as much electoral vote as the other candidate. He gave you your one example of someone who had 51% of the election and lost. Benjamin Harrison won in 1888 despite his oppenent having a majority of the votes. In addition Bush in 2000, B. Harrison in 1888 and John Quincy Adams won elections despite being outvoted by their opponent. In fact Quincy Adams won an election with only 30 % of the votes counted. But it was in a 4 person race where many states still selected electors by the state legislatures and many of those legislatures split their votes. In the original vote Andrew Jackson won 43 % of the counted vote and 99 EC votes, Quincy Adams under 31% of the vote and 84 EC, William Harris Crawford of Georgia won 41 EC with only 13 % of the vote, and Henry Clay who also had about 13 % of the vote and 37 EC. Its interesting to note they were all considered to be in the same party, but 4 years later Quincy Adams would run under the National Republican Ticket, while in 1844 Clay ran as a Whig. Andrew Jackson claimed the election was stolen by a brokered deal between Quincy Adams and Clay, who later became Secretary of State. Clay and Adams denied any complicity.

Benjamin Harrison won in 1888 despite his oppenent having a majority of the votes.

For accuracy in my previous post I should ammend that to say that Harrison won in 1888 despite his opponent having more votes by about 90K out of just over 11 million votes. Cleveland lost because he won big amongst southern coastal states because he supported a tariff that would have helped them. Cleveland won Mississippi, Texas, Georgia and Alabama all with over 65 % of the votes. In South Carolina he polled over 80 %.

jeremy, what I hate about people like you is the way you beat around the bush out of some misplaced sense of diplomacy. If you don't like what I write, come out and say it. Don't hide behind PC terms like "nutcase with the sort of bigoted, closed not to mention naive views on social issues that im sure you yourself find repugnant.".

Truthfully, I simply posted this for a laugh. Many people of your kind (that is to say, evil right wingers) recognised the hyperbole in it.

Now back to the fascinating debate over when is an electoral win not a popular win, or whatever it is you Americans are going on about. It's over my head.

:

citizen hitparade. you posted: "You think Stalin was a Marxist. What was he then? A mass murderer, who justified his acts as the outcome of the inevitable class struggle which is the heart of Marxism. No?" Karl Marx was from Germany, who stated, with others, what came to be known as Bolshevism, and later Communism. He was exiled from his own country and was being chased around the world by stalin, who wanted to kill him. Lenin, friend of Marx, said that stalin should never be allowed to control the communist party. Stalin, who was from Georgia, not russia, was not a marxist at all. Communism was never achieved in russia b/c of class structure, value of money, not having incentives to be productive workers, etc...He was a tyrannical dictator who used communism as a tool to get to power and practiced Stalinism. communism actually works in small groups of peoples who have nothing to benefit for themselves and everything to benefit together. also, social creatures such as ants and bees practice communism. You need to practice being more ethnocentric and be objective, not subjective. that's just an opinion so don't get mad.

Karl Marx was from Germany, who stated, with others, what came to be known as Bolshevism, and later Communism. He was exiled from his own country and was being chased around the world by stalin, who wanted to kill him.

That was Leon Trotsky. Marx died in 1883. I know Stalin was a bad man, but he was only 4 years old at the time. Trotsky was killed by assassins in Mexico in the late 30s.

Communism will always be subverted by the government because people and corporations do not wish to give their wealth to the state, so it must be state enforced. The millions killed by Stalin were a continuation of policies of terror devised by Lenin to bring the government under his control. Almost every communist state has resorted to horrible repression from Lenin to Stalin, from Mao to Ciaocehescu (sp?), to probably the worst of them all Pol Pot. Name a single attempt at Communism that has not ended in mass jailings, execution squads and the use of starvation as a means of control.

Do another 40 million people need to die for liberals to learn that communism doesn't work? When does it cease to be slow wittedness and start being pure evil?

Well, being as I AM a Rightwinger, I definitely see at least some of myself in your aticle. But that's okay, because I'm right and you're not.

NEEN-ER NEEN-ER NEEN-ER!


Enjoyed the jab. Good piece.

Glad to see dabe's back. Welcome back, "Foulmouth". 

I'm sorry to post twice, and so close together, but something occurred to me and I thought I'd note it. Once again, I liked the apparent humor of the article, but I want to take issuer with this quote:

You think Stalin was a Marxist.

---Champas Socialist

I love how the Lefties and Far Lefties are seemingly without a clue as to why Communism's cradle collapsed like the house of cards it was, in the face of real, pro-active, honest Capitalist opposition.

Left with a vacuum and no way to explain the absolute failure of their faith, they, for some time, had nothing really to say. No way to return the jabs and prods of their opponents.
So, in the past 15 years, they eventually changed tack. The rhetoric changed completely.
Nowadays, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro.....the very same people the Left held on giant, ornate golden pedestals all through the 20th century, from the 20s and 30s on up to the fall of the USSR in '91 (thank you Ronald Reagan---oh, and more on that in a second), were suddenly no longer Socialists OR Communists.
At least, not REAL Socialists or Communists.
No, they were just pretenders, see, aaaaannnd.....since they weren't true to the faaaaaaiiiiith.....weeeeeelllll.....(toss in an "I dunno" shrug, shake the head sadly )things just didn't work out as they should.

BUT!

If they haaaaa-aaaad.........Yeah. Okay.

They sure seemed like Communists.....they took money from people who earned it and gave it to people who didn't.
Mainly themselves, yes (Castro's personal fortune is estimated at somewhere around half a billion dollars American, and that, in one of the most egregiously poverty-stricken Third World countires---Communism did wonders there!), but the principle remains the same. Along the way, they (and just about anyone else who ever took power as a Commie or Socie) also became murderous tyrants and homicidal dictators. Almost every one of them. And Communism's appeal and inner workings had nothing to do with it.

And they also like to say that Ronald Reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of Soviet Communism. It was all due to the bungling/evil/pathetic machinations of Mikhail Gorbachev. Yeah. Okay.
All those missles Reagan ordered up and had placed in Europe (bankrupting the Soviet economy because it couldn't take the strain of a serious military competition while supporting every other Commie state on the continent at the same time) had absolutely nothing to do with it. That's the new party line.

Yeah, okay.