2016 Presidential Candidate

[forummm]

One big plus Trump has is that he is not a lawyer.     Although I'm sure he'll have an army of them once president.   

Doesn't he already have a legal team? He's always suing or threatening to sue someone or doing business deals or declaring bankruptcy or setting up legal structures to protect assets and avoid taxes, etc.

[Bob W]

He could say Hillary is a C and pick up 5 points I guess?

If he did that he may have a shot at my vote :)

Stay tuned!   He may not use the C word but I bet he comes very close to insinuating that.    Something along the lines of prostituting herself to the highest bidder I'm guessing. 

Looks like she is toast anyway.   And just imagine a 73 year old,  super pro Israel,  clueless socialist up against Trump.  Would have been cool to see Ron Paul go against Sanders. 

My guess in that Biden is waiting in the wings for Hillary to implode.  I just saw a video of her saying she did nothing wrong followed by an FBI investigator saying they were taking this case seriously.     

Apparently the Democrats have no minority people to run.  Appears to be the party of rich old white people while the Republicans have a diverse group including 2 people who appear to be Hispanic,  a southern state Governor of Indian heritage and a person of color doing well in 2nd place.   

I hear Jeb only attracts people over age 60 to his 30 person rallies though.     

[Chris22]

I actually LIKE Biden.  I disagree with him on many/most issues, but he's at least a likeable guy.  Can't hate a dude who gives a graduation speech that includes a line about Porsches vs. Corvettes!

[Malaysia41]

He could say Hillary is a C and pick up 5 points I guess?

If he did that he may have a shot at my vote :)

Stay tuned!   He may not use the C word but I bet he comes very close to insinuating that.    Something along the lines of prostituting herself to the highest bidder I'm guessing. 

Looks like she is toast anyway.
...

I, like the women profiled in this article, would love to hear Trump call Hilary the C word or 'prostitute', because genitalia and promiscuity are critical touchstones in American political discourse... well, when women get involved in any case.

At least Trump calls it like he sees it!

Female Trump Supporters Just Feel More Comfortable With GOP Candidate Who’s Openly Horrible To Them

[infogoon]

I actually LIKE Biden.  I disagree with him on many/most issues, but he's at least a likeable guy.  Can't hate a dude who gives a graduation speech that includes a line about Porsches vs. Corvettes!

Read his Car And Driver interview from a few years back. It's great.

[firewalker]

While reading this thread, I've come to the conclusion that voting is of less actual value than, say, betting ahead of time on next years college football season. It's all for water cooler chat. You can play the civic duty card till the cows come home but your time voting is better spent elsewhere. It makes no difference.

[infogoon]

While reading this thread, I've come to the conclusion that voting is of less actual value than, say, betting ahead of time on next years college football season. It's all for water cooler chat. You can play the civic duty card till the cows come home but your time voting is better spent elsewhere. It makes no difference.

If you're talking about the Presidential race, I agree with you. The real power of voting is in local offices -- mayor, City Council, state senate. It's a pity nobody pays nearly as much attention to those. I would argue that the average urban school board member affects his or her constituency far more than the President does.

[MoonShadow]

Maybe I'm wrong, but the usual argument to overturn birthright citizenship is in cases where the parents are not in the country legally.  It would have no effect on Rubio's citizenship because his parents were not here illegally.  I think this is a nuance lost in the soundbite wars.

I really like this idea.  If it's applied retroactively, all white people in the US would lose citizenship . . . since they are all the anchor baby offspring of people who illegally invaded native land.

We'd just move to Canada and take over.

[sol]

We'd just move to Canada and take over.

Because the native people of Canada were issuing legal immigration permits while the native people of America were not?

[MoonShadow]

We'd just move to Canada and take over.

Because the native people of Canada were issuing legal immigration permits while the native people of America were not?

No.  Take over by conquest.

[enigmaT120]

Heck, read all of the Onion articles about Biden.  He's great. 

[regulator]

We'd just move to Canada and take over.

Because the native people of Canada were issuing legal immigration permits while the native people of America were not?

No.  Take over by conquest.

After all, we are a lot better armed.

[MoonShadow]

We'd just move to Canada and take over.

Because the native people of Canada were issuing legal immigration permits while the native people of America were not?

No.  Take over by conquest.

After all, we are a lot better armed.

We?  I know individuals better armed than entire cities in Canada!

[regulator]

We'd just move to Canada and take over.

Because the native people of Canada were issuing legal immigration permits while the native people of America were not?

No.  Take over by conquest.

After all, we are a lot better armed.

We?  I know individuals better armed than entire cities in Canada!

Well, except the gang bangers and other criminals living in said cities.

[MoonShadow]

We'd just move to Canada and take over.

Because the native people of Canada were issuing legal immigration permits while the native people of America were not?

No.  Take over by conquest.

After all, we are a lot better armed.

We?  I know individuals better armed than entire cities in Canada!

Well, except the gang bangers and other criminals living in said cities.

I was counting them. After all, these are my people....

https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KLqIXhZd5VPzUAwa8snIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByZjF2ZHFmBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDBGdwb3MDNw--?p=Machine+Gun+Shoot&vid=ab44d5b8d802e4b7640c781bfda1b8a9&turl=http%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DWN.I5EQ%252f3s9R3TmRLpWOosGPg%26pid%3D15.1%26h%3D168%26w%3D300%26c%3D7%26rs%3D1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DzgDsUXQWcxo&tit=The+Knob+Creek+Machine+Gun+Shoot&c=6&h=168&w=300&l=237&sigr=11bt4smmt&sigt=110eu0d13&sigi=12nn85nig&age=1412555395&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=mozilla&tt=b

[GuitarStv]

We'd just move to Canada and take over.

Because the native people of Canada were issuing legal immigration permits while the native people of America were not?

No.  Take over by conquest.

After all, we are a lot better armed.

We?  I know individuals better armed than entire cities in Canada!

Meh.  I give you invaders one winter before you pack up and head home.

[mtn]

We'd just move to Canada and take over.

Because the native people of Canada were issuing legal immigration permits while the native people of America were not?

No.  Take over by conquest.

After all, we are a lot better armed.

We?  I know individuals better armed than entire cities in Canada!

Meh.  I give you invaders one winter before you pack up and head home.

Maybe one summer of Mosquito's, but I personally find the winter of Canada one of the big draws...

Of course, here in Chicago in the winter I can often be found playing hockey outside in jeans and a T-shirt.

[GuitarStv]

We'd just move to Canada and take over.

Because the native people of Canada were issuing legal immigration permits while the native people of America were not?

No.  Take over by conquest.

After all, we are a lot better armed.

We?  I know individuals better armed than entire cities in Canada!

Meh.  I give you invaders one winter before you pack up and head home.

Maybe one summer of Mosquito's, but I personally find the winter of Canada one of the big draws...

Of course, here in Chicago in the winter I can often be found playing hockey outside in jeans and a T-shirt.

Spend February in northern Manitoba, and you'll cure yourself of that pretty quickly.

[MoonShadow]

We'd just move to Canada and take over.

Because the native people of Canada were issuing legal immigration permits while the native people of America were not?

No.  Take over by conquest.

After all, we are a lot better armed.

We?  I know individuals better armed than entire cities in Canada!

Meh.  I give you invaders one winter before you pack up and head home.

We are a wiser invader than the French, Austrian-Hungarians or Germans trying to conquer Russia leading into Winter.  We'd just invade every spring, and then invade the Gulf islands each Autumn.

[Jeremy E.]

John Kasich is the only republican candidate beating Hillary Clinton in a head to head poll in New Hampshire. #KasichforUs

[forummm]

John Kasich is the only republican candidate beating Hillary Clinton in a head to head poll in New Hampshire. #KasichforUs

Those 4 electoral votes are key to the presidency.

[Chris22]

John Kasich is the only republican candidate beating Hillary Clinton in a head to head poll in New Hampshire. #KasichforUs

Those 4 electoral votes are key to the presidency.

The NH primary, like Iowa, is a key to getting the nomination. 

Or are you being obtuse intentionally?

[beltim]

John Kasich is the only republican candidate beating Hillary Clinton in a head to head poll in New Hampshire. #KasichforUs

Those 4 electoral votes are key to the presidency.

The NH primary, like Iowa, is a key to getting the nomination. 

Or are you being obtuse intentionally?

The NH primary doesn't pit Kasich against Clinton.

Or are you being obtuse intentionally?

[Jeremy E.]

John Kasich is the only republican candidate beating Hillary Clinton in a head to head poll in New Hampshire. #KasichforUs

Those 4 electoral votes are key to the presidency.

The NH primary, like Iowa, is a key to getting the nomination. 

Or are you being obtuse intentionally?

The NH primary doesn't pit Kasich against Clinton.

Or are you being obtuse intentionally?

No one said it would.

[beltim]

John Kasich is the only republican candidate beating Hillary Clinton in a head to head poll in New Hampshire. #KasichforUs

Those 4 electoral votes are key to the presidency.

The NH primary, like Iowa, is a key to getting the nomination. 

Or are you being obtuse intentionally?

The NH primary doesn't pit Kasich against Clinton.

Or are you being obtuse intentionally?

No one said it would.

Chris implied it.  Your comment was interesting, forummm's was questioning the overall relevance of your comment, and Chris completely missed the point of both.  Any poll of Kasich vs Clinton in NH is irrelevant to the primary, which was the focus of Chris's comment.

[Jeremy E.]

John Kasich is the only republican candidate beating Hillary Clinton in a head to head poll in New Hampshire. #KasichforUs

Those 4 electoral votes are key to the presidency.

The NH primary, like Iowa, is a key to getting the nomination. 

Or are you being obtuse intentionally?

The NH primary doesn't pit Kasich against Clinton.

Or are you being obtuse intentionally?

No one said it would.

Chris implied it.  Your comment was interesting, forummm's was questioning the overall relevance of your comment, and Chris completely missed the point of both.  Any poll of Kasich vs Clinton in NH is irrelevant to the primary, which was the focus of Chris's comment.

Oh I forgot, people don't care about electing candidates than can win against the other party. Oh wait

[forummm]

John Kasich is the only republican candidate beating Hillary Clinton in a head to head poll in New Hampshire. #KasichforUs

Those 4 electoral votes are key to the presidency.

The NH primary, like Iowa, is a key to getting the nomination. 

Or are you being obtuse intentionally?

The NH primary doesn't pit Kasich against Clinton.

Or are you being obtuse intentionally?

No one said it would.

Chris implied it.  Your comment was interesting, forummm's was questioning the overall relevance of your comment, and Chris completely missed the point of both.  Any poll of Kasich vs Clinton in NH is irrelevant to the primary, which was the focus of Chris's comment.

Oh I forgot, people don't care about electing candidates than can win against the other party. Oh wait

If the poll were of Florida or Pennsylvania, that would be more interesting. It would still be incredibly premature and likely to be significantly different 15 months from now, but more interesting than a tiny little state that has a culture pretty different from the rest of the country.

[Chris22]

John Kasich is the only republican candidate beating Hillary Clinton in a head to head poll in New Hampshire. #KasichforUs

Those 4 electoral votes are key to the presidency.

The NH primary, like Iowa, is a key to getting the nomination. 

Or are you being obtuse intentionally?

The NH primary doesn't pit Kasich against Clinton.

Or are you being obtuse intentionally?

No one said it would.

Chris implied it.  Your comment was interesting, forummm's was questioning the overall relevance of your comment, and Chris completely missed the point of both.  Any poll of Kasich vs Clinton in NH is irrelevant to the primary, which was the focus of Chris's comment.

Oh I forgot, people don't care about electing candidates than can win against the other party. Oh wait

Exactly.

[Jeremy E.]

John Kasich is the only republican candidate beating Hillary Clinton in a head to head poll in New Hampshire. #KasichforUs

Those 4 electoral votes are key to the presidency.

The NH primary, like Iowa, is a key to getting the nomination. 

Or are you being obtuse intentionally?

The NH primary doesn't pit Kasich against Clinton.

Or are you being obtuse intentionally?

No one said it would.

Chris implied it.  Your comment was interesting, forummm's was questioning the overall relevance of your comment, and Chris completely missed the point of both.  Any poll of Kasich vs Clinton in NH is irrelevant to the primary, which was the focus of Chris's comment.

Oh I forgot, people don't care about electing candidates than can win against the other party. Oh wait

If the poll were of Florida or Pennsylvania, that would be more interesting. It would still be incredibly premature and likely to be significantly different 15 months from now, but more interesting than a tiny little state that has a culture pretty different from the rest of the country.

How about Ohio? No president has ever been elected without winning Ohio, a crucial swing state. John Kasich is beating everyone in Ohio.
But for now becoming the GOP candidate is what matters for him so New Hampshire is more important

[matchewed]

How about Ohio? No president has ever been elected without winning Ohio, a crucial swing state.

George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson's first term, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, James Polk, Zachary Taylor, James Buchanan, Grover Cleveland (twice), FDR, and Kennedy.

13 out of 57 or 22.8% of all elections. 10 out of 53 or 18.8% of all elections after Ohio became a state.

;)

[Jeremy E.]

How about Ohio? No president has ever been elected without winning Ohio, a crucial swing state.

George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson's first term, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, James Polk, Zachary Taylor, James Buchanan, Grover Cleveland (twice), FDR, and Kennedy.

13 out of 57 or 22.8% of all elections. 10 out of 53 or 18.8% of all elections after Ohio became a state.

;)

I was slightly mistaken, let me rephrase, no president has been elected without winning ohio since 1960.

[forummm]

John Kasich is the only republican candidate beating Hillary Clinton in a head to head poll in New Hampshire. #KasichforUs

Those 4 electoral votes are key to the presidency.

The NH primary, like Iowa, is a key to getting the nomination. 

Or are you being obtuse intentionally?

The NH primary doesn't pit Kasich against Clinton.

Or are you being obtuse intentionally?

No one said it would.

Chris implied it.  Your comment was interesting, forummm's was questioning the overall relevance of your comment, and Chris completely missed the point of both.  Any poll of Kasich vs Clinton in NH is irrelevant to the primary, which was the focus of Chris's comment.

Oh I forgot, people don't care about electing candidates than can win against the other party. Oh wait

If the poll were of Florida or Pennsylvania, that would be more interesting. It would still be incredibly premature and likely to be significantly different 15 months from now, but more interesting than a tiny little state that has a culture pretty different from the rest of the country.

How about Ohio? No president has ever been elected without winning Ohio, a crucial swing state. John Kasich is beating everyone in Ohio.
But for now becoming the GOP candidate is what matters for him so New Hampshire is more important

Yes, NH vs the other Republicans. Not NH vs Clinton--unless she's changed parties recently.

[forummm]

How about Ohio? No president has ever been elected without winning Ohio, a crucial swing state.

George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson's first term, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, James Polk, Zachary Taylor, James Buchanan, Grover Cleveland (twice), FDR, and Kennedy.

13 out of 57 or 22.8% of all elections. 10 out of 53 or 18.8% of all elections after Ohio became a state.

;)

I was slightly mistaken, let me rephrase, no president has been elected without winning ohio since 1960.

Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.

[Jeremy E.]

How about Ohio? No president has ever been elected without winning Ohio, a crucial swing state.

George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson's first term, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, James Polk, Zachary Taylor, James Buchanan, Grover Cleveland (twice), FDR, and Kennedy.

13 out of 57 or 22.8% of all elections. 10 out of 53 or 18.8% of all elections after Ohio became a state.

;)

I was slightly mistaken, let me rephrase, no president has been elected without winning ohio since 1960.

Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.

lol good one

[sol]

Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.

That is a subtlety that I don't think will be appreciated in this context.

[Jeremy E.]

Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.

That is a subtlety that I don't think will be appreciated in this context.

popular vote doesn't matter, electoral votes do.

[forummm]

Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.

That is a subtlety that I don't think will be appreciated in this context.

popular vote doesn't matter, electoral votes do.

What matters is whether votes are allowed to be counted to correctly determine the winner of those electoral votes.

[Jeremy E.]

Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.

That is a subtlety that I don't think will be appreciated in this context.

popular vote doesn't matter, electoral votes do.

What matters is whether votes are allowed to be counted to correctly determine the winner of those electoral votes.

You probably also believe in the 3rd explosion

[forummm]

Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.

That is a subtlety that I don't think will be appreciated in this context.

popular vote doesn't matter, electoral votes do.

What matters is whether votes are allowed to be counted to correctly determine the winner of those electoral votes.

You probably also believe in the 3rd explosion

Never heard of it.

[Jeremy E.]

Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.

That is a subtlety that I don't think will be appreciated in this context.

popular vote doesn't matter, electoral votes do.

What matters is whether votes are allowed to be counted to correctly determine the winner of those electoral votes.

You probably also believe in the 3rd explosion

Never heard of it.

It's yet another conspiracy theory

[beltim]

Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.

That is a subtlety that I don't think will be appreciated in this context.

popular vote doesn't matter, electoral votes do.

What matters is whether votes are allowed to be counted to correctly determine the winner of those electoral votes.

I've seen people say that Gore should have won the electoral vote a lot recently, or that the Supreme Court "gave" Bush the election.  But every study I've seen that counted ballots showed that Bush would have won Florida, and the electoral college, and the presidency, using any standard that was under discussion at the time.  Am I missing something?

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/

[forummm]

Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.

That is a subtlety that I don't think will be appreciated in this context.

popular vote doesn't matter, electoral votes do.

What matters is whether votes are allowed to be counted to correctly determine the winner of those electoral votes.

I've seen people say that Gore should have won the electoral vote a lot recently, or that the Supreme Court "gave" Bush the election.  But every study I've seen that counted ballots showed that Bush would have won Florida, and the electoral college, and the presidency, using any standard that was under discussion at the time.  Am I missing something?

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/

Mostly I was joking. It's definitely very ambiguous who would have won if every vote had been counted because there were so many different standards that could have been used. Ironically, if Gore had won the SCOTUS decision he would have lost Florida. If a wider recount had been done and some of the disputed ballots were counted under some rules he could have won (the AP study you are linking to a summary for says this too). But Gore asked for the wrong recount, and that's how things go.

[Gin1984]

Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.

That is a subtlety that I don't think will be appreciated in this context.

popular vote doesn't matter, electoral votes do.

What matters is whether votes are allowed to be counted to correctly determine the winner of those electoral votes.

I've seen people say that Gore should have won the electoral vote a lot recently, or that the Supreme Court "gave" Bush the election.  But every study I've seen that counted ballots showed that Bush would have won Florida, and the electoral college, and the presidency, using any standard that was under discussion at the time.  Am I missing something?

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/

Something that was mentioned in your link:
On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide.

[beltim]

Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.

That is a subtlety that I don't think will be appreciated in this context.

popular vote doesn't matter, electoral votes do.

What matters is whether votes are allowed to be counted to correctly determine the winner of those electoral votes.

I've seen people say that Gore should have won the electoral vote a lot recently, or that the Supreme Court "gave" Bush the election.  But every study I've seen that counted ballots showed that Bush would have won Florida, and the electoral college, and the presidency, using any standard that was under discussion at the time.  Am I missing something?

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/

Something that was mentioned in your link:
On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide.

Right.  But I don't see how winning by one never-used standard, and losing by all used and proposed standards, leads to the conclusion that Gore won. 

[beltim]

Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.

That is a subtlety that I don't think will be appreciated in this context.

popular vote doesn't matter, electoral votes do.

What matters is whether votes are allowed to be counted to correctly determine the winner of those electoral votes.

I've seen people say that Gore should have won the electoral vote a lot recently, or that the Supreme Court "gave" Bush the election.  But every study I've seen that counted ballots showed that Bush would have won Florida, and the electoral college, and the presidency, using any standard that was under discussion at the time.  Am I missing something?

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/

Mostly I was joking. It's definitely very ambiguous who would have won if every vote had been counted because there were so many different standards that could have been used. Ironically, if Gore had won the SCOTUS decision he would have lost Florida. If a wider recount had been done and some of the disputed ballots were counted under some rules he could have won (the AP study you are linking to a summary for says this too). But Gore asked for the wrong recount, and that's how things go.

Okay, thanks.  I've just seen this so much recently that I was wondering if I had missed some new study or something.

[Glenstache]

Well, this should be an absolute shitshow of word salad: Sarah Palin to interview Donald Trump, Jeb Bush

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/08/sarah-palin-donald-trump-interview-2016-election-213134

Or, as Palin announced on her fb page:

WTH, LAMESTREAM MEDIA! STAY OUT OF MY BIBLE

WTH? Lamestream media asks GOP personal, spiritual "gotchas" that they'd NEVER ask Hillary, or they'd feed the question to her and/or liberal cohorts before they asked it on-air (we know how these things work, lapdog media... the public's on to you), so good on Trump for screwing with the reporter. By the way, even with my reading scripture everyday I wouldn't want to answer the guy's question either... it's none of his business; it IS personal; what the heck does it have to do with serving as commander-in-chief; and these reporters trying to trip up conservatives can go pound sand until they ask the same things of their favored liberal pals. I'll cover this in my interview with Donald Trump and other candidates tonight on the One America News Network show "On Point." The more the media does this, the more they empower America to reject them and their bias as voters run to the anti-status quo candidates daring to Go Rogue.

http://www.patheos.com/…/dear-media-donald-trump-does-not-…/

- Sarah Palin

[forummm]

Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.

That is a subtlety that I don't think will be appreciated in this context.

popular vote doesn't matter, electoral votes do.

What matters is whether votes are allowed to be counted to correctly determine the winner of those electoral votes.

I've seen people say that Gore should have won the electoral vote a lot recently, or that the Supreme Court "gave" Bush the election.  But every study I've seen that counted ballots showed that Bush would have won Florida, and the electoral college, and the presidency, using any standard that was under discussion at the time.  Am I missing something?

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/

Something that was mentioned in your link:
On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide.

Right.  But I don't see how winning by one never-used standard, and losing by all used and proposed standards, leads to the conclusion that Gore won. 

I would think that with any election that all votes should be counted, even if that's not something a candidate asked for. Of course, the machines should also work so that they are free from error, and the intent of the voter is perfectly captured. And people shouldn't have been purged from the voter rolls for no valid reason just because political figures want to keep certain people from voting for the other party. Unfortunately all 3 of those things happened in the wrong direction, and many voters/potential voters were disenfranchised.

[Cressida]

Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.

That is a subtlety that I don't think will be appreciated in this context.

popular vote doesn't matter, electoral votes do.

What matters is whether votes are allowed to be counted to correctly determine the winner of those electoral votes.

I've seen people say that Gore should have won the electoral vote a lot recently, or that the Supreme Court "gave" Bush the election.  But every study I've seen that counted ballots showed that Bush would have won Florida, and the electoral college, and the presidency, using any standard that was under discussion at the time.  Am I missing something?

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/

Something that was mentioned in your link:
On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide.

Right.  But I don't see how winning by one never-used standard, and losing by all used and proposed standards, leads to the conclusion that Gore won. 

I would think that with any election that all votes should be counted, even if that's not something a candidate asked for. Of course, the machines should also work so that they are free from error, and the intent of the voter is perfectly captured. And people shouldn't have been purged from the voter rolls for no valid reason just because political figures want to keep certain people from voting for the other party. Unfortunately all 3 of those things happened in the wrong direction, and many voters/potential voters were disenfranchised.

And all ballots should be clearly designed so they don't cause people to accidentally vote for Pat Buchanan.

[GuitarStv]

While we're discussing fantasies . . . I'm kinda a fan of representation by population.  Every vote should count, it shouldn't only be a race for certain areas where there's a close vote.  I think this would lean towards more centrist candidates in elections.

[Jeremy E.]

While we're discussing fantasies . . . I'm kinda a fan of representation by population.  Every vote should count, it shouldn't only be a race for certain areas where there's a close vote.  I think this would lean towards more centrist candidates in elections.

This would be cool, I'd love to vote for someone who wanted to reduce spending(especially on military and socialist programs), move some federal rights to the states, not try to take away our guns or limit any of our gun rights, add an environmental impact tax, also is pro choice, and okay with gay marriage. However, sadly in our political system, all of the candidates are going to have stances similar to their party on most things probably for as long as I live. :(