Ironic as all you and you're asskissers have been doing for the last month is bash Europe.God Save the Queen wrote:
no, youre right. I finally realized the reason so many euros bash the US is because it lets them feel like Americans, even if its just a taste.FEOS wrote:
Must be why they're so interested in our elections....I keed, I keed.God Save the Queen wrote:
they dont vote for their head of state or government.
Kind of like the Libertarian Party over here. Oh damn...that's THREE parties in our wicked two party system. I wonder if there's more?jord wrote:
It's more like 3 party here, the Liberal Democrats are a proper party but with a very small chance of winning any power on a national scale. It's like 40 Labour, 30 Conservative, 15 Lib dem and 15% mixed. As an example. Those aren't real figures.FEOS wrote:
Must be why they're so interested in our elections....I keed, I keed.God Save the Queen wrote:
they dont vote for their head of state or government.
Regardless, that doesn't make the lack of quality on both sides (that evil two party system) any different.
europe sucks donkey ballsjord wrote:
Ironic as all you and you're asskissers have been doing for the last month is bash Europe.God Save the Queen wrote:
no, youre right. I finally realized the reason so many euros bash the US is because it lets them feel like Americans, even if its just a taste.FEOS wrote:
Must be why they're so interested in our elections....I keed, I keed.
Hippo(cuz ur fat)crit.
lulz
I know, good job my island is off Europe then.God Save the Queen wrote:
europe sucks donkey ballsjord wrote:
Ironic as all you and you're asskissers have been doing for the last month is bash Europe.God Save the Queen wrote:
no, youre right. I finally realized the reason so many euros bash the US is because it lets them feel like Americans, even if its just a taste.
Hippo(cuz ur fat)crit.
lulz
Mexico has a queen? lulzGod Save the Queen wrote:
may he save our queen
Whereas Americans do?God Save the Queen wrote:
they dont vote for their head of state or government.
How did the winner of the 2000 election not win the majority of electoral votes?TheAussieReaper wrote:
Whereas Americans do?God Save the Queen wrote:
they dont vote for their head of state or government.
It just doesn't matter if the head of state has won the majority of the popular vote. Or even won the majority of electoral votes. If we are to judge anything from your 2000 election...
So I guess you don't vote for your head of state or government either.
FEOS wrote:
How did the winner of the 2000 election not win the majority of electoral votes?
Washington Post, 11/12/01 wrote:
"In all likelihood, George W. Bush still would have won Florida and the presidency last year if either of two limited recounts – one requested by Al Gore, the other ordered by the Florida Supreme Court – had been completed, according to a study commissioned by The Washington Post and other news organizations.
"But if Gore had found a way to trigger a statewide recount of all disputed ballots, or if the courts had required it, the result likely would have been different. An examination of uncounted ballots throughout Florida found enough where voter intent was clear to give Gore the narrowest of margins...."
Had Florida had a state wide recount, the electoral numbers would have went to Gore.Associated Press, 11/12/01 wrote:
"A vote-by-vote review of untallied ballots in the 2000 Florida presidential election indicates George W. Bush would have narrowly prevailed in the partial recounts sought by Al Gore (news - web sites), but Gore might have reversed the outcome - by the barest of margins - had he pursued and gained a complete statewide recount. Bush eventually won Florida, and thus the White House, by 537 votes out of more than 6 million cast. But questions about the uncounted votes lingered.
"The new data, compiled by The Associated Press and seven other news organizations, also suggested that Gore followed a legal strategy after Election Day that would have led to defeat even if it had not been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites). Gore sought a recount of a relatively small portion of the state's disputed ballots while the review indicates his only chance lay in a course he advocated publicly but did not pursue in court - a full statewide recount of all Florida's untallied votes."
Wow. Certainly a lot of "if" and "would" and "maybe" and "narrowest of margins" there. Pretty conclusive.TheAussieReaper wrote:
FEOS wrote:
How did the winner of the 2000 election not win the majority of electoral votes?Washington Post, 11/12/01 wrote:
"In all likelihood, George W. Bush still would have won Florida and the presidency last year if either of two limited recounts – one requested by Al Gore, the other ordered by the Florida Supreme Court – had been completed, according to a study commissioned by The Washington Post and other news organizations.
"But if Gore had found a way to trigger a statewide recount of all disputed ballots, or if the courts had required it, the result likely would have been different. An examination of uncounted ballots throughout Florida found enough where voter intent was clear to give Gore the narrowest of margins...."Had Florida had a state wide recount, the electoral numbers would have went to Gore.Associated Press, 11/12/01 wrote:
"A vote-by-vote review of untallied ballots in the 2000 Florida presidential election indicates George W. Bush would have narrowly prevailed in the partial recounts sought by Al Gore (news - web sites), but Gore might have reversed the outcome - by the barest of margins - had he pursued and gained a complete statewide recount. Bush eventually won Florida, and thus the White House, by 537 votes out of more than 6 million cast. But questions about the uncounted votes lingered.
"The new data, compiled by The Associated Press and seven other news organizations, also suggested that Gore followed a legal strategy after Election Day that would have led to defeat even if it had not been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites). Gore sought a recount of a relatively small portion of the state's disputed ballots while the review indicates his only chance lay in a course he advocated publicly but did not pursue in court - a full statewide recount of all Florida's untallied votes."
How much more conclusive do you want? I could have posted more.FEOS wrote:
Wow. Certainly a lot of "if" and "would" and "maybe" and "narrowest of margins" there. Pretty conclusive.
No, he's a nobhead.tahadar wrote:
what we need is fuckin' George Galloway as prime minister.
tit for tat? We arent talking about anything else but the stupid british parliament here.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Whereas Americans do?God Save the Queen wrote:
they dont vote for their head of state or government.
It just doesn't matter if the head of state has won the majority of the popular vote. Or even won the majority of electoral votes. If we are to judge anything from your 2000 election...
So I guess you don't vote for your head of state or government either.