Ashcroft asked if Bush would support a new Assult weapons ban


March 4, 2003, 12:26 PM
Just saw it on TV, he stated that the administration supports the current law, however refused to answer if they would support a new law. Stated that the current law requires a study to be done, and they would look at the effectiveness of the ban.

Take it for what it's worth.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ashcroft asked if Bush would support a new Assult weapons ban" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
March 4, 2003, 12:28 PM
We're screwed. :cuss:

March 4, 2003, 12:30 PM
For the AG, that's a "do you still beat your mother" question. What else is he going to say?

March 4, 2003, 12:36 PM
Think about this carefully for a few moments!!

Suppose we get a new assault weapon ban that has so many exceptions ans so many legal "weasel words" that in practical terms it's meaningless?

Okay, that's even better than letting it sunset. Our friends in congress get "political cover" from the rantings of the antis. The bill means nothing, so we don't lose anything.

Whenever some anti starts ranting for an AWB, anmd THEY WILL as soon as the demoncraps get back into power, Our friends in congress can honestly say "We already HAVE an AWB, why pass another one?

Think politically folks. Then write to your congress critters and let them know what you want.

March 4, 2003, 12:42 PM
....and you better write fast, often and to many. GW never met a bill he wouldn't sign.

March 4, 2003, 01:28 PM
saxonpig, do you post at alloutdoorschat?

like pig said, if they did want to do something they won't do it till after the next elections

March 4, 2003, 01:37 PM
Stated that the current law requires a study to be done, and they would look at the effectiveness of the ban.

Read between the lines, boys...isn't this good news?

George Hill
March 4, 2003, 01:43 PM
Could be he is looking at weather or not the temporary ban needs to be ratified into permenant law. This could be the first step to letting the current and retarded ban sunset and fade away.

March 4, 2003, 01:47 PM
There has already been a DOJ study done on this issue. It found that the weapons in question were so rarely used to commit crimes prior to the ban that the law had no appreciable effect.

March 4, 2003, 01:51 PM
I don't know about all the political hog wash but Bush doesn't give us something back, i.e. repealing ASW ban or magazine limit ban, then what good is he? He is killing the economy and leading us into a war nobody but him wants. If he screws us on the RKBA, he is finished in my book. I would rather vote for Clinton then have someone like Bush in there. He needs to make a stand, he is either with us or against us. I took that from him.:p

March 4, 2003, 01:56 PM
I still think its going to expire. I bet its a page 50 story.

I have a hard time believing that the gun debate will be anywhere near:

1)The Economy

2)War on Terror

March 4, 2003, 01:57 PM
firestar:I would rather vote for Clinton then have someone like Bush in there. Then YOU are finished in MY book. :fire:

March 4, 2003, 01:58 PM
yep that study really needs to be done:

On a page of the Handgun Control, Inc (HCI) web site, on October 19, 1997, there was a copy of an HCI press release headlined "ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN IS WORKING, ACCORDING TO STUDY FOR JUSTICE DEPT."_ In the second paragraph, it said the HCI President said, that the Urban Institute report to the U.S. Dept of Justice (USDOJ) "provides important new evidence that the assault weapons ban is working as intended._ The findings suggest that in the coming years, as the ban remains in effect, we will continue to see a reduction in the use of assault weapons to commit crimes, fewer and fewer law enforcement officers being killed with these weapons of war, and a greater reduction in the total number of gun murders."


The HCI press release was embargoed for release until 5pm eastern time on Mar 25, 1997--the same as the USDOJ press release on the same report (available at their web site)._ This means your country's government is coordinating with gun control organizations!_ Collusion like this between the gun controllers and the U.S. government helps to convince America's 50 million gun owners that they can't trust their government and gun control organizations, and believe what they both say.

March 4, 2003, 02:04 PM
I would rather vote for Clinton then have someone like Bush in there.


March 4, 2003, 02:15 PM
"We will have to see if the Dems try to make the law worse and then ram it down Bush's throat..."

Uhhh... it was my understanding that the Republicans have control of both houses of Congress AND the Presidency. I don't think we can blame any action, or lack of action on "the Dems." Whatever is done regarding the AWB, it rests SOLELY on the heads of the Repubs!

I'm all for 'Dems' and 'Liberals' bashing, but I'm not blind to the facts at hand. The Democrats don't have enough REAL power to affect the outcome of the AWB one way or another. The burden of power is on the shoulders of the Republicans, and if they fail to do right by the Constitution, their ousting in the next election should be no surprise to anyone.

High time we get some Libertarian-thinking folks in office (if not by name, by ideology.)

March 4, 2003, 02:32 PM
j.wise -

The numbers are so close between party lines that we're still in trouble. There are more Republicans that will vote anti-gun than there are Democrats that will vote pro-gun (I think). Not to mention the fact that not all of the representatives vote on any given bill. The vote will go to whichever side makes the most noise. Unfortunately for us, that side is usually the anti side because whining is heard much clearer than reason.

I agree that we need more Libertarian-minded people in office.

March 4, 2003, 02:49 PM
I would be amazed if the current law, or another one, is not continued. I think even if they did let it pass, it has and will become a state by state fight. Some states, as I understand, are already a dead issue regardless of the federal law.

I have many non shooting friends who believe that it's "okay" to own and shoot guns, i.e. target and hunting. Less believe, still a fair amount, in the right to carry, but when the conversation turns to "assault" weapons, high cap mags, the conversation turns quickly. No-one believes they are okay- period! Emotion, not facts, seemed to be tied to this one- not good!

Tough one to defend when facts are not considered.

As always, I could be wrong!

March 4, 2003, 02:50 PM
Read my post.

What I'm saying is, if he doesn't help us out, what is the point of having a Republican in office? We have a Republican Congress and a Republican President and we are still going to get screwed!:banghead:

Maybe I'm over reacting but I don't see anything getting better. I don't see Bush reducing the gun control laws or repealing any gun bans. Maybe if he gets elected to a second term but not now.

I'm thinking that Libertarian is looking better all the time.:eek:

March 4, 2003, 03:03 PM
Guys, Bush was in front of the gun (you could say )when Ashcroft asked the about the Assult weapons ban.

All Bush did was a little side step and he did not give a real answer!!:banghead:

The Last thing Bush needs right now is more BS. :uhoh:

March 4, 2003, 03:03 PM
...and leading us into a war nobody but him wants

A war nobody wants but him?

Well, him and me (and roughly another 175 million Americans, according to those liberally biased polls on CNN)

March 4, 2003, 03:45 PM
What concerns me is going to be the tacit approval of a law that has been on the books for the past 10 years and has had no (in their eyes) perceptable impact. To the Repubs concerned about ticking off their fence sitting constituents, this will be an easy pass-through. After all, we've been living with it for 10 years and even though it's shown no benefit, neither has it shown detriment. It's a neutral position to strike and strike it they shall, due only to the appeasement factor.

March 4, 2003, 03:58 PM
He is killing the economy

Interesting. Its commonly accepted economic principal that it takes about 8 years for economic manipulation to have a large scale impact. That makes it fairly clear that Clinton is responsible for the current state of affairs.

and leading us into a war nobody but him wants.

Yeah, just him and 5,990,000,000 of the other inhabitants of the world. Its amazing how much noise 10 million people can make and how quiet 5.9 billion people can be.

March 4, 2003, 04:02 PM
I'd bet "a barrel of gold against a bucket of pigs***" -- as James Clavell said in Shogun -- that the ban will be renewed.


March 4, 2003, 04:10 PM
On a page of the Handgun Control, Inc (HCI) web site, on October 19, 1997, there was a copy of an HCI press release headlined "ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN IS WORKING, ACCORDING TO STUDY FOR JUSTICE DEPT."

And WHO was President in 1997?...:barf:

Bush won't have to do anything. He can stay above it while Congress makes sure that any debate on a AWB dies in committee. Besides, since 1993, many politicians have found that voting for anti-gun measures costs them political careers. I'm sure a few Demon-rats in "safe" districts will make a stink, but the majority of them will sit quiet.

I truly doubt the AWB will exist after '04....:evil:

March 4, 2003, 04:11 PM
I'd bet "a barrel of gold against a bucket of pigs***" -- as James Clavell said in Shogun -- that the ban will be renewed.

I agree.

To the rest of you, I guess I should shut up and toe the party line right?:rolleyes: Whatever. I guess it wouldn't be much of a forum if we all agreed with each other.

Blackhawk, what do you mean that I am finished?:what: Don't tell me that you are not going to vote for me in the next election.:(

I sticking to gun only topics from now on!

Ed N.
March 4, 2003, 04:18 PM
IIRC, the ban will sunset in September. I think you can bet Congress won't touch it so close to an election. What I expect will happen is that the ban will indeed sunset, but then a new ban will be put in place by the incoming Congress sometime in the spring of 2005. We'll end up with about a six month window with no ban, and there will be a buying frenzy like you've never seen. This buying frenzy will itself provide the political leverage for the new ban.

March 4, 2003, 04:20 PM
firestar:Blackhawk, what do you mean that I am finished?If you would vote for Clinton to hold a representative political office under any circumstances, you are, as I said, finished in MY book just like you said about Bush:If he screws us on the RKBA, he is finished in my book.I sticking to gun only topics from now on!That's a good idea. You do that. :rolleyes:

March 4, 2003, 04:22 PM
And WHO was President in 1997?...
Uh-huh... and who, just to refresh everyone's memory, was president when the ban was voted in, and didn't veto it?


March 4, 2003, 04:23 PM left one out, firestar;

AND Bush is leaving our borders wide open!

Country Boy
March 4, 2003, 04:36 PM
I think Mr. Ashcroft handled the situation well. We know he is pro-gun, we need to let him sidestep occasionally so he can do his job. If he had answered a flat out "we support more gun control", it would have been all over the latest NRA publications, and all the gun owners would be proclaiming the end of the world as we know it. If he had answered a flat out "the assault weapons ban is stupid", the Chuck Shumers and Diane Feinsteins of Congress would have another rallying point, and a way to get their face some more free TV publicity.

You know what, if I had a choice between the current AW ban, or a new AW ban, I would voice my support for the current one. You know why? CAUSE IT'S GONNA SUNSET if we leave it as is! BTW, have we thanked our Congress critters for putting that little clause in there?

Imagine that somebody who you really don't like invites you over for dinner. You could say yes and do something you don't want to do. You could say no and get them really irked. Or you could grin and say "Shucks, I'm busy tonight, but maybe later", with no intention of ever dining under the same roof. Johnny A. ain't dumb.

Maybe I'm just optomistic, but perhaps our President can say he supports the current ban because a) it sunsets, b) the Republican congress would have to pass it before it came to his desk.

"Yeah sure, I'll sign it IF it gets to my desk." *wink, wink*

People can say all they want beforehand. I'll make my judgements on what our President actually does.

March 4, 2003, 04:55 PM
Its interesting to hear some of the Chicken Littles here talk about the dems taking control of congress and senate next session as a foregone conclusion. Oh well, I used to harass the liberals on MM before it was shut down, I guess turnabout is fair play.

If anything, the tide is still turning our way. Geez, according to the SF Chronicle, 51% of those in my state, CALIFORNIA, support President Bush. In reality, since SF is the center of the world in the Chronicle's tiny little "brain", they probably only surveyed local residents: that means that the majority of San Franciscan's support the President.

I think President Bush is doing an outstanding job. In my opinion, anyone who thinks Clinton's dismantling of the intelligence community "brick by brick, nail by nail" isn't responsible for the current threat of terrorism; or Clinton's cocaine induced social/economic "policy" isn't responsible for the current recession; or who thinks the vast majority of Americans aren't squarely behind President Bush and his spectacular performance cleaning up the mess that our fine nation was left in after eight years of neglect; or who thinks Clinton is a better choice than President Bush, has their head firmly planted in their bowels

The AW ban will sunset in 2004. That's how's the law is written. Only question is, will another bill to REPLACE it be presented to President Bush for signature. Not likely this session as the good guys run both the house and senate. So, why on earth would President Bush take more hits from the press by commenting on it. If a new bill doesn't pass his desk, its a NON ISSUE. Press and liberals love calling the President stupid. Yeah, he's stupid, like a fox.

Down the road, will another attempt at an AW ban be made? Probably. And passing it then will be a much bigger hill to climb, with more significant political fallout for those who support it.

Don't like the NRA? Fine. Become a member anyways so they have the resources to keep fighting these idiotic laws; in the final analysis, they're the best friend we have in DC.

Med 10
March 4, 2003, 05:01 PM
Bainx is right.

I heard that roughly 18,000 illegal Mexicans cross into this country every month and easily blend into American society.

I wonder how many of those are terrorists just waiting for the word. :eek:

March 4, 2003, 05:02 PM
AND Bush is leaving our borders wide open! You sure about that high-speed? Have you even bothered to see what is being done? :rolleyes:

March 4, 2003, 05:03 PM
Sometimes we have to make decisions based on individual topics not just party lines. The Democrates have some good ideas and the Republicans have some good ideas but niether is perfect.

If you blindly accept everything that your party tells you, you are not really thinking, you are just brainwashed. The Nazis had good loyal followers like you that never questioned their leaders.:neener:

March 4, 2003, 05:09 PM
As the old saying goes, Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Assault Weapons Ban and Magazine Limits Have Got To Go.

Strikes me that nothing more needs be said.

March 4, 2003, 05:17 PM
If you blindly accept everything that your party tells you, you are not really thinking, you are just brainwashed. The Nazis had good loyal followers like you that never questioned their leaders

Sure sounds like a John McCain supporter here, eh? :rolleyes:

March 4, 2003, 05:51 PM
the thing about those "studies" that HCI does is that they look at a .00002% drop in crime as a major victory and justification for gun control.

if congress passed a law stating that everyone must own a gun or go to prison and crime dropped to almost nothing HCI would still be saying that we need to get rid of all the guns because of rampant gun crime.

March 4, 2003, 06:26 PM
But the study to determine the impact the current AWB has had in reducing crime will be done by professional statisticians.

Crime with "assault weapon" style firearms was basically non-existent when the law went into effect. Does anyone really expect to see an improvement in something which is non-existent? No improvement means no renewal. THAT is why the sunset clause was written.

Significant improvement to a professional statisitician is NOT measured in micro-percents. They are going to have to see a change of around 10% before they can infer any difference in the final values is due to anything other than pure random chance.

March 4, 2003, 06:48 PM
Blackhawk's a little verbose, but a blind follower he ain't.

March 4, 2003, 07:00 PM
The problem with the "Assault Weapons Ban" is its title. The sheeple will never allow a law to sunset that prohibits such evil devices as assault weapons. I mean, who in their right mind would need one of THOSE?

Now, if it was called the "Ban of weapons containing cosmetic features" I think the thing would sunset. Unfortunately for us, most people who have influence on things like this don't know about and don't care about the details.

March 4, 2003, 07:48 PM
Sometimes we have to make decisions based on individual topics not just party lines. The Democrates have some good ideas and the Republicans have some good ideas but niether is perfect.

If you blindly accept everything that your party tells you, you are not really thinking, you are just brainwashed. The Nazis had good loyal followers like you that never questioned their leaders.Guess you never learned to read, firestar. Now you're calling me a Nazi. :fire:

Go back and review my posts to you on this thread. I'm grousing about your support of Clinton. Whether or not the republic is going to survive his presidency and treason is still in doubt.

No Republican or Democrat is my leader, nor is any political party.

I will wait for your apology, but not long.

March 4, 2003, 08:40 PM
The Nazis had good loyal followers like you that never questioned their leaders.


Starfire that is just wrong! :fire:


March 4, 2003, 09:56 PM
Can we keep the wailing and gnashing of teeth to a minimum?

Let's stop harrassing each other and concentrate on the one sure strategy to defeat the renewal of this odious legislation:

Convey your concern to your federal representative.

This much is without dispute...that the House as it was constituted at the end of last century was overwhelmingly committed to overturning the "ban".

Unfortunately, the nation's First Sociopath prevailed with the "moderates" in the House of Lords and we are still burdened with the wet-dream of the sociofascist gun-banners.

Fortunately, the House of Commons is more inclined to the actual interpretation of the Constitution than it was one or two election cycles ago. This is a very good thing!

There is no reason to trust President Bush to veto this nonsense if Congress renews, despite the clear positives for the Second Amendment that his administration has produced.

The bottom line:

If the renewal fails in the House of Commons, IT CANNOT POSSIBLY MAKE IT TO THE PRESIDENT'S DESK!!!

Stop whining, dammit, and make sure your representative will not waffle...anything other than a 'no' vote is absolutely unacceptable. Get off your butt and work to ensure that your fed.rep will vote to kill this cancer on the Constitution.

Now, I could be mistaken in import or strategy...but I'll bet that I've pegged it. If not, let's hear it...

March 4, 2003, 09:57 PM


Standing Wolf
March 4, 2003, 10:04 PM
Freedoms forsaken are almost never recovered.

March 4, 2003, 10:05 PM
I am expecting Ashcroft to come out of hole soon. Ashcroft has the ability to rip NJ and CA gun laws to pieces. I hope he does it.

March 4, 2003, 11:25 PM

You noted, "I am expecting Ashcroft to come out of hole soon. Ashcroft has the ability to rip NJ and CA gun laws to pieces. I hope he does it."

In-so-far as Ashcroft having the power, as you claim, perhaps so, however personally speaking, I do not trust the man. Yes, I know he is the only Attorney General there is, as of the moment, I still don't really trust him on this. No, I cannot offhand suggest anyone who would be better, and in any event Bush is President and Ashcroft is the AG.

I hope the passage of time proves me wrong, but unless one looks very good in blue, I would not advise holding my breath, while waiting for Ashcroft to rip any gun laws to pieces.

I agree on the absolute necessity of keeping up whatever pressure we can exert on members of The House and Senate too, for if we don't, the sun will certainly never set.

Standing Wolf
March 4, 2003, 11:36 PM
...and leading us into a war nobody but him wants.

World War III was started by Islamic terrorist savages, not the United States. We didn't want it. We didn't go looking for it. We didn't cause it. We didn't start it—but I sincerely hope we win it.

March 4, 2003, 11:47 PM
Boy, it got a little hot on this thread :rolleyes:

I'll just stick to the subject if I can.

I'd be willing to bet that a modified AWB will be put in place to throw a bone to the anti's and return a little more freedom to the pro's.

It's kinda like returning our nation to a purely Constitutional republic . . . it would be anarchy, we're not ready to handle it.

I think it would be the same, albeit politically, if GW's Administration (already under liberal fire as trying to melt the polar ice caps, trying to log all the forests down to dirt, trying to drill for oil in nursing homes, etc.) actually attempted to enforce the 2nd Amendment to its fullest extent.

I look at it this way, I'll take what I can get and prepare to fight for the rest.

March 5, 2003, 12:02 AM
whilst the gunnies natter,
the Bradyites are organizing AWBs at the state level in Maryland and Illinois

ya don't think these common sense gun laws will be held up to congress as a mandate if they pass, do ya?

me thinks the parties already started

In Maryland Diane Feinsteins chief council has been elected a State delegate
He has sponsored the House bill in MD to ban the transfer of "AWs"

its clobbering time!

March 5, 2003, 12:23 AM
We here in Kali got our own AWB; we don't need yours. Hope yours sunsets.

March 5, 2003, 01:34 AM
The Assault Weapon Ban will sunset. Why? Because the Republicans know they have too much to lose if they pass it, even the democrats nationally backed off their vocal support for gun control. Both sides want to win desperately this next election and therefore they are courting every vote - gun owners have more single issue voters than gun controllers.

Bush has stated consistantly, during and since his election, that he would sign a new ban, but he has also consistantly stated he will not ask congress to send it too him. This is also consistant with Ashcroft's statement. Both are code for - we will make sure that it never leaves committee or sees the light of day, so there will be no embarrassing floor votes for house and senate members and so the President will not have to sign or veto it.

I really can't see it being renewed - so long as we do our part and remind them that we care enough to vote, and will not vote for anyone who supports it. Smart politics says it dies in committee.

March 5, 2003, 02:13 AM
I'm thinking that Libertarian is looking better all the time

This is exactly why were losing!!!!!!
I know of 12 fellow gun shooting buddies who voted third party here in the ********** election. Hey I'm all for third party candidates but we know they will not win, at least not at this time.

March 5, 2003, 03:28 AM
This is exactly why were losing!!!!!!
I know of 12 fellow gun shooting buddies who voted third party here in the ********** election. Hey I'm all for third party candidates but we know they will not win, at least not at this time.
No, we're losing because too many folks think like that. The reason that third party candidates will not win is because too many believe that third party candidates won't(or can't)win. Vote for the candidate you agree with, not the one you think will win.

March 5, 2003, 11:04 AM
I don’t know Blackhawk other than from his posts on this board and TFL but attributing Nazi like tendencies to a man that risked his life for our country is deplorable. I know you didn’t mean it that way, but that is the way you came across. I think you owe him an apology.

March 5, 2003, 01:14 PM
Gotta diasgree with you to a certain extent, Triad. I agree that one must vote in a manner consistant with their beliefs, but more importantly I think one has to vote in a manner that will provide the most benefit to the community (vote for the benefit of the team over the individual).

Baby steps.

In the last CA governor's election, I didn't want to vote for Simon, he's a moron, but he's not dangerous as Davis has proven to be. Did the Libertarian candidate have a chance? Not at this time.

So I voted in a manner that I though would provide the most benefit: vote for the conservative canditate who, while not the best choice, was the only one who had a realistic chance of winning. Had other conservatives done as I, the election would have been too close to call.

Now we get to recall Davis and do the dance all over again. :barf:

March 5, 2003, 04:15 PM
The problem is not with people voting for 3rd party candidates. In my voting theory class at school, we found that depending on the way votes are counted any outcome in an election with multiple candidates is possible.

To sum up the class, we found that the current way the votes are counted in this country is only one step up from random selection for actually getting what the majority of voters want. (it turns out that the best way to do it is borda count which would make a lengthy post to describe).

ANYWAY... as long as votes are counted as they are now, you are pretty much left to voting for the candidate that is most likely to win who has the most number of beliefs in line with you.

Example. At my school, there were a number of idiots who liked Nadar. They liked Nadar more than Gore, but would have preferred Gore to Bush. Had they voted for Gore, Gore would have won. But since they voted for Nadar, Gore didn’t get the number of votes he needed to beat Bush. Therefore, Bush (who the majority disliked and did not want) won. It was the same thing with McCain. The voting system in this country is ridiculous and needs to be overhauled.

…screw it, I am going to leave a long post anyway. Here is how borda works.

Let’s say that in the national election there were four candidates:


The way you would vote is you pick your first choice, second choice and third choice, with your fourth being the one you didn’t pick. So a filled out ballot could look like the following:

Bush - 3
Gore - 2
McCain - 1
Nadar - 4

This means that this particular voter would like to have McCain as president, if that is not possible, it goes with the second choice, ie Gore. if Gore is not possible, then it goes down, and so on. It’s a really easy program to write to tabulate votes and you end up with a president who the majority of the country wants. Truth be told, if votes were tabulated in this sense (and I don’t want to get flamed because of it) Gore would have won the last election, cause the ‘tards that voted for Nadar would have had Gore before Bush on their list. (thus boosting Gore’s percentage by an extra 17% winning him the election by a lot, not the borderline loss it was)

My point is that people in this country are never going to get what the majority of people (this is supposed to be a democracy, remember) want until we count our votes in an intelligent fashion. What is to be done? I sure as hell don’t know, but then again I’m already considering moving to another country. I don’t have any faith in our president to uphold our rights, in fact, so far he seems to be intent on taking them away. (starting with Muslims and Arabs)


I am most in line with libertarians with my political beliefs (ie, I don’t care what you do as long as it doesn’t hurt me) so I don’t want to hear any Democrap stuff because I don’t hold any more love for them than I do hard line Republicans because neither have my personal interests at heart.

Matthew Courtney
March 5, 2003, 04:22 PM
America is not supposed to be a democracy. It is supposed tp be a republic. Liberals who try to turn it into what it was never meant to be are ruining the United States.

March 5, 2003, 04:31 PM
crap, my mistake.

Doesn't change the major point tho, its all about electing the representitives that the majority of the people want.

Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]


Matthew Courtney
March 5, 2003, 04:39 PM
Representatives are elected by the majority of the people. Only the President and V.P. are not. That was done deliberately to prevent urban areas from dominating national politics. The founding fathers wanted less populous states to have power disproportionate to their populations, hence the Senate and the Electoral College.

Anyone who complains about what happened in 2000 because of Nader needs to complain about what happened in 1992 because of Perot.

March 5, 2003, 04:45 PM
What happened with Perot is in line with this argument. The peoples votes *within* states are not being counted in a fashion that leads to the majority of the state getting what they want and therefore the majority of the people getting what they want.


Matthew Courtney
March 5, 2003, 04:48 PM
The majority of the people do not even bother to vote. How do you plan to adjust for that?

March 5, 2003, 04:52 PM
When in a conversation about voting, you have to assume that it only accounts for those who are voting. People who do not vote are not represented in ANY kind of voting situation. Whether through the system we have now, or with borda. If you dont say anything, you will not be heard.


Matthew Courtney
March 5, 2003, 04:58 PM
There are those who would argue that those not voting do not like any of the candidates and are voicing their dislike by abstaining. If a majority dislikes all of the candidates, perhaps the office should remain open until a candidate emerges who can garner the support of a true majority, that is a majority of eligible voters.

March 5, 2003, 05:10 PM
There are very few if any cases where it is so clear cut. There should always be a cantidate who in your opinion is "better" than another or at least "not as bad". The lesser of two evils. To my knowledge, no government in the world counts non-voters. By being a non voter, you are not making a political statement, you are simply not voicing your opinion. There would be no way to count the votes of non voters and hold open a post because there is no definite count of the number of people in the country, let alone the number of people who can vote but don't. Also, people don't vote for different reasons. While one person might not vote to make a political statement, another might do the same just because they are too lazy to walk down to the polling station or for any number of reasons.

I'm not saying borda is perfect, but its better than what we have.

Maybe a write-in section?


Malone LaVeigh
March 5, 2003, 05:18 PM
I'm bookmarking this thread for the next time anyone uses the term "political correctness."

Matthew Courtney
March 5, 2003, 05:23 PM
We need to make adjustments for the minority's 2nd and third choices, but not for the fact that the majority didn't vote.:rolleyes:

19 members of the Turkish parliament made a huge political statement by not voting on whether or not to allow US troops to use Turkish soil to attack Iraq. Turkish law required a majority of eligible members of parliament to pass the measure. As the measure merely recieved a majority of voting members, it failed.

Borda can be tried by any state that wants to experiment. If you are suggesting that the Feds usurp state's power regarding election procedures, well, that's a whole different arguement.

Some states currently distribute their electoral votes in a manner proportional to the number of votes each presidential candidate recieves. A state can do whatever it wants with its electoral votes as long as the procedure it uses is established by law prior to the general election. This is how it should be.

March 5, 2003, 05:44 PM
I'm sorry, but I fail to see the connection between members of turkish parliment not voting on whether to allow US troops to use Turkish soil to attack Iraq and a different and more fair way of tabulating the votes for multiple cantidates in a national election.

The turkish example you gave refers to people already in power voting yes or no on a referendum on whether to allow the US to use their land to attack a neighbor. I assume that in turkey, they know how many eligable members of parliment there are. The US govt, for better or for worse, does not know how many eligable voters there are in the United States and therefore cannot make any decisions based on the activities of non-voters.

All borda does is give you the option that if you can't get your first choice, then you have a second choice (and third and fourth and so on, depending on the number of cantidates).

It does not usurp state power to tabulate votes, change the electoral college or anything other than what I just said above. It would be a decision made at the state level by every state that wants what is best for the voting people in it.


March 5, 2003, 05:46 PM
Re voting, and what happens with non-voters, obviously, re these people, they have rendered themselves inaudible.

As to what one might do when faced with the following situation, none of the candidates on the ballot are acceptable, individuals might consider writing in names of those who moight be, or trying the following, again as a write-in NONE OF THE ABOVE. Such action might prove interesting.

Matthew Courtney
March 5, 2003, 05:54 PM
What typical elitist drivel.

You said no government counts non-voters, I was merely correcting your ignorance.

The U.S. government may not know how many eligible voters there are, but it is possible to find out. By the way, it is the state governments who would need to know. Your Freudian slip reveals that you do want the feds to ursurp states control of voting processes.

Not that I think Borda is a bad idea. It might actually save money in the long run by preventing run-offs. There is an aspect I do not like and that is public debate during the run-off process would be eliminated in all other elections.

March 5, 2003, 06:24 PM
One, I meant in the above paragraph (of that post), not the statements in the same sentence (all one line on my machine anyway). It was by no means a Freudian slip as the Random House definition of a Freudian slip is "An inadvertent mistake in speech or writing that is thought to reveal a person's unconscious motives, wishes, or attitudes." My motives, wishes and attitudes are NOT to strip states of their power or change the Electoral College.

Also, let me clarify my previous statement (and by that I mean "To my knowledge, no government in the world counts non-voters" of my post at 5:44pm on March 5th, 2003)

To my knowledge, no government in the world counts the votes of non-voters in elections for the president, executive branch, Grand High Hoopah, or whatever leader. The “votes of non-voters” is hereby defined as persons who are eligible to vote and choose not to, to make a political statement.

Two, if the govt. is going to go through all the trouble of going through each states voting records, and following up on each and every one to get an accurate count of the number of non-voters. With the money and time they would be expending on that, why not also check up on every gun owner and make a list of them (us) just in case. Then they would need to have special polling stations for non-voters to find out why they didn’t vote. But then the people who didn’t vote out of laziness or for another reason wouldn’t go there either. Or maybe not, because they wanted to make a political statement by not voting *and* not telling anyone why. (ooh, that ought to show them)

Three, borda would not outlaw public debate between candidates, which for run offs are usually for candidates within the same party. But what about people who chose to define themselves in a party other than democrat or republican. There is the libertarian party, the green party, and many others, All of which can come down to their one candidate, but that still means there any number of candidates in the final election. Thus, borda would be best.

Four, can the name calling, lets all pretend we are grownups.

Five, at this point, I am going to assume that this is either a troll, or you are a Nadar supporter who I might have offended by referring to as a '**** or an idiot. If that is the case, then your argument is with that statement, not about whether borda is better than the current vote tabulation system.


I am unemployed, I have all week to argue.

March 5, 2003, 06:34 PM
And yes I did realize that I called the Nadar people '***** and that is name calling...


Matthew Courtney
March 5, 2003, 06:36 PM
I am neither a troll or a Nader supporter and I did no namecalling.

Turkey does counts the abstentions as votes against when they elect a Prime Minister.

Borda would not outlaw debate, just eliminate the time period during which such debate currently takes place. Kind of like letting us keep our guns but banning ammunition.:uhoh:

In Louisiana, the only election with more than two people in the runoff is the presidential election. In all other elections, the two top vote getters from the primary face each other in a runoff.

March 5, 2003, 07:12 PM
"typical elitist drivel" - Implying that I am a an elitist spouting drivel typical for an elitist.

Turkey counts the abstentions of votes by the people (ie, the common people, not in the government system) as votes?

If they (the Turkish govt. or whoever is in control of their voting procedures) know how many eligible voters they have for every election and make decisions for people abstaining from voting, then I stand corrected. However, if you are still arguing about their elected (or appointed) members of parliament’s votes and non-votes, then my point still stands. Their parliment is a finite set of easily counted people. The US population is not.

To count each and every eligible voter for each and every presidential election in this country would mean parsing through 240 million people (this stat is old, not sure how many people are in the US now) would be such a strain on resources that I doubt we could afford more than one or two elections let alone every four years. The US census only does this every 10 years and they don’t count person by person, they count household by household.

You made the point that "In Louisiana, the only election with more than two people in the runoff is the presidential election."
So therefore, you would use borda in this final case, to decide the president. Every party has already picked their candidate through runoffs and debates, but the problem is that there are more than two final candidates. The only way that I can see choosing a final candidate for president would be borda count. You can't do runoffs between different parties because there are too many people who do not define themselves by party lines.

Regardless, people abstaining from voting do not get counted in our current system nor would they in borda. Personally, I find it to be a moot point because you cannot leave the presidential position open for a number of years until a suitable candidate comes along.


Matthew Courtney
March 5, 2003, 07:25 PM
You still do not get it.

The President is not supposed to be elected by a majority of the people.

The President never was supposed to be elected by a majority of the people.

You are proposing to solve a problem which has never existed.

The problem has never existed because the men at the Constitutional Convention had the wisdom and foresight to create the Electoral College.

The prospect of "majority rule" scared the heck out of the Founding Fathers and continues to scare the heck out of any thinking man today.

March 5, 2003, 08:03 PM
I get what you are saying, I must not be explaining myself correctly.

In a state, lets say Montana, there are 12 candidates for president. 3 democrats, 3 republicans, 3 green party, 3 libertarians. the three democrats go through run offs and debates within the democratic party (in whatever fashion they want, because it is their party) until the democrats have one candidate that they promote. The republicans, green party, and libertarians all do the same, so you are now left with 4 candidates, 1 democrat, 1 republican, 1 green party, and one libertarian.

There is no way to break these four down in further run offs because it would be too random to define (you couldn’t have libertarians go up against the republicans, because it would not be a fair vote, the libertarians would be crushed.

So, you run these four final candidates in a borda count. every eligible voter gets to chose who their first choice is, their second, their third, and their fourth. If you dont like a candidate, you put them last on your list. If you like one, you put them first. Its easy and fair.

These votes pick who the state goes for, and then the Electoral College and all that happens yadda yadda.

It does not mess up the process, the president is still not elected by the popular vote and it is not mob rule (democracy).

If this is what your objection is to, then I absolutely do not believe your argument or understand why you support it.
If I was being unclear, then I apologize.

This is a problem that has existed, at least twice in my life. One in '92, and again in 2000. This is not about the popular vote.


March 5, 2003, 08:31 PM
Proportional voting is for niche market losers.:barf: ;)

Matthew Courtney
March 5, 2003, 08:41 PM
Your percieved "problem" makes a huge assumption. The assumption being that if Perot had not run in 1992 the Perot voters would have voted(or that if Nader had not run in 2000, the Nader voters would have voted). People tend to only inform themselves about a couple of issues or candidates, not all the issues or all the candidates. Few people would be making informed decisions regarding their 9 and 10th choices.

Make no mistake, Borda would result in a big increase in the number of names on the presidential ballot. Every special interest group would run its own candidate, hoping to get its constituency to the poles, and,thus, hoping to increase the final talley for the major party with which it more closely agrees.

Hypothetically 2004 with nationwide Borda:

RKBA party - Tom Selleck
Christian Coalition Party - Pat Robertson
KKK party - David Duke
Republican - GW Bush
Big Business Party - Steve Forbes
Drug Companies and MD Party - Robert Allen
Conservative Party - JC Watts
Gun Control Party - Sarah Brady
NAACP Party- Julian Bond
Rainbow Coalition - Jesse Jackson
Democratic Party - John Kerry
Black Panther Party - John Malvo
NOW party - Gloria Steinem
ACLU Party - Donna Lieberman

The Dems and Reps would actually try to get their respective sympathic parties on the ballot in hopes that RKBA party voters would put Bush above Kerry or Rainbow Coalition party voters would put Kerry above Bush, etc. We would be condemning ourselves to choices made by people who knew little about Bush or Kerry because their #1 candidate was David Duke or Jesse Jackson; or to choices made by the House of Representatives when no candidate wins a majority in the Electoral College.

March 5, 2003, 09:32 PM
Valid point, every special interest group under the sun would be pushing a candidate.

Thing is tho, that they would remain special interest groups, never gaining a huge percentage of the votes. I would much prefer to have too many choices than to have to choose between the lesser of two evils all the time.

When competing in a much larger group, candidates would have to work harder to gain votes, not being able to rest on their laurels (or the laurels of their predecessors). This would lead to stronger candidates thus benefiting our nation.

However, as you said, most voters are uninformed. The borda count could either lead to more informed voters, or, like at my school, lead to people not caring about the 9th and 10th choices. That far down the totem pole, I don’t think it would matter who would be picked because that voter is obviously out of touch with the political motives of mostly everyone else in the country. Their vote is still taken, but it doesn't really count (in as far that anyone's vote for the losing candidate didn’t count).

My assumption is just that, an assumption. However, Nadar's beliefs were much more in line with Gore's than Bush's so logically those that voted for Nadar would have voted for Gore. But you can't say for sure because it is impossible to change the past and find out. However, in a borda count, Nadar's supporters would have had the chance to cast a vote for Bush or Gore, giving them some say in the election.


Matthew Courtney
March 5, 2003, 09:44 PM
In a close race, "other" party candidates would only need to carry 1 or 2 states or win a few electors in states that select them proportionally to cause the decision to devolve upon the House of Representatives. Instead on bringing the decision closer to the people, we would have removed it farther from them.

March 5, 2003, 10:10 PM
I already know that you dont like the idea of the majority voting in the president, but you just made part of the argument against the Electoral College.

I would like to add that if you think that majority control was against the wishes of our forefathers, so was the two party system that you seem to be supporting (the Federalist papers by Alexander Hamilton and James Madsion). Our current system is against what they wanted, so I guess it all comes down to whose side you choose.


I haven't had a discussion like this since political science classes, only then it was with hippies... I need a nap.

March 5, 2003, 10:51 PM
guys ! guys! the ban *sunsets*! the study already done shows the ban has negligable effect. If the brady bunch don't like that, well another study could take...years... and remember the ban sunsets. LET IT GO. don't play with it and for Heaven's sakes don't try to force somebody to repeal it. just LET IT GO.

I'd bet that what President Bush and company are hoping for is that the demoncrats will make 'gun control' a major issue in the 2004 elections. Between that and the stands on abortion of the current house and senate minority leaders it'll be almost as good as having billy jeff campaign for every demoncrat in every state!

March 5, 2003, 10:55 PM
oh, and I personally think minority parties are a waste. My only hope is that the greens cause more waste on the left than the libertarians do on the right.

March 5, 2003, 11:10 PM
oh yeah, thats what this thread was about. :P yay! go sunset.


March 6, 2003, 12:13 AM

While anyone can open a discussion of most anything they are interested in, if they want to depart from the subject of a discussion, already in progress, they should open a new one, one that deals with whatever their concerns or interests might be. If I recall correctly, this one was related to the assault weapons ban. Comments and theorizing about the results of a different method of vote counting, while interesting, seem somewhat far afield.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ashcroft asked if Bush would support a new Assult weapons ban" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!