It's really just wild speculation that couldn't possibly be of much value. I think the invasion of Iraq would have continued since that was a long time coming, the invasion of Afghanistan probably would have also happened and frankly, combating terrorists requires a more hawkish approach than I think Gore would have used.

Quote from: Fuddy-duddy on September 22, 2015, 08:15:42 PM

He fucking won the popular vote, but it didn't matter.

I know--some states are more populous than others. I really just don't care. If having a popular vote means that states like California would get more of a "say", so be it, if you ask me.

It's not really about that some states get more of a "say" - it's that the campaigning and addressing issues would be focused on the Top 10, maybe Top 15 most populated states and what they need, rather than the nation as a whole.

It already is to a good degree, and that's not a bad thing. There is absolutely no reason that the interests of a smaller group of people should be weighed evenly with the interests of a larger group of people.

"The abuse of power of the majority" is a horrid defense because all defending against that does is give opportunity for the dynamic to happen in reverse, where decisions are made in the interest of a smaller group of people.

My AmGov teacher loved to ask us why we would ever want to sacrifice the value of our vote and I could only tell her it's because I have the controversial belief that my opinion is no more valuable than someone in San Diego's.

Gore is autism personified. Switching out Bush for Gore would be to change from one type of fearmongering to another.