[calex59]

You have a reading-comprehension problem to go with your potty-mouth. A plurality is not a majority.

You are the one with a reading comprehension problem. If you win more votes than the other guy, you have won what is condidered a majority. In the case of CA's stupid bill that would give the electoral college to the winner of the popular vote, winning the most votes would be considered a majority. It doesn't say it has to be 50.1 percent or above, it says the majority of the popular vote. So if Gore received 48 % and Bush 47 %(which is close enough for government work) then Gore would have received the electoral college votes. Learn to read yourself it saves looking like a dumbass when you comment.

BTW, potty mouth? What, are you in the 6th grade or something?

[BlueMondaySkipper]

My, My, My. You're pretty arrogant aren't you. Why don't you put a bar of soap in your fat mouth and open a dictionary.

I don't know what the exact wording of California's measure is, but there is a huge legal difference between receiving the "majority" of the popular vote versus a "plurality" versus being the winner of the popular vote.

You are exactly wrong in your assertion. If the law says "majority", then it only applies if someone gets more than half of the total votes cast. If it say "plurality" than it only applies if that person gets more than their opponents, but less than half of the total votes cast. If it says " the popular vote winner", it would apply to whoever got the most votes.

Learn the difference.

While you're at it, try to grasp the concept that calling people names is not a substitute for a logical argument.

[bruinbirdman]

"If you win more votes than the other guy, you have won what is condidered a majority."

If you win more votes than the rest of the candidates (plural, there were more than two candidates in the race) but less than 50% you have won a "plurality".

no yitbos