Since I never claimed that the corporate-dominated US electoral system was ever legitimate, just important, what's your point?
I was not betting on a legitimate outcome but just on who would win. Hell, if legitimacy was the criterion, I would have had to bet on Nader, since in a really legitimate system of elections and primaries, neither Gore or Bush would have even been the nominees.
When one bets on a ball game, you can't refuse to pay up because the referrees were blind or partisan. So why should betting on elections be any different?
-- Nathan Newman
----- Original Message ----- From: "Max Sawicky" <sawicky at epinet.org> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 12:00 PM Subject: RE: Pay up Seth!
So you invoke the authority of a process you know to be illegitimate for sake of winning your contest?
And your complaint about Bush was what?
mbs
. . . So I think we will have to stick with the results of the electoral college as certified by the one vote margin in the Supreme Court. So pay up Seth!
-- Nathan