[neilep (OP)]

Happy Voting American Chums.

Hope the machines work and the person with the most votes get's in this time !!!...actually, perhaps someone could explain that to me...how the person with the LEAST votes wins ?

Cheers and why not turn your voting moment into a picnic, take some sandwiches and a nice cup of tea.

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'

[Ylide]

Jon Stewart on the Daily Show put it best tonight.  He was talking about how they write up scripts for each outcome of the election for the night of Nov 3.  They were based on three outcomes:  Kerry wins, Bush wins, and civil war.  

My money's on Kerry.  I'm betting he wins by 4% or better.



This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

[Exodus]

please vote that stupid warmonger out before he waltzes into Korea!

[Corbeille]

He won't be waltzing into Korea, there's not enough oil to tempt him and also there's a chance they could fight back.

Nah pop no style, a strictly roots!

[Exodus]

Bush would probably believe there was oil on the moon to be honest mate...

[chris]

Quote from Bush - "what's the French for Duck a l'orange ?"

"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception"
 - Groucho Marx

[Ylide]

He'll waltz into Iran or Syria before he bothers with North Korea.  Actually, no he won't because we're voting the ignorant hick out of office today.  



This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

[Corbeille]

You didn't tell us you were a supreme court judge Ylide!

or even one of the Supremes[]

Nah pop no style, a strictly roots!

[tweener]

quote:Originally posted by neilep

Happy Voting American Chums.

Hope the machines work and the person with the most votes get's in this time !!!...actually, perhaps someone could explain that to me...how the person with the LEAST votes wins ?

Cheers and why not turn your voting moment into a picnic, take some sandwiches and a nice cup of tea.

Neil,
The founding fathers of our country decided that people should not vote directly, but should vote for an "electoral college" that would select the president.  I don't know, but my guess is that there were logistical problems with a direct popular vote back in the late 18th century.

The way the electoral college works, in most states, is that the majority vote in the state is counted and all the electoral delegates from the state vote for the popular winner.  Thus states with a high population (like California) have more weight than states with low population (like Wyoming).  Because of this, there is a lot of granularity in how the actual election can go.  If the popular vote is close, the winner of the electoral college may not be the same as the winner of the popular vote.  But the constitution says that the majority of the electoral college wins the election.  It really doesn't provide for the popular vote.

What happened in the 2000 election was that the electoral college was basically tied so that the winner of Florida (with 25 delegates) would win the election.  Unfortunately, Florida was almost exactly tied in the popular vote.  Thus lots of media attention was focused on any possible irregularity or ambiguity.  I think it was mostly a bunch of malarkey, but it was indeed the deciding factor in the presidential election.

If there is a clear majority across the country, there is not a problem.  It's only when the overall opinion is very close that weird things happen.  

All this said, some states can split their delegates to more accurately represent the voter split in the state.  If more states did this, the electoral vote would be more fair, but it could still make for some strange results.

In modern times, the vote could be counted directly.  This would require a constitutional amendment, which is (purposely) quite difficult.

So, there we are.  The election can possibly go to the "loser" of the popular vote.

----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.

[Ylide]

*sigh* It's not looking good.  Can't really call it either way yet, but unless Kerry wins either Florida or Ohio, neither of which seem likely, he's probably going to lose.  Can I come to the UK?



This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

[roberth]

Why go to the UK? They'll vote Tony Blair back in, same as Australia voted John Howard back in with an increased majority. GWB will get re-elected with a larger percentage of the vote and a majority in both houses (well..that's my prediction, anyway).
The general population does not want an unnecessary change during times of trouble.
The US voting system does confuse me, though. How can California be declared a victory for Sen. Kerry with all the electoral votes to him when less than 1% of the vote has been counted and Florida with 94% of the votes counted haven't decided. (Well, they have now, but only after 98% of the vote has been counted.)

[bezoar]

I didn't think that states could split their electoral votes.  I thought it was in the constitution that all the votes go the way of the popular vote.  I think it's an all or nothing proposition.

[neilep (OP)]

Well..if congratulations are in order, then I offer them...if they are not...then I retract them.

I'm not a politician...but from what I can tell....they all do the same thing....setting aside despotic dictatorships....I find it hard to tell one from the other.

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'

[tweener]

quote:Originally posted by bezoar

I didn't think that states could split their electoral votes.  I thought it was in the constitution that all the votes go the way of the popular vote.  I think it's an all or nothing proposition.

I don't know for sure, but Colorado had a proposition on the ballot to split their electoral votes.  It was defeated, so all the Colorado electoral votes to to one candidate.  I doubt they would have had that sort of ballot initiative if the constitution specified no split.  There are other states that have the option apparently.

Here is a story about Maine:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/12/maine.voting.ap/

Here is a story about Tennesee that mentions Nebraska having the option:
http://www.alphapatriot.com/home/archives/2004/10/11/tn_dems_want_to_split_electoral_vote.html

I can't speak for the accuracy of either, but CNN usually has some grain of truth.

----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.

[Ylide]

quote:Originally posted by roberth

Why go to the UK? They'll vote Tony Blair back in, same as Australia voted John Howard back in with an increased majority. GWB will get re-elected with a larger percentage of the vote and a majority in both houses (well..that's my prediction, anyway).
The general population does not want an unnecessary change during times of trouble.
The US voting system does confuse me, though. How can California be declared a victory for Sen. Kerry with all the electoral votes to him when less than 1% of the vote has been counted and Florida with 94% of the votes counted haven't decided. (Well, they have now, but only after 98% of the vote has been counted.)

I'll take Tony Blair over Shrub.  

As for the early predictions, it's done with statistical analysis of voting histories of certain districts of the state.  For instance, in California, if those 1% that are reporting are mostly the more conservative districts and Kerry is ahead after those are tallied, it can be projected that the rest of the state will vote for him in even greater numbers, hence the early win.  It's a big mess, but it somehow works.  Personally, I'd prefer a voting system that didn't waste the effectiveness of third parties, like France uses.  You rank the candidates order of preference for your vote, then each is assigned a fraction of the vote.  The person with the highest total at the end wins.  This could theoretically put a third party candidate in office, as Dems would probably put Kerry as first choice and Bush as last, and vice versa.  This means both sets of votes would probably choose someone like Nader or Badnarik as their second choice.   If enough people from both sides of the political spectrum rank that third party candidate as their second choice but neither primary party candidate gets a majority, that third party will probably win.

This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

[Ylide]

quote:Originally posted by tweener

quote:Originally posted by bezoar

I didn't think that states could split their electoral votes.  I thought it was in the constitution that all the votes go the way of the popular vote.  I think it's an all or nothing proposition.

I don't know for sure, but Colorado had a proposition on the ballot to split their electoral votes.  It was defeated, so all the Colorado electoral votes to to one candidate.  I doubt they would have had that sort of ballot initiative if the constitution specified no split.  There are other states that have the option apparently.

Here is a story about Maine:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/12/maine.voting.ap/

Here is a story about Tennesee that mentions Nebraska having the option:
http://www.alphapatriot.com/home/archives/2004/10/11/tn_dems_want_to_split_electoral_vote.html

I can't speak for the accuracy of either, but CNN usually has some grain of truth.

----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.

I voted against that provision.  It sounds like a good idea at first until you realize that a 270 electoral vote count is required to be elected president.  When you start letting states split the electoral votes without revamping the required electoral count, you start getting nasty things happening like Congress deciding who is president.



This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

[bezoar]

Well, if Congress can decide, then that's even less representative of most of the people.  Hadn't thought of that happening.  Being a nurse, I have to look at healthcare and I think Bush does better in that department.  As far as letting same sex couples marry, what's the problem with that?  I just don't get all the controversy.  It really doesn't matter much to me one way or the other.  And if it's immoral, then let God handle that and not the law.  I think amendments either for or against that are out of order.  It's a religious issue, not a legal one.

[tweener]

I agree Nancy, but if you look at our laws, probably the majority of them have some sort of foundation in religion.  Christian religion.

----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.

[neilep (OP)]

John.....I just noticed your answer to my posting above....can't see how I missed it...thanks for clearing that up for me.

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'

[Raedon]

we are boffed

i"m taking bets on the draft

thinking  april 2005


It is good to be alive! It's impossible I'm here but here I am.. and I rock!