|
Grex > Agora35 > #124: Win the electoral college but lose the popular vote? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 409 responses total. |
brighn
|
|
response 25 of 409:
| 
Nov 3 16:19 UTC 2000 |
With the talk about how it's not "fair" to the people who voted for Bush that
the winner of the popular vote doesn't win, how about the talk that it's not
"fair" to the people who relied on the elector college when they made their
selection.
This is especially relevant this year, when many voters in "solid" Gore states
will be voting for Nader because their vote won't affect whether or not Gore
wins the electoral college (but might affect whether Gore wins the popular
vote).
|
bru
|
|
response 26 of 409:
|
Nov 4 16:47 UTC 2000 |
since I think that is voter fraud, maybe they better just stick to their
choice.
|
gull
|
|
response 27 of 409:
|
Nov 4 21:39 UTC 2000 |
It's voter fraud if you make a decision, on your own, to vote for Nader
since you know your state will go to Bush regardless of what you do?
You have an odd concept of "fraud."
|
other
|
|
response 28 of 409:
|
Nov 5 17:59 UTC 2000 |
bru's concept of fraud seems narrowly tailored to suit his personal
preference of outcome. take it as you will.
|
wh
|
|
response 29 of 409:
|
Nov 5 21:11 UTC 2000 |
re 24. What was IIRC?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 30 of 409:
|
Nov 5 21:55 UTC 2000 |
"IIRC" is an abbreviation of "If I Recall Correctly."
|
bru
|
|
response 31 of 409:
|
Nov 7 03:43 UTC 2000 |
Fine, its narrow, it's my view, th voting commission of California and New
York agree with me that it is illegal. Which I found out when I got my
pairing back from th vote exchange site. They have not found anyone to pair
me with yet, but they cannot since New York has banned the practice.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 32 of 409:
|
Nov 7 07:38 UTC 2000 |
I have not yet heard a reason giving for declaring it illegal. I do not
think that it was ever thought of when whatever law is being invoked
was concocted. I expect the ACLU would quickly get these rulings
overturned on appeal - but that will be long after it matters, if they
both to follow up on it then.
|
jerryr
|
|
response 33 of 409:
|
Nov 7 12:56 UTC 2000 |
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- A federal judge has refused to stop state officials from
cracking down on California-based Web sites that let users in one state trade
their vote for president to someone in another state.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California had sought to get
a temporary restraining order, arguing Secretary of State Bill Jones' actions
were an unconstitutional restriction of free speech.
U.S. District Judge Robert Kelleher denied the request in a ruling issued
Monday night.
The Web sites seek to have Green Party candidate Ralph Nader supporters cast
their votes for Vice President Al Gore in states where Tuesday's presidential
race is expected to be close.
In exchange, Democrats agree to vote for Nader in states where Republican
George W. Bush is expected to win. The trades, not sanctioned by the
campaigns, could help Gore in swing states and give the Green Party the 5
percent of the national vote it needs to win federal campaign money.
Three sites voluntarily shut down last week after Jones told one it was
violating state election laws. Officials in Oregon have issued similar
warnings.
Jones hailed the ruling: ``Votes are not a commodity,'' he said. ``In
California, it is illegal to buy, sell or trade votes for anything of value
-- including another vote.''
The ACLU said it would appeal, saying such exchanges between voters are
protected and that agreeing to a voting strategy is different from offering
payment for a vote.
|
jazz
|
|
response 34 of 409:
|
Nov 7 15:11 UTC 2000 |
So we can sell other Constitutional rights, or have them taken away
from us, but not votes?
|
gull
|
|
response 35 of 409:
|
Nov 7 19:00 UTC 2000 |
I think we should stop vote trading schemes -- as soon as Congresspeople
stop trading votes with each other and for campaign contributions.
These site shutdowns are probably politically motivated. It's censorship,
plain and simple.
|
jep
|
|
response 36 of 409:
|
Nov 8 05:12 UTC 2000 |
I had some questions:
1) As I write, it's possible neither candidate will get 270 electoral
votes. If this happens, the House of Representatives will decide the
next president. Which House, the current one or the newly elected one?
2) As I write, Debbie Stabenow is declared the winner by CNN. However,
their polls show 45% of precincts reporting, and Abraham leading 52-28%.
CNN is giving California to Gore, but with 21% of precincts reporting,
they show Bush leading 49% to 47%. Michigan is listed as having picked
Gore, but the counted vote -- from 46% of precincts -- is nearly a tie;
Bush leads by 14,000 votes out of around 2 million counted votes.
Are these predictions based on some kind of knowledge that
Democratic-voting precincts report late, or something? (I started
wondering when I saw somewhere that Stabenow was 11% behind in the
count, but was listed as having won the election for Senator.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 37 of 409:
|
Nov 8 05:32 UTC 2000 |
I'd like them to just shut up and only report the raw data. These
"predictions" based on very partial *nonrandom* data, mean almost
nothing, especially in the early count, yet dozens of "analysts"
are wasting millions of words spouting nonsense about them. In fact,
none of those "talking heads" are relevant, and they might as well
show movies or something, and display a count map on each hour.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 38 of 409:
|
Nov 8 05:36 UTC 2000 |
Yeah. ABC has both al-the-pal and dubya tied at 242 electoral college
votes each.
|
scg
|
|
response 39 of 409:
|
Nov 8 05:37 UTC 2000 |
They're based on statistical sampling. If you count a conservative area
first, you're going to end up with the Republicans getting a lot more of the
vote, so they have to take that into account.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 40 of 409:
|
Nov 8 07:30 UTC 2000 |
In Michigan, the TV stations are making predictions based on the dreaded exit
polls, which contradicted the reported districts at the time. A useless
exercise...
|
senna
|
|
response 41 of 409:
|
Nov 8 10:10 UTC 2000 |
Actually, the entire prediction process has now gone entirely up in the air.
Florida went from undecided ("too close to call") to Gore, to undecided, to
Bush very late, and then, extremely late, after most of the people had gone
home, back to undecided, where it will remain. Predictions are based on a
combination of actual data, exit polls, and other hidden elements.
California's early precincts were most likely rural; Los Angeles is getting
counted very late.
|
bru
|
|
response 42 of 409:
|
Nov 8 12:17 UTC 2000 |
I am now more than ever sure that all election reporting should be held of
by law until the day after the election when ALL the counts are in and
verified. The Networks screwed up all night on the Florida election count,
who knows where else they made mistakes and how it may have effected the vote.
|
carson
|
|
response 43 of 409:
|
Nov 8 12:28 UTC 2000 |
(hopefully it drew out Bush supporters.) :^)
(state numbers are online at http://www.sos.state.mi.us/election/results/00
gen/)
|
polygon
|
|
response 44 of 409:
|
Nov 8 14:03 UTC 2000 |
Re 42. Nice to know how much regard you have for the First Amendment!
|
sno
|
|
response 45 of 409:
|
Nov 8 14:36 UTC 2000 |
I have to question the judgement of Al Gore to offer his concession on
incomplete data and then to have the gall to recind that concession. How
ungraceful, and how cheezy. Yes, the numbers should speak for themselves, but
when you concede, you commit.
|
polygon
|
|
response 46 of 409:
|
Nov 8 14:52 UTC 2000 |
Re 45. That was pretty awkward. But, speaking as someone who has dealt
with the political etiquette on this quite a few times, you ARE expected
to call up your opponent and concede when you give up any chance of
winning. You're considered a bad sport to wait for the absolute last
numbers.
And if the assumptions that led you to concede turn out to be wrong (which
ALMOST NEVER HAPPENS), it would be even worse to withdraw your concession
without contacting your opponent.
Based on the best information he had available, Gore did the right thing
to concede. When that turned out to be wrong, he was obligated to call up
Bush again and say so directly. To stand on the concession would have
been even more awkward, when you're sending people down to Florida
counties to argue the recount -- and failing to contest the recount would
be seen as a betrayal by everyone who supported him.
Bottom line: Gore did what he had to do. Not cheezy.
|
carson
|
|
response 47 of 409:
|
Nov 8 15:02 UTC 2000 |
(the uncertainty over the electoral college vote has me practically
ovulating with glee. I almost wish I were taking a political science
course this semester.)
|
flem
|
|
response 48 of 409:
|
Nov 8 17:01 UTC 2000 |
<pictures carson ovulating with glee. :)>
|
jep
|
|
response 49 of 409:
|
Nov 8 17:04 UTC 2000 |
I agree that neither Gore's concession, nor withdrawing it when the
facts seemed to change, was "cheezy". It wasn't his fault; he was
relying on poll results, and this year, those poll results were flaky.
Of course you can't ban election reporting until all of the results are
finalized. I think Bruce realizes that as well as anyone. But wouldn't
it be nice if the entire media acted in a public-spirited manner and
avoided reporting poll numbers and estimates until all of the voting was
finished, in order to avoid affecting the way (and whether) people
voted?
I watched from 9:00 when I got home from work until 1:00 AM, fascinated
by the results and the electoral process, and knowing very well I was
contributing to the problem of the media affecting elections. Oh,
well.
|