response 391 of 536:

Nov 25 08:36 UTC 2003

Now wait a minute.  The term "highest elector" implies that Alabama voters
in 1960 could vote for any combination of up to 11 elector candidates. 
That means that anyone who didn't want to support JFK could simply
withhold their vote from the five elector candidates who were pledged to
support him.  Hence, the vote for five Kennedy electors could plausibly be
a measure of support for JFK.

On the other hand, I suppose that voting for one elector (in a state with
eleven electoral votes) is casting just one-eleventh of your vote to them.

But what if you were a 100% Kennedy supporter voting in Alabama?  Better
to vote for Byrd candidates to keep Nixon from getting those electoral
votes.  The analysis quoted above would count you as 6/11 for the
unpledged slate.

Up to about 1930 or 1940, every state's ballot listed individual electors,
and no presidential candidate names appeared on the ballot anywhere.

In West Virginia in, I think, 1916, the state ended up with a split
electoral vote because one of the candidates on the dominant slate
withdrew, and the message to substitute another candidate didn't get out
to every county.  Because the votes were split, the substitute candidate
lost, and the top candidate on the minority party slate was elected.

It just goes to show how complicated this electoral college business can
get.

response 393 of 536:

Nov 25 18:14 UTC 2003

Or when voting officials are too stupid to empty the chads out of
punch-card machines, making it impossible to actually punch out a hole.

response 395 of 536:

Nov 25 21:10 UTC 2003

I was unaware of any dispute over what the vote totals were in Alabama
in 1960.  Rather, there is a question as to how to interpret those votes.

People think of voting for president in the same terms that they think of
a simple local election for mayor or sheriff.  But presidential elections
don't work that way, and the further back you go in history, the less well
they match that model.

response 397 of 536:

Nov 27 07:40 UTC 2003

Yeah, you're telling me.  I called up this escargot service for some sea
whores, and they sent me a fucking fish.

response 399 of 536:

Dec 9 02:19 UTC 2003

Conservative columnist endorses Dean over Bush
http://sierratimes.com/03/12/05/ar_carlworden.htm

From The Sierra Times, "An Internet Publication for Real Americans"

                   President Howard Dean
                      Carl F. Worden

    When I wrote, "Another One-Termer Like Dad?" several months ago, I
    began my treatise with the words, "If the Democrats play their cards
    right, and if President George W. Bush extends the federal Assault
    Weapon Ban that was signed into law by former President Bill Clinton,
    then I am going to predict that George W. Bush will be a one-term
    war-hero president just like his father." 

    Well, whether by hook or crook, and whether intended or not, the
    Democrats are playing their cards right. That article and my
    predictions were right on the money, even to extent that I foretold,
    "If the Democrats do something truly stupid, like run a raving liberal
    like Al Gore or Hillary Clinton for president, then Bush 43 has maybe
    an even chance. But if the Democrats run a moderate, southern pro-gun
    candidate who promises not to use the Constitution as toilet paper,
    then I can predict with complete confidence that a Democrat, or
    possibly even a third-party candidate, will occupy the White House
    after the next presidential election." 

    Get ready for President Howard Dean. No he's not a moderate, southern
    pro-gun candidate. Instead, he's a former Vermont governor from the
    north. Everything else falls right into line: He is a moderate
    Democrat who is also a pro-gun candidate who promises not to use the
    Constitution as toilet paper. 

    Dean is adamantly against the war in Iraq. Dean is conservatively
    pro-gun.  Dean is soft on abortion and he is a moderate Democrat
    socialist to the extent that he believes government is responsible for
    taking care of those who are either mentally or physically unable to
    care for themselves. In that light, he's the perfect candidate to take
    residence in the White House following the coming November elections. 

    Unless Howard Dean screws up in some spectacular way, or unless Dean
    dies in another suspicious airplane accident, Howard Dean will be the
    next president of the United States. Mark my words.

    Dean is the perfect candidate for election in 2004. George W. Bush has
    divided the Republican Party into two distinct groups. They comprise
    the phony and fascist Neo-Conservatives who mistakenly embraced the
    perpetually wrong philosophy that the ends justify the means, ala
    Clinton. To them, if Clinton could get away with it, why shouldn.t
    they?  Their error has manifested itself via a disastrous war on Iraq
    that was never constitutionally declared by Congress, and the
    blatantly and irrefutably unconstitutional Patriot Act. 

    Both the moderate Democrats and the true American Christian
    conservatives have found themselves in surprising and stunning
    agreement on these issues.

    If you leave out religious conviction ala the abortion debate, which
    is entirely the province of the judiciary at this time anyway, and
    hone in on constitutional principle only, moderate Democrats and
    right-wing, true Christian conservatives, are in unexpected agreement: 
    We have yet another Viet Nam on our hands, and our kids are being
    unnecessarily killed as a result of it. 

    History will prove those kids died in vain, just like all those 58,000
    kids killed in Viet Nam: Viet Nam is still a communist nation, and we
    have reinstated full diplomatic and trade relations with them. In that
    light, every one of those kids died for NOTHING, and the same will be
    said of those being killed right now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The true American conservatives who once commanded the Republican
    Party, are horrified by what Bush has done, and many of them,
    including myself, have vowed never to support Bush again, even if we
    have to vote for a third party candidate that has little chance of
    winning. 

    To the truly committed, truly Christian conservative, George W. Bush
    is a traitor, a completely phony Christian, and just another
    politician who placed his left hand on the Bible, raised his right
    hand to God, and swore to uphold and defend a Constitution he had
    every intention of violating -- if the "situation" warranted it. 

    If there is one thing that true conservatives share, it is their solid
    and unwavering conviction to do what is both lawful and right, both
    under the law, and in the eyes of our God. In that light, our current
    president is woefully unfaithful, and in fact, treasonous to our
    Constitution. 

    A president who personally declares a United States citizen an enemy
    combatant, ineligible for legal counsel or to face his accusers and
    their evidence against him, even though he was arrested on U.S. soil
    and never carried a weapon against U.S. forces or their allies, is a
    domestic enemy of the people of the United States. True Christian
    conservatives understood that the moment he issued the order. 

    True Americans with solid constitutional convictions were outraged by
    that, and they immediately knew they had a problem in the White House. 
    I don't know what Howard Dean's religious convictions, if any, hold
    to.  But it doesn't matter in this case. Here we have a pro-gun
    candidate who is against this disastrous war in Iraq, and he is a
    candidate intent on principle to uphold he personal convictions. I
    like him, and for the first time in my life, I will vote for a
    Democrat, Howard Dean, to be my next president next November. 

    If he's still alive. 

    Carl F. Worden

response 401 of 536:

Dec 9 14:32 UTC 2003

When you get wayyyy out on the right, out past most of the GOP and into
the libertarian fringe, political party loyalties get hazy and don't
work quite the way you'd normally expect.  That's why I find right-wing
political shortwave broadcasts so fascinating.

response 403 of 536:

Dec 9 19:41 UTC 2003

And having their silver-amalgam fillings removed.

response 405 of 536:

Dec 9 21:59 UTC 2003

I'm scared

response 407 of 536:

Dec 10 17:10 UTC 2003

Algore has issued his presidential endorsement.  "I've seen a candidate 
who has what it takes to reach out to the independent, mainstream 
Americans who will make the difference . . . particularly in the 
South," Gore said.  "He's going to send George Bush packing and bring 
the Democratic Party home."


(It didn't seem to help a lot when he said that about Michael Dukakis 
in 1988.  Any reason to think it'll be more use to Dean this time 
around?------By the way, at least in 1988 he didn't stab his loyal, 
former runningmate in the back.)

response 409 of 536:

Dec 10 18:42 UTC 2003

Re resp:406: A lot of fringe types believe that the mercury in
silver-amalgam fillings is dangerous.  They also won't get vaccinated
because of mercury-based preservatives used in some vaccines.  I'm not
aware of any mainstream medical science backing up those claims.

response 411 of 536:

Dec 10 20:37 UTC 2003

Shucks!

response 413 of 536:

Dec 10 20:57 UTC 2003

(Certainly it must, Mr. richard!  Look at how effective Gore's 
endorsement was in the 1988 election.  Didn't Mr. Bush lose that 
election, too?)