|
4th November 2008, 19:54 | #1 | |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
First results in
First runs on the board for Obama!
Quote:
|
|
4th November 2008, 19:59 | #2 |
Frag-muff
|
Small republican town...votes for Obama. YAY!
__________________
Gaming/phone/computing platforms are not indicative of groinal/physical/cognitive impressiveness. |
4th November 2008, 20:09 | #3 |
Up Unt At Dem!
|
lol...good start.
|
4th November 2008, 20:19 | #4 |
Stunt Pants
|
Is it too early to break out the party hats and streamers? Or would that just be naive of me?
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
4th November 2008, 20:27 | #5 | |
|
Quote:
after the 2000 election, you bet
__________________
|
|
4th November 2008, 21:10 | #6 |
|
Man, if someone had told me in 2000 or 2004 that America would elect a black man named Barack Hussein Obama president...
|
4th November 2008, 22:18 | #7 |
|
But at the time of the 2000 election, the name hussein and obama would have meant nothing to them.
A black man, yes. |
4th November 2008, 22:27 | #8 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
4th November 2008, 22:34 | #9 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
|
4th November 2008, 22:36 | #10 |
|
Now it's just a matter of time before bush forces the justice department to intervene, striking 10 of the votes off the record calling the whole thing 6-5 for mccain and declaring the election over.
|
4th November 2008, 22:40 | #11 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
4th November 2008, 22:53 | #12 |
|
Yes, I know about the Gulf War, but was that not 1991?
9 years prior, and how many would have even cared? I could imagine that the main reason everyone cares this time is 9/11 -> Terrorists -> Muslims -> "WMDs" -> Iraq. My opinion is that the name would not have meant as much to most Americans at that point. |
5th November 2008, 11:51 | #13 |
HENCE WHY FOREVER ALONE
|
Paint the White House Black
__________________
Finger rolling rhythm, ride the horse one hand... |
5th November 2008, 13:10 | #14 |
|
|
5th November 2008, 13:30 | #15 |
Stunt Pants
|
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
5th November 2008, 15:37 | #16 |
|
watching all the different results, I realise that I have no clue how american elections work. it appears they don't just count the votes of each individual, there's various states and some states get more votes than others (I assume that's a size thing), and there is house and all those other elections.. i'm lost :/
|
5th November 2008, 15:40 | #17 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
5th November 2008, 15:41 | #18 |
|
Looks like George W. Bush is going to leave an interesting legacy. He fucked up badly enough that even racist ol' America looks to be willing to elect a black president to avoid having a new commander in chief who has a chance of being even remotely like the previous one.
Last edited by BadNova : 5th November 2008 at 15:44. |
5th November 2008, 15:47 | #19 | ||
|
Quote:
Quote:
In other words, if the US population picks more blue guys than red guys in their state, then there'll be more blue 'electors' when they come around to voting for the President in December. The more senators and congress reps a state has, the more electoral college votes it has (eg: NY has 31, California 55, Maine 4 etc).
__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is everyone so unhappy these days? Last edited by caffiend : 5th November 2008 at 15:49. |
||
5th November 2008, 15:59 | #20 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Remember there are three elections going on simultaneously today.
House (Congress) - each state sends a number of "Representatives" (MPs) to Washington proportional to its population, and each "District" (electorate) gets to choose its own representative from whatever party, or no party, as voters decide. Senate - each state sends two Senators to Washington. President - the voters of each state get to nominate their preferred candidate for President. Each state has an "Elector" in the "Electoral College" with a number of votes to cast for President proportional to the state in question. The President is determined by the votes in the Electoral College - not the number of votes cast by voters, and not by the number of states won. The convention is that the Electors will cast their votes according the popular vote in each state (although interestingly enough they don't HAVE to). It is for this reason that certain states are more important than others - a state with lots of residents like California has far more "electoral votes" than a state with few residents like Alaska. Some populous states are predictable - California always votes Democrat, Texas always votes Republican. However there are a few hyper-important states with large populations and where the race is traditionally close. These include Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. They're so important that one could almost say something like "the guy who wins Ohio AND Florida wins everything". Ha! In the time it took to type this, MSNBC has just reported Texas as "too close to call". |
5th November 2008, 16:10 | #21 | |
|
Quote:
Wait, what?!? If a state overwhelmingly votes for candidate A, there's nothing to stop the elector from voting for candidate B if they choose? So the only real way anyone's vote could be said to count for anything is in their choice of representative and senator? *goes off to read up on electoral college.....* |
|
5th November 2008, 16:16 | #22 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
An Elector who votes against the popular vote of his state is a Faithless Elector.
Historically the Electoral College was a concession to the Southern states who wanted big influence in the Presidential election - non-voting slaves (as population) counted towards a state's electoral-vote count. |
5th November 2008, 16:18 | #23 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
5th November 2008, 16:18 | #24 |
|
Honestly, it makes mmp look simple.
|
5th November 2008, 16:45 | #25 |
|
And the reason it's not just one big popularity vote, is that back when it was all about the founding fathers, they didn't want nominees just going to highly populated areas, winning them, and forgetting about the rest of the country.
Another reason for the college, is so that the popular vote doesn't just get in automagically on promises to give all the rich peoples money to the poor people. The founding fathers put a bunch of rich people in control of the presidential voting system (ie the college) to make sure the popular vote won't take their precious pot of gold ;D So even if the Robin Hood nominee wins the popular vote, the rich college can just choose someone else.
__________________
ɹǝʌo sᴉ ǝɯɐƃ ʎɥʇ Last edited by Cyberbob : 5th November 2008 at 16:47. |
5th November 2008, 16:49 | #26 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
To make a ridiculous generalisation, the USA was set up so that stupid poor people couldn't override the wishes of educated rich people. There are always going to be more stupid poor people than educated rich people, so the US political system is set up with "checks and balances" so that the wishes of the many do not automatically override the wishes of the few.
|
5th November 2008, 16:50 | #27 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is everyone so unhappy these days? |
|
5th November 2008, 17:03 | #28 |
|
Hm, reminds me, I must get around to finishing Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States"; he said pretty much the same thing
|
5th November 2008, 17:11 | #29 |
Nothing to See Here!
|
|
5th November 2008, 17:14 | #30 |
|
so those explanations pretty much make today's voting-watching pointless - we won't know the real deal till december..
|
5th November 2008, 17:18 | #31 |
|
|
5th November 2008, 17:18 | #32 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is everyone so unhappy these days? |
|
5th November 2008, 17:20 | #33 | |
|
Quote:
* BY "read up" I mean following Ab's link and finding a partial FAQ on it |
|
5th November 2008, 17:22 | #34 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is everyone so unhappy these days? |
|