Slashdot Mirror
Election Wrapping Up (Part 2)
Things shuffled a bit as CNN recalled Florida from Gore, and left
the electoral votes at 217 for Bush and 172 for the VP. Things have kind of lagged a bit as apparently the wires are being a little more careful about calling states. And I was hoping to get to bed on time *grin.* Update: 11pm EST by CT : polls on the west coast have closed, Gore inched up 230/217. Update: 11/08 5:45 AM EST by C :By now you all know that Florida, originally awarded to Gore, then later awarded to Bush, is now recounting the votes in a race that is way too close to call. Surprisingly enough, it appears that Gore has now won the popular vote. With the results split between the EC and the people, will this affect how the next president will be able to govern the U.S.?
Second, Florida (and Michigan and California) are declared Gore instantly when the polls close. Bush leads in all, with a respectable margin, for some time. Gore comes back in Michigan and California, but eventually Florida is declared undecided. Then it turns Bush! That's when it gets interesting.
Third, Bush is declared winner. Gore congratulates him on victory. And then takes it back! No one can accuse him of dishonesty this time; Florida is declared undecided again.
Fourth, no one knows who won. Bush leads by almost a thousand votes in Florida, the deciding state, as I write this. Slim margin, maybe, but that's up from 500 earlier in the evening. Unfortunately, the margin is just too small, and we won't know until most of the absentee ballots are received by mail.
So finally, the dilemma: obviously I can't wait up for the results, since they probably won't be known for several days. So, do I go to bed now, or do I start coding in earnest? Bed, yeah, it's just an assignment that isn't due until tomorrow.
If you are modding me down because you disagree with me, use the "Flamebait" category, not the "Troll" one.
> All the networks just gave California to Gore 4 mins. after the polls closed, with 0% counted!
They use a more sophisticated model than you might think. The retraction of Florida was a pretty rare event.
> Is it just me, or have they seemed really eager to get Gore elected?
If they particularly wanted Gore to win, they could have beat Bush to death over the last year. Instead, they are still accusing AG of claiming to have invented the internet (though we know that's not what he actually said, and that he does have legitimate grounds for what he did say), and are virtually ignoring GB's lies and faux pas.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I just hope the 67,503 Nader voters feel smug about voting their concience while they're riding in this hand basket come January 20th.
Eh? It doesn't seem to make a difference from the numbers you posted. Bush would still be ahead of gore if ALL nader votes had gone to Gore.
It's hard enough getting people out to vote in the first place. Don't give people shit because they voted for the candidate they wanted to be president.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
If I had my way, Nader would take a single state worth 3 electoral votes. The other candidates would come in at 269 and 268.
I'd be able to giggle for the next two months, every time I thought about my government.
-C
The "returns" are pure speculation, but a little more on the dramatic side. They are interpreted from the exit polls with the express intent of keeping our dumb asses glued to the tube so we can watch more commercials. Even the news outlets won't know the real winner until the last electorial ballot is cast, and that won't happen until all the polls close and the popular vote is completely tallied.
:)
The idea is to generate as much drama as possible surrounding the election, and capitalize on the hype by targeting ads at the idiots who are sitting and biting their nails at the TV or foolishly refreshing some web page.
Sensationalism at its finest.
-- lk t lv ll th vwls t f wrds. T svs lts f tm t wrt bt ts pn n th ss t rd nd mks m lk lk cmplt dpsht.
I don't understand your reasoning. If I lived in USA and in a swing state, I would definatly vote for a third party candidate.
A vote for a third party candidate is not a waste. It is the exactly opposite in a swing state. If your vote changes who wins you have just shown that your vote matters. Of course most americans don't seem to understand this because of decades of propaganda.
The following example is pretty extreme, but it does make a point.
If I told you to select one of the following three options:
1. You are to be executed with a gun
2. You are to be executed using hanging
3. You are allowed to live
I also told you that lots of other people had also voted and the third option would not do anything for you. Would you in that case not choose the third option?
What I can't figure out here, while listening to people on CNN talk about Nader voters throwing their votes away, is why they keep talking about Nader voters like they're doing something wrong!
If Nader is causing the Dems to lose votes, then why the hell aren't the Dems thinking about taking on some Green platforms? Nader isn't getting votes just to piss Gore off; he's getting votes because he has issues that are really appealing to a segment of the population that feels neglected. Why aren't the pundits talking about how the Dems should react? Instead they are just complaining about him being a spoiler.
The problem here is that many Gore voters aren't voting for Gore; they're voting against Bush. "I'm not him" is a really weak platform, and I think it's amazing that Gore's doing as well as he is. If the Repub candidate wasn't as distasteful as he is, I bet at least a third of the today's voters would have stayed home. Nader probably would be stronger, though, since his supporters are really supporting him (and not trying to deny someone else).
In fact, I think Gore is more guilty of stealing Nader's supporters. I really like Nader's anti-corporate stance, but I'm not exited about Gore at all. If I didn't live in Michigan (key swing state, for those not paying attention), I would definitely have voted for Nader, but I voted for Gore. I waffled over that until I voted, and I'm still wondering if I wished I'd voted otherwise.
-JimTheta
---
My stupid web site
The mathematics behind the US election system (and what's wrong with it) where presented in Discover Magazine, now online at http://www.d isc over.com/nov_00/gthere.html?article=featbestman.ht ml
They also present several other voting schemes' pros and cons, but point out the difficulty in getting all of America to understand and switch to a new system.
Why do we have the electoral college system?
I think it is outdated for todays needs
It has nothing to do with the idea of "protecting" voters from themselves (despite what the conspiracy theorists would have you believe). We are a union of many individual states, not a country that happens to have subsections.
Our congress and our presidents are all elected by the states, and it's up to each state how to vote. If your state wants to hold a raffle for electoral college positions, there is nothing the federal government can legally do to stop it -- it's up to each state to execute the will of their own populations. This is to balance the power of the states against each other.
As it stands under a popular vote, the 5 largest states could single-handedly dictate to the rest of the states, which is unacceptable for obvious reasons. By using the electoral system (which grants 3 votes to even the smallest states) you ensure that the president has to have at least a three times that many, because it was considered unacceptable by the founding fathers that a president be elected without a significant minority of states voting for them...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
I'll offer my Canadian perspective on why voting Green isn't a good idea.
Up north here, we've historically had two big parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives. A few years ago, a new party to the right of the Conservatives started up, the Reform party. Since then, the Reform and the Conservative parties keep splitting the right-wing vote, letting the Liberals run away with majority governments despite receiving only 35-40% of the popular vote.
The only reason this stopped in Canada is because of a succession of completely inept leaders of the Conservatives (Mulroney, Campbell, and Clark -- though Charest wasn't bad). So the Conservatives collapsed, and now we're back to having two big parties.
My point is this: If you vote Green, and they DO get more popular, or even their 5%, you're contributing to a split among left-wing voters. Not just a split this election, but a split that will last in all the other elections until either the Greens or Dems collapse. Since neither is likely to happen, you'll be handing maybe up to 10 consecutive terms to the Republicans. So that's why I voted Gore even in safe Massachusetts (well, besides the fact that I don't like anything about the Green party beyond Nader himself).
Am I rambling? Or does this make a bit of sense?
vasi
"Hey, who took the cork off my lunch?" -- W. C. Fields
They chocked up Michigan for Gore hours ago, but right now it's 49% to 49% with a slight Bush lead. only 45% precicents reporting.
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
There's been an amazing amount of controversial instances of voter fraud this election. From broken machines in New York, to poll closing in Missouri, to absentee ballot stuffing all over the country. I'd say this probably has a lot to do with the fact that we no longer have several competing organizations working on election results- we now only have one. But Geez America- this election has looked more like a Third World/South American election than a First World one.
I'm all for third parties, but we need a new voting system where people can vote for Nader without effectively voting for Bush. Perhaps a system similar to Kuro5hin's comment moderation system?
------