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.?
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.
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
You need a sane system with preferential voting, like that used in many other more democratic countries ... ;)
That is, I might vote like this:
Nader 1
Gore 2
Bush 3
What happens is the number 1 votes are distributed. Then the person with the least votes is eliminated (in this case likely Nader) and their votes distributed along to the next preference (ie Gore). Then the next lowest vote count is eliminated, until someone has > 50% of the vote. That way you can vote for someone you know is not going to win and still know that your vote will count for the person you choose.
Although, proportional representation is also needed, in my opinion. If Nader gets 4% of the vote, and Gore and Bush get 48% each in a 25 electoral vote state, Nader should surely get an electoral seat, and the other two take 12 each ...
The whole American system seems astonishingly unfair to an outsider like myself. :)