Mathematics Says Romney and Santorum Tied In Iowa

Hugh Pickens writes "Presidential candidate Mitt Romney received eight more votes than candidate Rick Santorum or 0.007 percent of the total number of caucus votes in the Iowa caucus, 'eking out a victory' on the path to winning the Republican nomination for president but experts in statistics say Romney and Santorum actually tied. 'From a statistical point of view, you can't say Romney won any more than you can say Santorum won,' says Charles Seife, a professor of journalism at New York University who studies election error. That's because in the Iowa caucus, where voters marked their choices with check marks or by writing the candidates' names in by hand, the error rate in counting the votes, which is also done by hand is orders of magnitude above the victory margin — around 0.5 to 1 percent. There are several sources of error that could easily render eight votes meaningless." (Read on for more.) Hugh Pickens continues: "First, ballots sometimes stick to the bottom of ballot boxes when the boxes are overturned, and fail to be counted. Next, election officials occasionally misread messy handwriting, or tally their totals incorrectly. Finally officials can misjudge who a voter intended to vote for: 'You'd be surprised how often people place a check mark in an ambiguous place,' says Seife. Whether it's statistically significant or not, any official declaration of victory can have big ramifications. With political pundits regarding Romney's 'victory' as evidence that he's in a good position to win the Republican nomination, the failure to recognize a statistical tie in Iowa could impact the future of the country. 'It's Romney, not Santorum, who can head to New Hampshire claiming the win,' writes Nick Rizzo. 'But if you just counted the exact same votes all over again, there's a good chance the result would be different.'"

Comments

Higher Power

[alphatel]

Let the Supreme Court decide.

Re:Higher Power

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately, they don't have to -- it's not a government election, so it's not a government matter.

Re:Higher Power

[alphatel]

You must be Kagan.

Re:Higher Power

[Myopic]

Nonsense. The Supreme Court already told us that states don't actually have to count votes, so long as state statute says they don't.

Just don't make the mistake of thinking you live in a democracy. In democracies, they count all the votes.

Re:Higher Power

[PseudonymousBraveguy]

The qualifier is only shown after the second moderation. So if somebody moderates troll, and afterwards you moderate underrated, your moderation causes the "troll" qualifier to show (but increases the score back to 2)

Re:Higher Power

[Anonymous Coward]

Just don't make the mistake of thinking you live in a democracy.

The United States is not a democracy. It never has been and it never will be. It has always been a Republic. It's current form is a democratically elected republic.

No specifically for the presidency. The Constitution stipulates that the process by which each state makes the laws allocating their share of the electoral college, is left up for the states to decide.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Re:Higher Power

[Tim4444]

Parry with an A Gate -- we will not forget

It's not like we count the votes in real elections either. Remember Floriday 2000?

Re:Higher Power

[rickb928]

Well, of course he can make up departments, appoint directors, essentially play Monopoly and just plain have fun. And he can pay for it out of something discretionary.

But a department that actually *does* anything? Outside of law? Only until the courts (fat chance) or the Congress (fat chance) choose to or are embarassed into doing something about it, whatever that is.

Our current President doesn't seem to be letting nuances stand in his way.

Oh, by the way, complaing of the hypocrisy of our current President is just plain specious. The overwhelming majority, if not virtuall ALL of our politicians are hypocrites in several broad areas of policy. Not just flexible, but outright hypocrites. Picking on one misses the point. We need to throw them all out.

I'm almost to the point of accepting that a candidate's sincere and driving interest in running for office disqualifies them. Wanting to serve is nearly synonymous with premeditated corruption. Name me one of our Representatives that isn't corrupted, and I'll take that back. And that will be the one no other Representative trusts.

Re:Higher Power

[Politburo]

The department was created via legislation and is under Congressional oversight.

Re:Higher Power

[squidflakes]

You mean the Consumer Protection Bureau that Congress passed in to law in July of 2010? That one? The one that required a Presidential appointment to lead, but the House had been delaying on for years in hopes that they could nullify a law that a previous Congress had passed without actually, you know, repealing the law creating the bureau?

And bypassing Congress, like it says in the Constitution, Clause 3, Section 2, Article 2?

And Obama, the Senate Majority Leader during the Congressional sessions in 2007-2008? The same Congress that did recess and had Bush make the recess appointment of Jon Bolton as U.N. Ambassador?

Oh, except that Obama was never majority leader of either house of Congress and had no discretion on the calling of pro-forma sessions. Oopsy-diddle! My bad!

Re:Higher Power

[coinreturn]

Yet that doesn't stop the rightwing nutjobs from shouting lies to the contrary. Please don't confuse them with facts.

Re:Higher Power

[mister_playboy]

Posting in a story from the same IP address you modded from will remove your mods. Whether the post is logged in or AC makes no difference.

Re:Higher Power

[Anonymous Coward]

The US has never been a republic. It's a large land mass with people on it.

I really wish people didn't base their civics knowledge on Sid Meier's Civilization.

Re:Higher Power

[Skarecrow77]

no. The supreme court says that you can't continually recount votes until you get a result you like.

Bush won BOTH the original count, and the recount in Flordia. Both counts said he won. Nobody disputed that. What happened is Gore then asked for -another- recount (we're up to count #3 here) and the problem is he asked for a hand-recount, which wouldn't finish by the state-mandated deadline. The florida supreme court said "well we will just extend the deadline then." and the US supreme court said "uh, no, you can't randomly extend deadlines for recounts when we have two legitimate counts already in hand." because if gore had won that one, then Bush would have asked for a recount, or if gore had lost he probably would have asked for another one, and we'd still be waiting for results.

Stop parroting talking points. We're not talking about things that happened 400 years ago. These events happened within recent memory.

Re:Higher Power

[swalve]

Wasn't there something about this county versus that county versus a statewide recount?

Re:Higher Power

[Synerg1y]

Yes, kinda hard to forget w the recession and wars that was brought about via that tally.

Re:Higher Power

[Anonymous Coward]

"The same Congress that did recess and had Bush make the recess appointment of Jon Bolton as U.N. Ambassador?"

The US Senate was recessed when the Bolton appointment was made. The current US Senate is still in session according to the rules of the Senate and the law.

Re:Higher Power

[hedwards]

Except that they only interceded because they found a result that they liked, specifically stated that it wasn't to be counted as precedent and further investigations by newspapers found that Bush did in fact not have enough votes to carry the state.

On top of that we had a constitutional amendment to handle such situations which was ignored by SCOTUS in large part because it didn't give them the resort that they wanted.

What's worse is that there were similar irregularities in Ohio during the 2004 Presidential election as well which were never addressed because SCOTUS had already ruled that they don't have to count all the votes if they don't want to.

Re:Higher Power

[Myopic]

Yes of course. You know that law is different than statute, right? I never used the word 'law', quite on purpose.

I didn't say anything about pure democracies, either. I used the word "democracy", which (to me at least) implies voting and governing according to vote, which implies counting the votes -- all of them. The Supreme Court disagrees, and thinks its okay not to count all the votes. I think the SC is wrong about that.

Re:Higher Power

[NatasRevol]

Hey! He said it was out of congressional oversight, so it MUST be true!

Re:Higher Power

[JesseMcDonald]

So if several thousand unrelated individuals are behind one NAT'd IP address—an increasingly common situation, now that all the IPv4 addresses have been allocated—none of them can mod if any of them post? That's messed up. Either there is more involved than just the originating IP address, or the system is seriously broken.

Re:Higher Power

[SethThresher]

Ron Paul.

People get on his case for a lot of things, but hypocrisy sure isn't one of them.

Re:Higher Power

[Toonol]

Nonsense. The Supreme Court already told us that states don't actually have to count votes, so long as state statute says they don't.

Which is the proper decision, of course.

Re:Higher Power

[Hatta]

Being a libertarian who would assert government power over reproductive rights is a bit hypocritical.

Re:Higher Power

[Myopic]

Your premise is mistaken and absurd. Republics are democracies.

However, if you want to argue that the USA is not in fact a republic because of the facts of the state of the country, I will hear you out. But republics are democracies, so I won't hear out anything premised on an alternative definition of Republic.

Re:Higher Power

[Myopic]

Yep. That's parliamentarianism. That's politics. Congress tries to shit on the Pres, the Pres tries to shit on Congress. Then it's election time again.

Re:Higher Power

[whoop]

Yes, Gore only challenged and wanted recounts in the counties of major cities. That was his first mistake.

That, and the Florida constitution said all counties must submit their final count by the end of one week after the election. The state supreme court overrode that line of the constitution without giving a reason. So, that's where the US Supreme Court overturned it, after asking the state court again to give a justification, which they let lapse.

Re:Higher Power

[DesScorp]

"The same Congress that did recess and had Bush make the recess appointment of Jon Bolton as U.N. Ambassador?"

The US Senate was recessed when the Bolton appointment was made. The current US Senate is still in session according to the rules of the Senate and the law.

Why is this modded down? It's absolutely true. The President doesn't get to decide when the Senate is in session. The Senate does. For all of the bitching about Bush's recess appointments, they were done according to the letter of the law, during a Senate recess, and when it came time to vote for them, the Senate voted against those appointments, and they didn't stay in office. Just as the Constitution and law provide. Obama's appointments yesterday, simply put, are unconstitutional, and will almost surely be struck down in court.

By the way, for the people cheering those appointments, answer a serious question: do you want Republican presidents to have the power to bypass the Senate for appointments?

Re:Higher Power

[Myopic]

Neither of the counts you mention counted all the votes cast. That is my problem. The court said, yes, if statute says a state doesn't have to count all the votes, then we, the Supreme Court will uphold that statute. I think they were wrong to do that. My reasoning is this:

1. the Constitution guarantees a republican form of government
2. republican governments are premised on voting for representatives
3. voting is meaningless if you don't count enough votes to make absolutely sure you know who got the most votes
4. therefore, it is not Constitutional to count fewer votes than needed to absolutely certify a winner

Yes, there were procedural issues. The statute said the count had to be done by a certain date. That's great! That's what the statute says in Florida. Well, unfortunately for Florida the Constitution is supreme over Florida statute. All the court had to do was say, hey Florida, did you count all (I mean, enough of) the votes? No? Well then you are out of compliance with the Constitution, and any statutes which say otherwise are invalid. Go get your shit together and count enough votes to make sure you know the winner.

In the case of Florida, if the margin between the candidates was (say) 1000 votes, then Florida needed to count all but 999 votes, because those remaining votes couldn't change the outcome. They didn't do that. Therefore they were in violation of the Constitution, in my opinion.

Re:Higher Power

[Myopic]

Gore wanted a partial recount, and the court should have rejected that -- and they did.

Bush wanted no recount, and the court should have rejected that -- BUT THEY DIDN'T. That's the problem.

The obvious answer, the only right answer, is to carefully recount all the votes. Duh. That isn't difficult to decide, even though it is difficult to actually do (count). Of course we should count all the votes, duh.

The court should have rejected both parties and demanded a count of all votes.

Re:Higher Power

[DesScorp]

And bypassing Congress, like it says in the Constitution, Clause 3, Section 2, Article 2?

And Obama, the Senate Majority Leader during the Congressional sessions in 2007-2008?

Please point out where that gives the President unilateral power to appoint people to office without the consent of the Senate, and while the Senate is still in session?

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The Constitution gives the Congress the authority decide if they'll let the President appoint minor officials on his own. Congress has not. Further, Congress says these appointments are not to minor offices, but important ones that require Senate confirmation. Obama pulled a Caesar on this one and dared the Congress to do anything about it.

Re:Higher Power

[HornWumpus]

Which SC?

Florida's partisan supreme court ruled that it didn't matter what the voting standards are. Counties can change the vote standards and count the votes as often as they like until they get the answer they want. I bet you would have a problem with this if it was a republican county.

The US supreme court disagreed. The first two times all the votes were counted (per the legal standards at the time) were the legal counts.

In hindsight the only possible thing that would have changed the outcome was to allow outright voter fraud. Which you are apparently for.

Re:Higher Power

[Tim4444]

Wow. Mod troll. Looks like I hit a sore spot : )

Parry with an A Gate is a reference to Stephen Colbert poking fun at the fact that Republican straw polls (like the primaries) are not official events and therefore not subject to the same oversight rules.

In 2000 the US Supreme Court ordered Florida to stop counting votes and the results never were properly tallied (Even George W Bush signed legislation as Governor of Texas declaring hand recounts to be the preferred method to resolve discrepancies. Why his campaign went to the US Supreme court to interfere with Florida's decision to do the same is beyond me. So much for States' rights). I assumed this is what OP was referring to.

I'm sorry you find these facts to be so disturbing. Mod away.

Re:Higher Power

[Myopic]

The SCUSA said that it was acceptable that the state statutes did not require all the votes to be counted. That is my problem. The number of votes left uncounted, was larger than the margin between the candidates' tallies. Therefore, it was not possible to know who won the election. I don't mean that literally all the votes need to be counted, I mean that figuratively all the votes need to be counted, by which I mean enough votes to be sure of the winner. If the margin between the candidates is X, then Florida need to count all but X-1 votes. Florida did not meet that threshold, and therefore I reject its election statutes as un-Constitutional; the SCUSA should have done the same.

I don't know what you mean by voter fraud. The votes were there, on paper, in a warehouse. They should have been counted. And eventually they were counted, in their entirety, and the winner was not the person who was certified by the state. It is a 100% perfect example of why all the votes must be counted.

Re:Higher Power

[jbeaupre]

What the newspapers* found is a bit more complicated than what you say. And amusing too.

If the recount that Gore had asked for, using his methodology, had gone forward, Bush would have extended his lead. So if SCOTUS had ruled the other way, Bush would have become president.

But, hold onto your hat, if the recount had gone forward, using Bush's methodology, Gore would have won by 3 votes.

And just to add to the confusion, if the recount had included discarded ballots from 2 counties, Gore would have won. The effect of ballots thrown out in other counties is unknown.

The net result? Who knows.

In 1960, under even more suspicious vote counting in Illinois, Nixon didn't demand the recount that historians say would have given him the White House. Shit happens. Some people are better at moving on.

* http://articles.cnn.com/2001-04-04/politics/florida.recount.01_1_ballots-without-presidential-votes-undercounted-ballots-miami-herald-and-usa?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

Re:Higher Power

[Dog-Cow]

Whoa. Talk about confused. North America is a large land mass. The US is a country, an artificial construct that may be formed of multiple land masses. Countries may be republics.

Re:Higher Power

[hal2814]

You are entirely correct. States don't have to count any votes in order to choose their electoral slate. If the state wanted to, they could just arbitrarily appoint the electors and ignore the popular vote in that state entirely. The only thing the Supreme Court ruled was that the states must follow the rules they have already put into place.

Re:Higher Power

[JasterBobaMereel]

Republic - A country with the head of state as an elected position

Democracy - Two forms :

    Direct Democracy : where everyone votes on every decision is impractical

    Representative democracy : where you vote for a person to represent you

USA is a Republic with a Representative democracy
UK is a Monarchy with a Representative democracy
Ancient Greece was a Republic with Direct Democracy
Iran (strangely) is a Republic with a Representative democracy

  Americans get confused by the party names Republican and Democrat ... perhaps they should change them ...

Re:Higher Power

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Gore wanted a partial recount, and the court should have rejected that -- and they did.

Florida law allows for a candidate to ask for a partial recount. In fact, you must request a manual recount at the county level. If Bush wanted a full recount, he should have asked the other counties to do so as well.

Re:Higher Power

[phantomfive]

You're probably marked troll because of this statement:

It's not like we count the votes in real elections either.

Which is of course false, we actually do count votes in real elections. It just gets tricky when the vote is really close. My guess is you said it that way to be slightly sensationalistic (and humorous), which is why it was modded troll. I guess, I didn't mod it.

Re:Higher Power

[phantomfive]

The United States is not a democracy.

It's a Representative Democracy. Go look up what that means, and deal with it.

Re:Higher Power

[danbert8]

Umm citation? Isn't he the one who says it should be up to the states? I'm pretty sure that's what the Constitution says. Something like the 10th Amendment...

Re:Higher Power

[FatAlb3rt]

Sore spot? Who's bringing up news from over a decade ago?

Re:Higher Power

[Curunir_wolf]

And eventually they were counted, in their entirety, and the winner was not the person who was certified by the state.

I don't know where you get your information, but according to a study by the Miami Herald and USA Today and another by the National Opinion Research Center found that Bush would have still won if the vote count had proceeded and SCOTUS not intervened.

Re:Higher Power

[squidflakes]

Please point out where that gives the President unilateral power to appoint people to office without the consent of the Senate, and while the Senate is still in session?

OK!

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

and

he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;

Re:Higher Power

[HornWumpus]

1st they were all re-counted and the correct person won by any reasonable standard of 'vote'.

2nd state statues required that all 'votes' were counted. They did not require that all 'votes' that could be guessed using flexible standards be counted.

I say again, you would not like it if a R county did this. Why do you trust a D county? Especially one that had already tried to hide the process. Have you seen the transcripts of the 'vote' counting process? It was openly partisan.

Re:Higher Power

[Khashishi]

The correct acronym for the Supreme Court of the United States is SCOTUS.

Re:Higher Power

[russotto]

Actually, the USA is a representative dictatorship.

Actually, the USA is a rotational representative kakistodemocracy.

Re:Higher Power

[Curunir_wolf]

Being a libertarian who would assert government power over reproductive rights is a bit hypocritical.

Not at all. He hasn't really advocated such a thing, only that the Federal government should be completely out of making decisions about abortion completely, but states have authority to do so. There's nothing hypocritical about that. If you want to be picky about it, you'll have to figure out how a person in the womb can be deprived of life without due process, but as soon as they exit the womb they get those protections, even though they are just as easy to kill or allow to die.

I'm not trying to get into a debate about this, I can see the viewpoint on both sides and there are too many issues and too many people that can only see part of it. I think I'm like most people in that I would like to see abortion as a procedure that is legal, safe, and very rare. I don't know how we get there, but I think screaming at each other about "killing babies" and "enslaving women as incubators" is not going to do it. Which is why I think getting the Federal government out of the issue entirely is a good idea.

Re:Higher Power

[X0563511]

Not much better than Whig, Liberty, Free Soil, Anti-Masonic and such... Isn't it?

Re:Higher Power

[operagost]

Oh please... are you people STILL claiming this? Florida law required a machine recount, which was performed. Gore asked for hand recounts in three heavily Dem counties-- he got them. The Florida Supreme Court ordered a second machine recount, which was NOT lawful. THIS is what the US Supreme Court overruled.

Re:Higher Power

[operagost]

Nonsense. The Supreme Court already told us that states don't actually have to count votes, so long as state statute says they don't.

[citation needed]

Re:Higher Power

[operagost]

Bush wanted no recount, and the court should have rejected that -- BUT THEY DIDN'T. That's the problem.

WRONG. They DID DO A MACHINE RECOUNT as required by Florida law. PERIOD. Now stop.

Re:Higher Power

[orgelspieler]

Except in this case, it was the House that told the senate that they could not go on recess, because they did not want to allow Obama to make recess appointments. No chamber may adjourn for more than three days without the other chamber's permission. Of course, the House isn't supposed to be involved in the appointment process at all, so I think that what Obama did was in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution. Recess appointments are a way to put pressure on the Senate to at least discuss a president's nominee. Without that hanging over their heads, they would hardly ever appoint anybody, since any single senator can put a secret hold on any nomination. The House should not be allowed to de facto eliminate one of the President's guaranteed constitutional powers without an actual amendment to the constitution.

Re:Higher Power

[operagost]

Most pro-abortion types don't actually care about people's rights to their bodies... they care about the rights of the state (the federal government). Even people who are pro-choice should oppose the Roe v. Wade decision because it was de facto unconstitutional.

Re:Higher Power

[Curunir_wolf]

The department was created via legislation and is under Congressional oversight.

That's kind of true. The "Congressional oversight" is seriously lacking, because the Board is actually funded and and ruled by the Federal Reserve, not congress, which is one problem. The other is that all other regulatory boards of the type are headed by a group of commissioners, not a single man, who is unelected and only held accountable to the Federal Reserve, which is mostly accountable to no one and conducts much of its business in secret.

Re:Higher Power

[dcw3]

Who cares which of the two delusional religious nutjobs is going to lose the presidential election?

If you don't believe that Romney has a significant chance at dethroning Obama, I'd wager that you're the delusional one.

Re:Higher Power

[jimbolauski]

Wow. Mod troll. Looks like I hit a sore spot : )

Parry with an A Gate is a reference to Stephen Colbert poking fun at the fact that Republican straw polls (like the primaries) are not official events and therefore not subject to the same oversight rules.

In 2000 the US Supreme Court ordered Florida to stop counting votes and the results never were properly tallied (Even George W Bush signed legislation as Governor of Texas declaring hand recounts to be the preferred method to resolve discrepancies. Why his campaign went to the US Supreme court to interfere with Florida's decision to do the same is beyond me. So much for States' rights). I assumed this is what OP was referring to.

I'm sorry you find these facts to be so disturbing. Mod away.

It's probably because instead of adding anything of value top the discussion you decided to go go on a Bush stole the election rant.

Re:Higher Power

[Myopic]

Could they? I don't know. That doesn't sound like the republican form of government guaranteed by the Constitution.

Re:Higher Power

[ImprovOmega]

I nominate the following:

Republican't and Demonrat

Much closer to reality.

Re:Higher Power

[Hognoxious]

But republics are democracies

That's equally as wrong as its negation.

Re:Higher Power

[Myopic]

Can you cite your definition? It's cute, but it is neither in line with my understanding and use of the word, nor the definitions I found by quickly looking around the internet. In every case for my whole life, "republic" has always meant "indirect democracy".

Republic (n) a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

Even if you can cite your definition, and even if it is the first or only definition given by that source, I still object to your implication that it is the common definition used by English speakers.

Re:Higher Power

[Myopic]

Oh okay. Well you can easily google it, but here's one source for you: http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1115-02.htm

If you want to know more, there are lots of stories about it.

Re:Higher Power

[sycodon]

I believe the objection is that the agency is funded through the federal reserve.

Re:Higher Power

[Myopic]

Hmmm, no, it's not party politics, it's about counting the votes. They weren't counted before certifying a winner, despite your insistence that they were, and if they had been the winner would have been Gore.

Since it seems to matter to you, I will add the completely irrelevant fact that I didn't vote for Gore.

Re:Higher Power

[Hognoxious]

Ancient Greece was a Republic with Direct Democracy

Ancient Greece wasn't anything but a collection of cities and micro-states with differing systems. Sparta was a dual monarchy, for example.

Even in the ones that did practice democracy, it certainly wasn't everyone who got to choose.

Re:Higher Power

[sycodon]

You know their opinion will change just as soon as the shoe is on the other foot.

Also..."The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate..."

Once can argue that the head of the Consumer Protection Bureau is not a vacancy that "happened" since it was never filled in the first place.

Re:Higher Power

[Myopic]

I disagree. We can duel definitions if you want.

Re:Higher Power

[Hatta]

The fact that whether you can get an abortion is up to the states, as opposed to the individual as it is now, is an increase in government power.

Re:Higher Power

[Hatta]

The federal government should be completely out of making decisions about abortion completely. For the same reasons, the state governments should be completely out of making decisions about abortion completely.

Anyone who would assert that reproductive rights should be governed by anyone but the owner of the reproductive system isn't interested in liberty in any way shape or form.

Re:Higher Power

[Curunir_wolf]

That article is really mostly spin, and while it claims to support your contention, the actual studies don't. The one specific counting method that they claim does was not one that any of the registrars would have used, not the method allowed by the Florida SCOTUS, and would never have even come into play in any official count no matter what. The spin article doesn't even bother to mention that the specific method that found more votes for Gore gave him a win by only 3 votes. That's so close that the exact same method used a second time would just as likely come out in favor of Bush anyway.

Re:Higher Power

[Curunir_wolf]

The federal government should be completely out of making decisions about abortion completely. For the same reasons, the state governments should be completely out of making decisions about abortion completely.

Anyone who would assert that reproductive rights should be governed by anyone but the owner of the reproductive system isn't interested in liberty in any way shape or form.

You're including BOTH reproductive systems involved, then, right?

I know it seems like it should be a simple issue, but I don't think it is. It would be nice if unplanned pregnancy was always treated like it was in the movie Juno, but it's not, and there are simply conflicts. Abortion is traumatic for the women involved, and few understand just how traumatic it is before they actually go through it.

I agree with you that strict government rules are invariably wrong-headed on this issue either way, but irresponsible "owners" of many things can present dangers and burdens for their community. Just as if you own land you can't just go dumping any old toxic chemical into the streams running through it because it will poison your neighbor's land, you're expected to avoid creating babies with fetal alcohol syndrome that can't control their own violent outbursts.

Re:Higher Power

[msauve]

Article II, section 1:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,...

The Article IV, Section 4 guarantee is for state government.

Of course, since the state legislatures are representative/republican, the Electors are, too, even if they are not chosen by direct vote. i.e. a state legislature could chose to select Electors on their own, but the people are still represented in that choice through their elected legislature.

Re:Higher Power

[Darinbob]

This was a tie, plain and simple. Flipping a coin would have been just as fair as recounting. The votes were counted initially and they clearly showed it was a statistical dead heat within the margin of error. At that point a few thousand votes one way or the other doesn't change the statistics. Then it turned into a game, just like all of politics. Trying to get just the right counties recounted, trying to stop recounts, etc. The coin was flipped and landed on its edge and both sides were blowing on it to make it fall one way or the other.

It ended up being a debacle with long term ramifications. Supreme Court stepped in when it should have just passed on the matter and thus hurt a lot of its credibility. States rushed in poorly thought out and badly implemented electronic voting systems, dumping reliable optical scanners because of irrational fears over butterfly ballots and hanging chads. Both parties at each other's throats for ages. I voted for Gore but I still am exasperated when I hear idiocy about elections being "stolen", democrats refusing to concede is just as embarrassing as republicans refusing to concede. Both candidates and parties sacrificed a lot of dignity. Flaws in elections weren't actually ever fixed.

Re:Higher Power

[Darinbob]

Sometimes I feel like the Know Nothing Party never really went away.

Re:Higher Power

[Hatta]

The only unconstitutional part of Roe v. Wade was that it didn't base the constitutional right to privacy on the 9th amendment. It's still a correct decision, but possibly for the wrong reasons.

Re:Higher Power

[Myopic]

I didn't personally count the votes, and neither did you. The NYTime and Washington Post and Wall Street Journal made some claims, and you discount those claims. I personally, having not looked into it beyond news reports, accept the claims of those news organizations. It's fine for us to disagree on the veracity of those news reports.

But really it's nor relevant. Whether Bush or Gore should have won, the basic point stands: in a democracy, you have to be sure who won the elections; and to do that, you have to count enough votes, carefully enough, to be absolutely sure of the outcome. In my opinion, Florida failed in that standard, and the Supreme Court endorsed that failure. I think that is a black mark on our democracy.

Re:Higher Power

[Myopic]

Interesting. I am open to your position. You are saying that the republican form of government doesn't mean that the states must be republics? Even despite the 16th amendment? Are you aware of any jurisprudence on that question? You can educate me, because we just reached the threshold of my understanding. My understanding of the Constitution was that it guaranteed that the USA, from top to bottom, was a republic.

So let me be clear: I do think that the legislature could appoint electors (although that would be bad policy, it wouldn't be unconstitutional), but I don't think electors could be "arbitrarily appointed" (your phrase), which to me basically means they are chosen at random, or perhaps appointed by an unelected body.

Re:Higher Power

[radtea]

Republic - A country with the head of state as an elected position

No, a republic is a country where the final legal authority is a public document that codifies the supreme law that governs everything, including the government and the courts that interpret it (this is your constitution in the US.)

This is distinct from a monarchy, where the final legal authority is embodied by the person of the monarch or their representative (the Governor General and Lieutenants Governor in Canada). A monarchy may be absolute (with no limit on royal fiat) or limited in various ways.

In an unqualified democracy anything that people vote for is law. In a republic it must pass muster against the public document that governs all. In a monarchy it must receive royal assent.

Most modern states are poorly categorized by this scheme: Britain is a democratic constitutional monarchy with an unwritten constitution. Canada is democratic constitutional monarchy with a written constitution. The US, Russia and France are democratic republics with written constitutions. The big difference is that in Canada and Britain Parliament can over-ride the constitution but not the monarch (this was tested in Canada recently when the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament under questionable circumstances, and really did have to put the case to the Governor General, who could well have asked the Opposition to form a new government.)

Iran is a weird case because it has many republican and democratic forms, but at root is a tyranny run by the supreme religious council who have no checks on their power.

There have been proposals in Canada to ditch the monarchy but keep the Governor General as an unelected head of state appointed for a limited term by lot from recipients of the Order of Canada, which would make us a democratic republic with a written constitution and an unelected head of state.

The permutations are endless.

Re:Higher Power

[sexconker]

Being a libertarian who would assert government power over reproductive rights is a bit hypocritical.

Ron Paul says it should be in the hands of the state. As does the Constitution.

Roe vs Wade was not about a right to choose, and it was not about a right to privacy.
It was about the State being unable to produce admissable evidence to show that a person had an illegal abortion.
Their evidence was inadmissable because the State was unable to show that their interest in preventing abortions was more important than the individual's interest in keeping their medical history private. The State couldn't get past the 4th Amendment issue.

People have incorrectly read the decision as a right to choose, or a right to privacy. It's just the 4th Amendment. If a state had a law against unnecessary abortions, and you tweeted about how you just got one because you didn't want to deal with another kid, you could absolutely be punished for it. Of course, it won't happen because it would be political suicide to bring such a case against someone for abortion. Even the most right-leaning states only go so far as to put restrictions in place with regards to minor status, and term/viability of the fetus, and there's always the escape clause for abortions that are deemed medically necessary.

In the absolute worst-case scenario, you'd have a state going after an individual for an abortion that was not medically necessary, but they'd have to prove it wasn't medically necessary, and we're back to Roe vs Wade and the 4th Amendment. Even if the federal Supreme Court was dumb enough to rule for the state, all it would do is trigger the biggest public movement since the 60s, ending in a specific Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the right to an abortion.

Even if Ron Paul wanted the federal government to end abortions, it just can't be done. It's an untouchable issue.

Re:Higher Power

[Myopic]

Tell me where in the Constitution is states that all votes have to be counted

Personally I hang it on A4S4, but you could also do it on equal protection or something.

Basically, my claim is that if you don't count all the votes, then you aren't a democracy; if you aren't a democracy, then you aren't a republic; and the Constitution requires a republic (A4S4). That's my armchair constitutional jurisprudence.

We have lots of rules around elections. Most are valid, some are not. If you passed a poll tax, that would be an obvious violation. If you abridged the right to vote on account of sex, that would be a violation. If you collect 50million votes, but only count 49.5million, and the local statutes say that is okay, that is also a violation (in my opinion). I doubt it would ever come to this, but what if we collected 50million votes, counted the first hundred votes, and declared the winner? That would be absurd, because 100 votes isn't enough. So where is the line? How many votes are enough? My answer is, enough so that the winner is absolutely positively known. Also in my opinion, any other standard is absurd, and thus I think Bush v Gore is an absurd decision.

Re:Higher Power

[msauve]

"arbitrarily appointed" (your phrase)

Huh? Whatever you're referring to, wasn't written by me. I said no such thing.

Re:Higher Power

[Myopic]

Whoa. Right you are! How did that happen? I (thought I) was responding to a different comment, who said something about states arbitrarily appointing electors. Whether it is my mistake or Slash's mistake, I did not mean to put words into your mouth. They are someone else's words.

Re:Higher Power

[Hatta]

You're including BOTH reproductive systems involved, then, right?

Sure. As long as your reproductive system is required for a pregnancy, you have the right to withdraw your consent. Once your reproductive system isn't required, it's too late. This works for both males and females.

Although, I'd argue that there is good reason to give males the same ability to opt out of a pregnancy that females have. But that's a discussion for more enlightened times.

Abortion is traumatic for the women involved, and few understand just how traumatic it is before they actually go through it.

Abortion is traumatic for some women, largely because of guilt complexes they wouldn't have if people would mind their own business.

Just as if you own land you can't just go dumping any old toxic chemical into the streams running through it because it will poison your neighbor's land, you're expected to avoid creating babies with fetal alcohol syndrome that can't control their own violent outbursts.

I agree, but given that abortions don't affect anyone but yourself, it's irrelevant to the issue.

Re:Higher Power

[Curunir_wolf]

I agree the entire thing was a massive failure on the part of Florida's board of elections, and the courts handled it poorly, too, I think. Here we are still arguing about what the "real" will of the voters was 12 years later...

Re:Higher Power

[frank_adrian314159]

Obama pulled a Caesar on this one and dared the Congress to do anything about it.

Yup. And I, for one, am glad he did. If the Republicans want to obstruct, I'm glad this President kicks them in the balls. It's not like the Republicans don't have options...

If the Republicans aren't complete pussies, they'll try to impeach him (I'd actually like to see this happen - I remember the last time they tried to impeach a sitting President). If they're a bunch of candy-assed pussies, they'll just whine to the Supreme Court and get the appointment overturned. If they're stupid and a bunch of candy-assed pussies (which is my assumption), they'll just whine about it to the press.

Re:Higher Power

[Curunir_wolf]

Abortion is traumatic for some women, largely because of guilt complexes they wouldn't have if people would mind their own business.

That's part of it, but I was referring to the procedure itself, and the emotional toll rarely as anything to do with anyone else's opinion on the subject. I'm not a woman that has had an abortion, so I can't speak to it myself, but I've heard plenty of stories, and while the disgusting attempts of others to denigrate them for making the decision they did are ugly, that's not what I'm talking about. To dismiss the physical, emotional and other issues women go through is pretty narrow-minded.

I agree, but given that abortions don't affect anyone but yourself, it's irrelevant to the issue.

Not irrelevant - abortion affects lots of people. It affects everyone that loves the woman that had to go through it, and anyone that might have loved the dismissed life over the next 70 years. Besides, you were arguing about "reproductive rights", not abortion. And abortion is most often a result of two people being irresponsible with reproductive rights (yes, not always, I know).

If you want true liberty, you must be willing to take responsibility, and accept the consequences of your actions.

Re:Higher Power

[Hatta]

To dismiss the physical, emotional and other issues women go through is pretty narrow-minded.

I'm not dismissing them, I just don't know how it's relevant to the discussion. Any physical, emotional, or other issues a woman goes through during and after the abortion are her issues to deal with. Not the state government, not the federal government.

Not irrelevant - abortion affects lots of people. It affects everyone that loves the woman

Every decision I make affects the people that love me. By your criteria, that means I essentially have no rights at all. The state can compel me to do anything it wants in the interests of those who care about me. This is an extremely troubling position for you to take.

If you want true liberty, you must be willing to take responsibility, and accept the consequences of your actions.

I agree. And getting an abortion is one of the least costly ways to do so.

Re:Higher Power

[presidenteloco]

Ding. Godwin's law strikes again. Congratulations.

I have to agree with you though. Rigged democracies are so much more effective and safe than pure ones.

Re:Higher Power

[HornWumpus]

They were counted 3 times before certifying the winner. (1st count, automatic machine count, manual recount.)

It's not my insistence Gore didn't win. It was a group of press people who did an independent recount. They found 1 case where Gore would have one (that is to say, 1 set of counties using different criteria in each county), all other cases (e.g. only recount the counties Gores people ask for, use consistent criteria in R and D counties etc etc) Gore lost.

Re:Higher Power

[HornWumpus]

Fair? How is it fair to change the rules after the election (because your guy lost)? The only fair thing to do is count using the rules in place that day.

I will agree with you the Supreme Court exposed itself as a bunch of partisans. The Supreme Court of Florida.

Re:Higher Power

[Lunzo]

Republic doesn't mean representative democracy (with rule of law). That's an American definition. The GP's definitions are correct.

Re:Higher Power

[modmans2ndcoming]

by what right does the US SCOTUS have to limit the ruling of a state supreme court over a part of the state's constitution when the ruling did not conflict with any provision of the US constitution?

Re:Higher Power

[dryeo]

When I went to school (in Canada), I was taught that republic was simply the opposite of monarchy. There are lots of non-democratic republics in the world and even some representative democratic monarchies.
I've never understood this thing with Americans thinking that republic = democracy. Even the original republic Rome had dictators, eg Julius Caesar.

Re:Higher Power

[canadian_right]

An embryo is not a person. I'm not sure when a foetus becomes a person, but I DO know a full grown women is a person with full rights. I value the rights of women much more than the rights of small clumps of cells.

Re:Higher Power

[Curunir_wolf]

Thank you for demonstrating the "screaming at each other" with hyperbole point of my post.

Re:Higher Power

[Curunir_wolf]

I agree. And getting an abortion is one of the least costly ways to do so.

As far as I am aware, abortion is the most costly form of birth control ever.

Re:Higher Power

[Curunir_wolf]

Every decision I make affects the people that love me. By your criteria, that means I essentially have no rights at all. The state can compel me to do anything it wants in the interests of those who care about me. This is an extremely troubling position for you to take.

I didn't advocate any such thing. The only issue that should be considered by a just government is when to intervene on behalf of citizens threatened with violence and death at the hand of another. A one-day-old is considered a person and his right to life is recognized. But to put that line at birth means there's no protection for a child the day before or even during labor, if the mother decides she wants to kill it.

I don't have the answer, but, again, I think it's more complicated than you want to make it seem.

Re:Higher Power

[dynamo52]

Which is essentially what the United States would be also if the teabaggers had their way.

Re:Higher Power

[Arterion]

But really, can anyone in their right mind argue a Gore presidency wouldn't have been infinitely better than Bush? Obviously a lot was a stake in 2000. I think a lot of people didn't realize just how much or they would've fought harder. Gore was, more than anything else, a technocrat. That's something I think the world needed and still needs right now, because I think, especially here on slashdot, people are beginning to realize that technology is the only thing that can feed and clothes us at this point, and has an amazing potential to kill us all in the same fashion. Liberals AND conservatives still seem too be burying their heads in the sand.

Re:Higher Power

[Myopic]

Show me with cites like I showed you. Google "define: republic" and tell me what that says.

Re:Higher Power

[petman]

Direct Democracy : where everyone votes on every decision is impractical

Correction: ... where everyone votes on every decision was impractical. With today's technology, why wouldn't it be possible to let every citizen vote on every decision?
OTOH, I wouldn't advocate this style of governance, for the very simple reason that people are stupid.

Re:Higher Power

[tehcyder]

Actually, the USA is a rotational representative kakistodemocracy.

You mean kakistocracy, i.e. government by the worst people. Kakistodemocracy isn't an English word.

Re:Higher Power

[tehcyder]

The United States is not a democracy. It never has been and it never will be. It has always been a Republic. It's current form is a democratically elected republic.

If it's a democratically elected republic it's a fucking democracy. You're just playing with words. There is no country on earth which is a pure democracy in the direct Ancient Greek sense.

Re:Higher Power

[Hatta]

True, but after the fact it's a lot less costly than raising a kid for 18 years.

Re:Higher Power

[Hatta]

I didn't advocate any such thing. The only issue that should be considered by a just government is when to intervene on behalf of citizens threatened with violence and death at the hand of another.

Then why did you bring up the effects of abortion on people's families when we were talking about appropriate limits of government power?

A one-day-old is considered a person and his right to life is recognized. But to put that line at birth means there's no protection for a child the day before or even during labor, if the mother decides she wants to kill it.

I agree, the line at birth is arbitrary. But if you want to improve on it, you're going to have to come up with some non-arbitrary measure. How would you demonstrate empirically that a right to life exists, let alone that it is possessed by a fetus?

Re:Higher Power

[Curunir_wolf]

I agree, the line at birth is arbitrary. But if you want to improve on it, you're going to have to come up with some non-arbitrary measure.

I can't, which is my point. It's really complicated, and both sides have valid positions, even if there are a lot of really radically uncompromising ones from both camps.

How would you demonstrate empirically that a right to life exists, let alone that it is possessed by a fetus?

Do we have a right to exist? About the only empirical evidence of that is that we are here, so we have a right to be here. Although there certainly seems to be a lot of claims that the existence of the State takes precedent over the existence of any individual or group. If we can't get agreement that human beings have an intrinsic right to life and that governments should protect those rights, we're in a lot of trouble. Which is probably true, as it seems the President can now order the death of any citizen without trial based only on his discretion.

Re:Higher Power

[Hatta]

I can't, which is my point. It's really complicated, and both sides have valid positions, even if there are a lot of really radically uncompromising ones from both camps.

You can't come up with any evidence to support your side, and you still assert that both sides have valid positions?

Do we have a right to exist?

No, of course not. We have to struggle every day to continue existing. If our laws against killing were based on a right to exist, then there war would be illegal.

About the only empirical evidence of that is that we are here, so we have a right to be here.

By that logic vegetables have a right to exist. Are you saying that eating salad is equivalent to abortion? You know, I'd agree with that actually.

Re:Higher Power

[Curunir_wolf]

You can't come up with any evidence to support your side, and you still assert that both sides have valid positions?

I don't have a "side", as I've stated over and over, you douchebag. FUCK! I should have known it was fruitless to try to discuss the issue and positions in this debate.

Do we have a right to exist?

No, of course not.

Then please fucking go kill yourself. Or I'll do it for you, since you don't think anyone should be allowed to stop me. If we don't have a right to exist, then your argument for "reproductive rights" is complete bullshit, because they don't exist either. If you don't have a right to exist, you sure as FUCK don't have a right to procreate. You don't have any fucking rights at all.

Re:Higher Power

[Hatta]

I should have known it was fruitless to try to discuss the issue and positions in this debate.

Have you actually tried to do so? All I saw was handwaving and assertions that "it's complicated".

Or I'll do it for you, since you don't think anyone should be allowed to stop me.

When exactly did I say that? I mean, even if you take the most extreme interpretation of what I said (that is, rights are nonexistant, which isn't what I meant) it would follow that you wouldn't have the right to kill either. And you wouldn't have the right to be free from other people preventing you from killing.

I think it would be useful for you to actually try to explain to me in detail where this "right to exist" derives.

Re:Higher Power

[Curunir_wolf]

I think it would be useful for you to actually try to explain to me in detail where this "right to exist" derives.

Maybe it would be more useful for you to explain why you think "reproductive rights" are sacrosanct but the right to be alive is bogus.

Re:Higher Power

[Hatta]

Easy. It is possible to guarantee reproductive freedom. It is not possible to guarantee life. Since rights are guarantees, it is at least possible for reproductive freedom to be a right, but not even cromulent to think of life as a right.

The idea that life is not a right should not be controversial in the slightest. Our lives exist only because we take the lives of other beings. Even vegetarians can't escape this.

Re:Higher Power

[Curunir_wolf]

First, I don't accept your premise that "rights are guarantees". Second, reproductive freedom requires life, among other things. If you can't guarantee life, you can't guarantee reproduction. Dead things can't procreate, and just like life, procreation is only possible by taking the lives of other beings.

Even if it were, it's useless. If you're not allowed to exist, you can't bring other beings into existence, either.

Re:Higher Power

[Hatta]

If you're not allowed to exist, you can't bring other beings into existence, either.

There you go again, taking an extreme intepretation of what I said, and making conclusions that don't even follow from that interpretation. Nothing about life not being a right implies that you're not allowed (by whom?) to be alive. Driving isn't a right either, and yet we are still allowed to drive. See how that works?

Re:Higher Power

[russotto]

You mean kakistocracy, i.e. government by the worst people. Kakistodemocracy isn't an English word.

"Rotational kakistodemocracy" is a recent coinage. I'm not sure what the author coining it meant, but what I mean by it is "government by one of a number of sets of the worst people around, the choice of which of those sets of worst people being determined by popular vote, and the choice occasionally changing."

Re:Higher Power

[JasterBobaMereel]

..."final legal authority is a public document that codifies the supreme law that governs everything ..." is a Constitutional Republic (which most modern republics are)

The problem is that there are also republics where the government can overrule the constitution, and unelected non-democratic republics

Nothing is black and white, but Republic is not the same as Democracy, and vice-versa ...

It's sad either way

[kurt555gs]

Mitt the anti Christ or Mr Frothy Santorum? This is a choice?

Re:It's sad either way

[skids]

As I heard recently, it's boiling down to a choice of "man on dog" versus "dog on car".

I gotta say I've been enjoying watching people have fun with the headlines. My favorite was :"Romney squeezes out Santorum"

Re:It's sad either way

[ArsenneLupin]

I gotta say I've been enjoying watching people have fun with the headlines. My favorite was :"Romney squeezes out Santorum"

Probably that headline author knew full well what Santorum means, and did it on purpose! Ew, still gross.

Re:It's sad either way

[squiggleslash]

I rather liked someone's Tweet on the subject: "From now on, Santorum will always be synonymous with coming in number 2."

Re:It's sad either way

[VolciMaster]

I gotta say I've been enjoying watching people have fun with the headlines. My favorite was :"Romney squeezes out Santorum"

Probably that headline author knew full well what Santorum means, and did it on purpose! Ew, still gross.

And you'll find "santorum" means precisely bupkis. "sanitorium", on the other hand, does have a meaning, and one that is distinctly not "gross".

Re:It's sad either way

[NatasRevol]

Words change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neologism

Ironically, it was the Urban Dictionary's word of the day 2 days ago. Coincidence?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=santorum&defid=369371

Re:It's sad either way

[jandrese]

I liked:

Strong number 2 finish propels Santorum forward

Also:

Santorum surges from behind

It's really just too easy.

Re:It's sad either way

[sexconker]

Words don't get to change just because you want them to.

The slang "meaning" of santorum was deliberately conjured up to reference the person.
I can't just say natasrevol is a slang for the dried crust of stagnant breast milk that forms on nipples.

Re:It's sad either way

[NatasRevol]

Or you could spell it backwards.

Words change meaning when enough people want them to.

santorum is a word, like it or not.

Re:It's sad either way

[ArsenneLupin]

dried crust of stagnant breast milk that forms on nipples.

Can't be much worse than the soured crust of cum from a previous encounter on a poorly maintained cock...

Re:It's sad either way

[mr_stinky_britches]

Words don't get to change just because you want them to.

The slang "meaning" of santorum was deliberately conjured up to reference the person.
I can't just say natasrevol is a slang for the dried crust of stagnant breast milk that forms on nipples.

Eww... I think you have some santorum on your leg, bro.

OK...but

[acklenx]

I'm gonna call the "winner" the guy that got to most [counted] votes... won.

Re:OK...but

[jellomizer]

Yes Statically they tied. However Romney has 8 more votes.

The value of democracy isn't as much the best person wins, but the person who is most supported wins. Unfortunately there isn't really a fair voting system that cannot be manipulated.

When you have more then 2 choices often the one who stands out more will win. Not because he is better but there is less competition.
For this case Romney won because he was one of the few moderates. And Santorum got just as much (minus 8) because he was the few evangelical who didn't get mud thrown at him. While I seem Romney as the lest evil one there. However there were a lot of other people who had simular nutty ideas and their votes got split.

Re:OK...but

[snookums]

Actually you have no idea who "won" because the preference of everyone who voted for the 3rd+ place getters was discarded. Without runoff elections or a preferential voting system you have absolutely no idea who is the preferred candidate out of Romney and Santorum. The discarded votes were more than the votes for Romney and Santorum combined.

speaking of which

[Anonymous Coward]

Mitt Romney + tanning bed = Barack Obama.

Re:speaking of which

[mister_playboy]

I have to agree with this. I can't really imagine Mitt running things even a little differently than what Obama is doing right now.

Filp-flopping brothers, separated at birth. :)

Re:speaking of which

[mr1911]

Mitt Romney + tanning bed = Barack Obama.

Quite possibly the best post ever.

Re:speaking of which

[WindBourne]

Nope. Romney's advisers are mostly W's advisers, with a few from reagan's time. Romney is a PURE neo-con. To vote for him is to vote for more W's politics. And this is what neo-con policies look like

Re:speaking of which

[mister_playboy]

To vote for him is to vote for more W's politics.

That statement applies just as much to Obama as it does to Romney, unfortunately.

Re:speaking of which

[squiggleslash]

You're not really contradicting what the guy said. It's not as if Obama has strayed at all from his predecessor's policies on war, executive supremacy, and foreign policy.

Re:speaking of which

[HeckRuler]

Wait, so we aren't leaving Iraq now? When did that change?
It took awhile, but we've handed things off to the Iraqis. Notice how it wasn't all that newsworthy? That's a sign that it went well. Too bad we're still in Afghanistan. I'm not exactly sure what the hell we're expected to do there.

Re:speaking of which

[GlassHeart]

It's not as if Obama has strayed at all from his predecessor's policies on war, executive supremacy, and foreign policy.

Obama got the Arab League* to endorse the no-fly zone over Libya, and got the Europeans flying many of the missions, for a final cost of about $2 billion and no known American lives. Does that sound even remotely like either of Bush's wars?

* Which, mind you, is not only Arab and Muslim like Libya, but also mostly dealing with internal dissent themselves, and are obviously wary of Western intervention themselves. How eager do you suppose they were to throw Libya under the bus?

Re:speaking of which

[Anonymous Coward]

We're leaving Iraq because Iraq forced us to. In the meantime, we attacked yet another country (Libya), we're going beyond the Bush regime when it comes to people suspected of terrorism (we're killing them extrajudicially now, not just kidnapping them), we continue to torture (indeed, we've even combined it with the war on whistleblowers in the case of Private Manning) , and we're generally pissing off the world left right and center for no good purpose.

There's a reason most of the first page of search results on Google of "Dick Cheney Obama" are for Cheney praising Obama.

Re:speaking of which

[Shotgun]

Yes, we are. On the schedule set by Busch. We would be staying longer if the Iraqis hadn't insisted on removing legal protections from the soldiers there.

Re:speaking of which

[HeckRuler]

Oh man, you're dragging out Libya? We provided a humanitarian effort to keep mercenaries in planes from bombing civilians. The government we attacked has been toppled. Our boots on the ground number 12, for our embassy. Let me guess, you think Obama's a Muslim, caused the recession, and has no chance of getting re-elected?

Are you ignorant or something? We've assassinated a lot of people in the prior decades. Don't think our past is all roses and rainbows. "Send them to Egypt if you want them tortured for information, Send them to Syria if you want them to disappear".

And it would have been nice if Bush had stuck to one of his earlier timelines of "The war will be over in 3 months and will pay for itself". Instead he constantly blew through them, and then argued that even having timelines lets "the enemy" win. And Iraqi leaders want our troops to stay, as it's free security, but publicly have to denounce us as the troops are massively unpopular among the populace. What, you didn't think politics in the MiddleEast would be easy did you?

Yeah, I really wish he had laid down the hammer against torture.

Who are we pissing off now? There's some bullshit with SOPA that would miff a lot of foreigners, but it's not like we're wantonly invading nations anymore.

In other words...

[cultiv8]

The world is round, p <= .05.

Re:In other words...

[NatasRevol]

The world isn't close to round.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datum_(geodesy)

Re:In other words...

[janeuner]

Common Sense just talked it over with Reality, and they both concluded that your just being a douche.

Re:In other words...

[NatasRevol]

To within p = .05, yes.

Re:In other words...

[skids]

That would be even funnier to say when standing at the top of mount everest.

Re:In other words...

[ceoyoyo]

The world is pretty damn close to round. IIRC the vertical displacement due to terrain is proportionally less than an atom's thickness on a billiard ball. The planet is better approximated by an oblate spheroid than a sphere (an oblate spheroid is still round) but even that difference is about 0.3%.

Re:In other words...

[dcw3]

Circumference at equator = 24901.55 miles
Circumference through poles = 24859.82 miles
Difference = 41.73 miles or .167% more at the equator than the poles.

Reference http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzcircumference.htm

Re:In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who says "round == perfectly spherical"?

But no complaints about the count?

[RogueyWon]

And yet... no appeal? No call for a recount? Either the Republican primary rules don't allow for it (and I'm not familiar enough with them to know), or else Santorum has noted the lessons of Florida 2000 and decided that risking a "sore loser" reputation wouldn't do him any good in what's still an ongoing contest.

Re:But no complaints about the count?

[jmtpi]

Because the results are not binding anyway, there's no need for a recount, or so the NYTimes says:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/no-need-for-recount-in-iowa-caucus/?scp=1&sq=iowa%20recount&st=cse

Re:But no complaints about the count?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because the caucus votes don't really count. There's two layers of delegates between the voters and the people who vote who actually count. By the end the delegate voters generally vote for whoever is "clearly" going to win the nomination in the national races. The vote that occurred recently in Iowa is just for the media.

Re:But no complaints about the count?

[Myopic]

That was informative, thank you.

Re:But no complaints about the count?

[Wovel]

Or , perhaps Iow proportionally allocates delegates ( I have no idea) and therefore the difference is meaningless. From a publicity standpoint, the man who hate everyone could not have asked for a better outcome.

Re:But no complaints about the count?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or , perhaps Iow proportionally allocates delegates ( I have no idea) and therefore the difference is meaningless. From a publicity standpoint, the man who hate everyone could not have asked for a better outcome.

This. Iowa does proportionally allocate its delegates.

Because Romney was declared the winner, he will get 13 and Santorum will get 12. If Santorum demanded a recount and managed to reverse the win, he would get 13 and Romney would get 12. But to win the GOP nomination, you have to win 1,212 out of 2,424 delegates. So a recount for Santorum is pointless. The chances that one lone delegate will make the difference between winning and losing the nomination are effectively zero.

Re:But no complaints about the count?

[Orne]

Also, this year there is a proportional assignment of delegates based on the percent of vote received. Iowa has a total of 26 delegates, and 1,144 are needed to win the party nomination. At 1/26, there can be as much as 4% error in the vote and it shouldn't affect the delegate ratios.

CNN lists the following delegate votes:

• Romney 7
• Paul 7
• Santorum 8
• Gingrich 2
• Perry 2

Re:But no complaints about the count?

[residieu]

Well, it's good to pound into the heads of some of the trailing candidates that they have no chance in the election and should save their money and go home.

Re:But no complaints about the count?

[residieu]

Because who got more votes here is meaningless. It's like asking "Which candidate got louder applause?" You could measure and declare a winner based on that, but it wouldn't tell you how Iowa's delegates are going to be distributed. All the results tell you is that Bachmann, Hunstman, Roemer and Cain are probably not viable candidates.

Re:But no complaints about the count?

[rickb928]

"The chances that one lone delegate will make the difference between winning and losing the nomination are effectively zero."

Make that decision 45 times and you lose the nomination.

Re:But no complaints about the count?

[Toonol]

Would a recount be any more accurate?

It's better to have clear procedures followed to the letter, than recounts and bickering.

Re:But no complaints about the count?

[idontgno]

Bachman got the message, at least. So that's one good outcome of an otherwise meaningless process.

Re:But no complaints about the count?

[jfengel]

Small but relevant typo: Santorum has 7, not 8.

Re:But no complaints about the count?

[acoustix]

And yet... no appeal? No call for a recount? Either the Republican primary rules don't allow for it (and I'm not familiar enough with them to know), or else Santorum has noted the lessons of Florida 2000 and decided that risking a "sore loser" reputation wouldn't do him any good in what's still an ongoing contest.

This wasn't a primary. It was a caucus. There are fundamental differences. Besides, it really doesn't matter who the statewide winner was. It's all about electing delegates to represent the districts at the party convention later in the year.

Re:But no complaints about the count?

[MushMouth]

Perot did not hand the election to Clinton, however Nader did hand the election to W.

http://mydd.com/users/diamondjay/posts/getting-the-19921996-elections-right-ross-perot-did-not-change-the-outcomes

Re:But no complaints about the count?

[trout007]

You are under the wrongful assumption that Paul voters would vote for any other Republican. That is most likely not the case. If he didn't run 3rd party they would either stay home or more likely for for Johnson.

Dude,

[cshark]

It's a non binding vote. A straw poll. It's already totally and completely meaningless.

Re:Dude,

[Wovel]

The straw poll was in August. This was a caucus.

Re:Dude,

[R.Mo_Robert]

The straw poll was in August. This was a caucus.

A straw poll is, by definition, a nonbinding vote, as the grandparent mentioned--e.g., the Iowa Republican caucuses, or the Ames Straw Poll you are referring to. You drop a secret ballot in a box. The final decision (these are all effectively ways to gauge potential nominees) is made by the Party much later in the season.

Iowa Democratic caucuses are a bit different, by the way--no ballots, for one thing. I was actually surprised the Republican caucuses were different. I had to look this up to make sure the people quoted in the summary weren't incredibly misinformed.

Re:Dude,

[strikethree]

It's a non binding vote. A straw poll. It's already totally and completely meaningless.

It was not meaningless. Michele Bachmann dropped out of the race. Another and more interesting thing happened too:

Ron Paul is confirmed as a viable candidate to vote for. Voting for _anyone_ else is voting for "Business as Usual".

I make it a point to never vote against someone. I vote for who I want to win... except in 2000. I voted for Gore because he was the only one who I felt who had a chance against Bush. I will be voting for Ron Paul as a vote against the currently corrupted system. I see Ron Paul as a last ditch effort against a violent revolution. Despite the fact that Ron Paul seems batshit crazy to me, I am going to vote for him now.

This "straw poll" was far more important than you think. I would never have considered voting for Ron Paul without it.

(lol, CAPTHCA is avenges)

So... what's the difference?

[SuricouRaven]

All the republicans candidates look much the same to me, except Ron Paul. They seem to be all playing it safe, avoiding saying anything too out-of-the-mainstream at such a critical time.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[DarkVader]

Really? Because Santorum is about as right-wing nutjob as it gets, and Obamacare might just as well be called Romneycare, since it's very similar to the Massachusetts plan.

And yeah, Ron Paul is a different kind of RWNJ, the big difference is that he understands the futility of the drug war and is against foreign entanglements.

Fortunately for the country, we're not going to have to deal with any of it beyond the campaign, since Obama is going to be reelected.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[skids]

...for some warped right-wing Republican-primary definition of "mainstream"...

Re:So... what's the difference?

[Wovel]

You think. I agree it is a worthless lot, but Santorum and Romney are in no ways similar. Santorum is a radical, right-wing-religious-zealot-lunatic. Most sane republicans would prefer 4 more year of Obama,

At a time when the republican party should be moving away from religious zealotry and towards fiscal conservatism, 25% I totally lost and voted for Santorum, another 25% voted for Romney because he has run 75 time and they know who he is.

Let's elect Bush(Santorum) again, Obama is apparently not runnin up the debt fast enough for the new Republican party.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[evilRhino]

The idea that tax cuts lead to job growth has a decade long track record of failure, but is still the leading republican platform for job creation. The whole party is far out of the mainstream.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[dpilot]

Some (Republican) friends were over for New Year's Eve, and one of them quoted someone else, "Looking at the economy, there's no way Obama can be reelected. Looking at the Republican field, there's no way Obama can lose."

The real disservice to the country is that something terribly bad has happened to the American English language, at least as it appears in the mainstream media. With very few exceptions, the late Ted Kennedy being a notable one, the word "Liberal" is unquestionably bad. The phrase "too conservative" appears to be null and meaningless. From what I can see in media coverage of the Republican race, with the possible exceptions of Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, it all comes down to who can be more conservative than the others, and the possibility of being "too conservative" hasn't been considered, where any amount of "liberal" is "too liberal".

And I guess the only phrase for "too conservative" has become "right wing nutjob", which gives it a pejorative rather than descriptive feeling, and thus removes its effectiveness.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[Attila Dimedici]

Most sane republicans would prefer 4 more year of Obama,

No, sane person would prefer 4 more years of Obama to any of the candidates in the field (even Dennis Kucinich is likely to be a better choice than 4 more years of Obama).

Re:So... what's the difference?

[Magada]

Ah, but increasingly the tax base is made of people who do NOT work. It is not profitable to be working, anyway.

At the extremes, you have people who are too poor to work (yes, really) and people who are too rich to work. In the middle, there is a mass of losers who make ends meet on a paycheck.

Whom do you tax? Which segment is least impacted by a tax increase?

Re:So... what's the difference?

[dkleinsc]

Actually, the 3 who did well in Iowa represent 3 different strains of thought within the Republican Party:
- Mitt Romney represents corporations and business interests. His electoral base are the sort of moderately successful business owners and middle managers you'd find a local meeting of the Chamber of Commerce, while his monetary base is fat cat corporations.
- Rick Santorum represents the religious right. His electoral base are members of evangelical churches. He hasn't raised all that much cash, but has some monetary support from fat cat corporations and from evangelical Christian groups.
- Ron Paul represents the libertarians. His electoral base is a mix of independent farmers and suburbanites who believe they don't depend on the government for anything. He also has nowhere near as much money as Romney, and interestingly is funded almost half by small contributors.

Not in the Republican party, but relevant:
- Barack Obama represents the 'Washington consensus' on most issues. His electoral base are urban residents, racial minorities (those constituencies overlap but are not identical), and educated voters who don't consider themselves business management. His monetary base is fat cat corporations.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[NeutronCowboy]

I know you're aiming for sarcasm, but you're actually right. After a certain level of income, a few percentage points of taxes do not change your lifestyle. Instead, the question then becomes, what kind of government do these taxes buy me? What kind of society do I want to be a part of?

Re:So... what's the difference?

[The Moof]

Huntsman doesn't come off as a rank-and-file Republican, and has some logical stances (for a conservative) on some issues. He also doesn't take a strictly partisan stance on everything, which is sorely, sorely needed in our government. However, since he appears more moderate than the rest of the field, he'll never make it out of the primary process.

I haven't taken a very scrutinizing look at Huntsman, but he seemed like the best choice to me from the field of candidates. Paul has some good ideas, but he's way too idealistic in some of his views, almost to the point of naivety.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[elsurexiste]

Can't say I agree with you. Just look at this: there was a republican candidate that wanted to stop corporations from dominating election campaign's funding (as it is today), PACs, the whole thing. Compare this with a democrat like, let's say, Bill Clinton. So no, not all republicans are the same, some of them have nice ideas too!

Re:So... what's the difference?

[coinreturn]

Most sane republicans would prefer 4 more year of Obama,

No, sane person would prefer 4 more years of Obama to any of the candidates in the field (even Dennis Kucinich is likely to be a better choice than 4 more years of Obama).

Freudian slip of a comma changed the meaning of your statement to the reverse of what you have in parens.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[Bob-taro]

And I guess the only phrase for "too conservative" has become "right wing nutjob", which gives it a pejorative rather than descriptive feeling, and thus removes its effectiveness.

I suspect that in this context "right wing nutjob" here means "religious conservative". Appealing to evangelicals *is* playing it safe, particularly for a Republican race in Iowa.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ron Paul represents a very slim portion of libertarians. Most of us think he is a whack job.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[Bob-taro]

Most sane republicans would prefer 4 more year of Obama,

No, sane person would prefer 4 more years of Obama to any of the candidates in the field (even Dennis Kucinich is likely to be a better choice than 4 more years of Obama).

Interesting, how was this post any more "flamebait" than it's parent? Does Obama pay people to moderate slashdot?

Re:So... what's the difference?

[hedwards]

It's worth noting that in his previous race that Obama's monetary base was made up hugely of small donors. It's not surprising that he's getting a larger amount of money from corporations this time, considering how successful the GOP has been at stymieing attempts at fixing really anything. That and his willingness to put private insurers out of business and his audacity to actually appoint somebody to run the new consumer protection agency.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[WhiplashII]

Note, however, that no one EVER says they are going to raise taxes on the rich. They raise taxes on the high income workers - because those people are a threat to the rich (they might catch up!), and they can count on sour grapes votes from the poor as well.

If we wanted to tax the rich, we would tax accumulated wealth, not income. Most high income people are struggling to build businesses, and taxes definitely adversely effect them. (I know, I'm in that boat)

Re:So... what's the difference?

[michael_cain]

We raised taxes in the early 1990s and got an eight-year boom where unemployment fell to record low levels for peacetime, and at the end of the business cycle got a very mild recession. In response, we cut taxes dramatically and got eight years of mediocre-at-best job growth followed by the worst recession since WWII and a fall in the worker-to-p0pulation ratio that took us back to the 1980s.

Based on the last 20 years, you can conclude that tax rates and job growth are directly (not inversely) related, or you can conclude (more likely, IMO) that job growth depends on other things and is unrelated to tax rates across a broad range of values. But there's no evidence to support the theoretical position that increasing tax rates results in lower job growth.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[cyberchondriac]

Even assuming this is true, how's that increase job growth exactly?
The one thing that government really needs to do, it will never do- streamline efficiency and stop the culture of waste. It's horribly inefficient. The budget system is broken. In my state gov't, for example,each little dept is given a set budget each year; some years they need to spend more, others, less, as would be expected; but if by the end of the fiscal year they haven't spent all of the monies they were allotted, the budget for next year will be reduced. No one wants this, so to prevent that from happening, they just blow the remainder of their budget on BS, rather than return it, roll it over into next year, or otherwise apply it usefully. It's wasteful. And that's just one example.
We could get the same benefits and services now for a lot less than they spend, but government looks at their income (collected taxes) as people look at Doritos - "they'll make more" (for us).

Re:So... what's the difference?

[selven]

What does "conservative" even mean? Sometimes it means "not radical", sometimes it means "frugal government", sometimes it's "military adventurist". Same with "liberal" - it seems like the terms are set up to mean whatever people want them to mean.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[mister_playboy]

Does Obama pay people to moderate slashdot?

Check the self-professed politics of /. users from a recent poll: http://slashdot.org/poll/2296/in-the-simplistic-leftright-divide-id-call-myself

Re:So... what's the difference?

[chispito]

From what I can see in media coverage of the Republican race, with the possible exceptions of Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, it all comes down to who can be more conservative than the others, and the possibility of being "too conservative" hasn't been considered, where any amount of "liberal" is "too liberal".

That's how primary elections work. You have to appeal to the base. Then, nomination in hand, you race back to the center. Rinse repeat. Every four years.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[m50d]

How else would you want it? They're supposed to represent a large political party, of course they're going to take the positions of the mainstream of that party. I do see a fairly clear distinction between the moderates (Romney, Gingrich), the conservatives (Santorum, Perry(?), Bachmann, the rest of them), and Ron Paul, and when you only get to vote for one guy and don't get to give a reason, that's probably about as subtle a question as the electorate can meaningfully answer. I would agree that the "conservative" cluster seems much of a muchness and the field could do with thinning down to one in each of those three groups, but that's what these straw polls are for.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[Quince alPillan]

According to the CNN entrance/exit polling, you're fairly correct. The only thing I'd change is that Ron Paul appears to hold the interest of moderates, liberals, and independents; middle and lower income families; and under 40 crowd within the Republican party, of which there is quite a bit of overlap.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[dpilot]

In my post I was trying to avoid making any value statements about any of this, though just a teeny bit might have leaked through. Nor will I disagree with what you've said. My point was that in current political lingo, the only way to say "too conservative", be it "too religiously conservative" or "too economically conservative", is "right wing nutjob," because it appears that more conservative is "always" better, just like more liberal is "always" worse.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[Hatta]

Mitt Romney represents corporations and business interests.

Barack Obama represents the 'Washington consensus' on most issues

The "Washington consensus" is that the interests of corporations and business interests trump everything else. Romney might as well be Obama (and for that matter Obama might as well be Reagan). As a result, this will be one of the least democratic elections in decades, at least in terms of a real choice being given to the American people.

Because of the lack of actual differences between the candidates, we can expect the minor insignificant differences to be exaggerated with extreme vitriol. This will be one of the nastiest elections in memory.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[idontgno]

To paraphrase Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) : "I shall not today attempt further to define 'conservative' ...But I know it when I see it."

Re:So... what's the difference?

[Hatta]

It's not surprising that he's getting a larger amount of money from corporations this time, considering how successful the GOP has been at stymieing attempts at fixing really anything. That and his willingness to put private insurers out of business and his audacity to actually appoint somebody to run the new consumer protection agency.

He's getting huge donations from corporations this time because they know he won't do anything to temper their rapacious greed. Obama didn't put private insurers out of business, he delivered them millions of mandatory customers, the young, healthy, valuable ones. His creation of the consumer protection agency is equally misleading. The CPA's budget is half that of the SEC, which already doesn't have the budget to investigate the investment banks it regulates. The CPA's scope is even bigger.

Anything Obama has done to appeal to the people over corporations is a facade that crumbles on the slightest inspection. He is a big government, big corporation, crony capitalist just like all the rest.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[jandrese]

As a libertarian, you really need to be careful who you call a whack job. People in glass houses and all.

There are many libertarian stands that I agree with, but there are many other stands that I think are completely nuts. If you have some grand plan for the economy, I think that's great. If your grand plan involves the creation of a serf class and/or people starving in the streets, well, you've lost me.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[HornWumpus]

Huntsman's dad is the Mormon pope.

Say what you will about Mormon people. The leadership of that church has been a bunch of corrupt scammers all the way back to Joe Smith.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[SuricouRaven]

Brings to mind the constant efforts of the republicans to fight the inheritence tax, even inventing the name 'Death Tax' while conveniently neglecting you need to inherit far more money than most people would ever have for it to take effect.

I call it the Paris Hilton Tax.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[dkleinsc]

It's worth noting that in his previous race that Obama's monetary base was made up hugely of small donors.

No, actually, it wasn't. But don't trust me, check this out: donor demographics

Re:So... what's the difference?

[dkleinsc]

To clarify: A lot of people who call themselves 'conservative' or 'Republican' are really libertarians, and Ron Paul comes closest to representing those views within the Republican Party primary. He may also be a whackjob, but you're getting awfully close to No True Scotsman territory there.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[phantomfive]

Libertarians suffer from the problem that no two of them believe the same thing. It becomes a kind of 'no true Scottsman' sort of fallacy. Ron Paul was on the ballot once as a presidential candidate for the Libertarian party, so it's hard to say he's not a true libertarian.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[Jawnn]

Based on the last 20 years, you can conclude that tax rates and job growth are directly (not inversely) related, or you can conclude (more likely, IMO) that job growth depends on other things and is unrelated to tax rates across a broad range of values. But there's no evidence to support the theoretical position that increasing tax rates results in lower job growth.

So..., you're saying..., what? That all the noise coming from the right for the last 30 years, about "job creators" and "trickle down" and all the other bullshit is, what? All just so much bullshit? I don't know. If it were, I'm sure that news media would be all over it. Right? I mean every time some retard ditto-head opened his mouth and spewed such lies, the mainstream corporate media would... Oh. Wait....

Re:So... what's the difference?

[Raenex]

Ron Paul represents the libertarians. His electoral base is a mix of independent farmers and suburbanites who believe they don't depend on the government for anything.

You're missing out on voters who are tired of the war on drugs and/or tired of the foreign wars.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[Khashishi]

I thought Perry was the Bush 3.0. Santorum is something else...a total Godbot. Maybe he can win the Republican primary, but I don't see any way he can win over significant numbers of people outside his base to secure a national election.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[Khashishi]

Taxing accumulated wealth would stimulate spending instead of saving, reducing inflation and moving money through the system. This is good.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[EuclideanSilence]

Who modded the parent down? Except for the sarcasm, he is completely correct.

Under a gold standard (or any commodity standard) the supply of money is held fairly fixed. Without such a standard, a balanced budget at least ties the value of a unit of money to a taxable base. Anyone receiving a future payment from the governing body knows that when he receives the money it won't be devaluing the currency because someone had to be taxed of that money.

When you have neither a commodity standard or a balanced budget, then the money supply is continually increased and it causes "inflation", the decrease of the buying power of an individual unit of currency. Thus our deficit really is causing a tax on accumulated wealth, as long as that wealth is held in local currency and not being held overseas, in stocks, or in a commodity.

Parent is mostly correct, except that the main problem is that anyone with sufficient wealth won't be affected by the resulting inflation. It usually hurts people such as:
    those getting raises that increase slower than inflation
    those who were saving up to buy a house
    those with contracts promising future payments

Re:So... what's the difference?

[Khashishi]

Bullshit. People still need to work even if they are getting less back for it, unless they have some large savings built up. Actually, they need to work more, in order to support themselves. Of course, other people might decide not to hire.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[HornWumpus]

Wealthy people are far too stupid to keep most of their assets as productive real things (land, businesses etc).

They just keep it in a vault so they can count it like 'Scrooge McDuck'.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[khallow]

It's worth noting that in his previous race that Obama's monetary base was made up hugely of small donors.

We don't know where the small donations came from. They might have come from small donors, they might have come from big business or Wall Street, or they might have come from space aliens and/or the global caliphate. Also, it's worth noting that Obama now receives most of his campaign funds in small donations (how much of that is unreported is unclear to me since the reported $250 upper limit in the Obama report is conveniently different from the reporting threshold of $200).

My view is that we'll see this unpopular president rack up record amounts of donations below the reporting threshold.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[dcw3]

Don't let the internet bubble in any way interfere with your example of the 90s. Seriously, it wouldn't have mattered if we raised, lowered, or did nothing at that point it time...they were going to be boom years.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[webheaded]

For fuck's sake. Did you forget to mention the dotcom bubble and 9-11 in that post or what? Seriously. I'm actually FOR raising taxes on the rich but your post is completely disingenuous. You can't talk about the economy during that time and not mention 2 gigantic economy breaking events in the process. Maybe the tax decisions did have some good or bad effects but honestly, most of the good or bad was caused by those 2 events...unless you actually have some evidence to the contrary. I honestly wonder if Clinton had done absolutely nothing if we would have pretty much had the same thing going on while the dotcom bubble was building.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[LDAPMAN]

Really? I wish that was true but in my case we had to sell off a small family farm due to the impact of inheritance taxes. This is a common occurrence all across america and is one of the contributing factor to the decline of the family farmer. It really doesn't take much for the value of the land and equipment to yeah into the millions. In most cases this "wealth" cannot be accessed in any liquid way and the annual income is not extravagant. There are far more people in sillier situations than there are Paris Hiltons.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[hedwards]

I disagree with you strongly there. It doesn't do a corporation any good to have millions of new customers if the government says you can't make money on it. And that's effectively what's happened. The health insurers are allowed to make at most 20% profit on premiums and 15% for group plans and that's assuming that they have no overhead. But, they do have overhead, they have to pay for sales costs out of their overhead, same goes for administrative fees and the salary of the CEO and other execs. In practice I doubt very much if they'll be willing or able to compete with non-profit health insurers.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[steppedleader]

To be fair, although Ron Paul certainly is a bit too extreme on some of his positions (wildly swinging a machete at cabinet departments, for example), he is also supported because some people realize that when Orwell wrote the phrase "WAR IS PEACE", he didn't intend it to become a guiding principle in western democracies. Have you seen the way every other Republican candidate talks about Iran!? Also, the drug war, PATRIOT act, and corporatism kind of suck a lot, too, and every other Republican candidate, along with Obama, seems to think that stuff is just dandy.

Point me to someone I can vote for who is centrist or center-left on economics and both a civil libertarian and against our current bully-everyone foreign policy (Kucinich, maybe? Well, if he was running) and I would happily support them. Right now we're still stuck with choosing the least of various evils, though, and at this point that looks a lot like Paul to me.

Keep in mind that most of Paul's wilder ideas (gold standard, defunding cabinet departments left and right) would require congressional approval. Veto all he wants, I doubt he'll ever get enough support to do those things. In the meantime the President has a lot more power over civil liberties issues and a *ton* of power over foreign policy (power which is seemingly increasing with each administration at this point).

Re:So... what's the difference?

[HeckRuler]

Well, yes, taxes adversely affect them. You know what helps them a lot?
HAVING A HIGH INCOME!
You are literally complaining about having more money then me. Suck it up nancy.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[anyGould]

"Looking at the economy, there's no way Obama can be reelected. Looking at the Republican field, there's no way Obama can lose."

This.

It's not like Obama has any big wins to point to. (I want to like the guy, but he desperately needs to grow a pair.[1]). But the field of Republican nominees is frankly scary - they all seem to have forgotten that after they win the nomination, they still have to appeal to the rest of the country at some level, and being froth-at-the-mouth crazy is not going to win you an election. (e.g. Santorum is now on record - and video - as being against contraception. Do you think some Democrat PAC isn't going to play that quote a billion times a day if he's the candidate? Anyone think the middle 20% is going to vote for a guy who wants to ban condoms?)

The attack ads this year should be most entertaining.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[Hatta]

20% and 15% are huge margins. You're talking about 5 times the margins they pull in practice. If this is a problem for them, it's not because of their customers. It's because their organization is incredibly inefficient and deserves to fail in the market.

Do you really think price caps are going to be what keeps a private insurance company from competing with a non-profit? If a private insurance company charges the maximum allowed by law and can't compete with a non-profit, are they going to be able to steal customers from the non-profit by raising prices?

Re:So... what's the difference?

[WhiplashII]

Look, moron, what I am complaining about is something else entirely. I'll explain my finances for this year to you, shall I?

One of my companies (that I founded) is doing really well this year. That's great, of course. But it means that we had to staff up, and go into a new building. That cost a lot of cash flow (which is not the same thing as profit). So I now have a company that I was able to grow, but did not get significant cash out of (as I, I personally didn't get a huge paycheck).

But the government says that I own the business, so I made all the profit. Even though I essentially reinvested the entire thing. Even though the company generated very little actual cash. My tax bill is larger than what I get paid! Essentially, the company's growth rate is cut to about half of what it could have been if I had been allowed to keep the money and reinvest it. The tax money has to come from somewhere!

You might think that this is OK, higher taxes this year probably will be balanced by lower taxes eventually. And in a non-progressive tax regime, you'd be right - but I'll leave that calculation to the interested student.

This is not theoretical - this is what really happened to me this tax year!

Re:So... what's the difference?

[SuricouRaven]

The minimum value that must be inherited to be taxed is five million dollars. After you pay the 35% tax, you have $3.25million left... even if you've lost the farm, that just means you have a GIANT PILE OF MONEY. No sympathy from me.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[frank_adrian314159]

Wealthy people are too stupid to keep their assets as productive real things.

Actually, no - they're too smart. All of the things you mention (aside from, perhaps, unimproved land) are risky. Once you get past some point, it's best to put the rest into non-risky assets that appreciate at a lower rate, but have little or no risk (usually, this means sovereign debt - which is why everyone's always "so concerned" about the possibility of default - but AAA-rated corporate bonds are pretty good, too). After you're far enough ahead, the way to win the game is to not lose.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[frank_adrian314159]

All you're saying is that changes in tax policy are usually dwarfed by other changes in the system. As such, it is probably a good idea to raise the tax rate to a level where we can actually pay for what we spend or lower spending to a level we can live with the taxes to fund it or some combination of those two. Oddly enough, one party is espousing a combination of those items, while another is staunchly refusing one of the options. I know which party seems more reasonable to me.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[LDAPMAN]

A pile of money that won't make you the income over the coming decades that the farm would have. A loss of a family history and a way of life. The loss of a home. The liquidation comes nowhere close to the real value.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[HornWumpus]

You are simply wrong.

They might keep part of their assets as sovereign debt. That is hardly a safe place anymore.

Mixed productive assets. Very little cash.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[umghhh]

three different lines of thought??? a joke?

Re:So... what's the difference?

[arose]

That grand plan better be able to adjust to it's results. Part of my problem with libertarians, whether I agree on a particular issue or not, is the ideological approach to problems. The problem is that not only is the world not the gross simplification of itself that every simplistic ideology requires but you also can't prove it wrong. The later is what makes ideological movements susceptible to hijacking by people who can convincingly boil every issue down to fit a facet of the ideology, they are right by definition and managed to get passes on things that no less pre-bought-in voters would accept. Like how people excuse Paul's theocratic leanings because it's painted with a layer of (fake) constitutional originalism. It doesn't really make sense, but if you squint right and have already accepted that the constitution was written by libertarians as a foundation for a libertarian society it just might pass.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[Deliveranc3]

Well more likely they hire someone smart (or a group of them do) to manage their money well. I still don't see how it being their money instead of 1000 people's money makes a difference in how it is allocated.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[HeckRuler]

Whoa whoa whoa.
A business of yours made money, and now you're expanding. You're experience GROWTH, and you're bitching about the cost?
I repeat, MAN UP NANCY!

Even though I essentially reinvested the entire thing.

If that were really true, you'd claim it as business expense and wouldn't pay taxes on it. So you're either lying, bullshiting some version of the half-truth, or are downright moronic when it comes to preparing your taxes.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[WhiplashII]

Please google the words "phantom income", and get back to me.

You pay taxes on phantom income, but you do not receive it. It is rare across the population, but unfortunately not rare in small business owners.

Maybe you shouldn't vote to raise taxes on things you don't understand?

Re:So... what's the difference?

[HeckRuler]

It's also called imputed income. Maybe you shouldn't have formed an S corporation so you aren't taxed on your proportional share of the corporations profit? Although I'm kind of guessing here as I can't exactly follow what your problem is from the example you stated.

Money is money. You got more than me and decided to buy a fancy new building. You own that. It's wealth. You can sell it if need be. It sounds like you're trying to play mental games to avoid taxes.

I'd love to deduct the cost of my new car, gas, food bill, and heating bill from my income taxes. I need those to survive, and I personally do business right? Or how about I deduct the cost of my arduinos, internet connection, phone, PC, and electric bill? I'm a software engineer after all, those things are training aids for the further advancement of my career. Yeah, that's the ticket. I'm a god-damned asset to this nation. I shouldn't have to pay taxes. Hell! They should pay me just for the glorious benefit of my sheer god-damned existence.

Oh wait, no. I have a job in part thanks to the government creating a stable environment for the economy (and my employer's business) to grow and we'd suffer horrendously if it wasn't there. Damn, I guess I should shell out my fair share and support this structure that supports me.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[WhiplashII]

Imputed income is entirely different - in fact, it is as close to the opposite as is possible. So you are no longer arguing that I am paying higher taxes than you even though I'm not getting more money? So now you're just saying I should be happy to pay the extra taxes, since I get benefits from the government. It might even make sense if we didn't have a progressive tax code - I supposedly get the money back later, but that doesn't actually happen because I get phantom income that moves me to the highest bracket, then when I finally get "phantom losses" I am retired and back in a lower bracket - so they don't actually help me.

I don't own the building. I lease it - this is about cash flow, not profit. Again, you don't know what you are talking about but you feel free to belittle me and say I should support you financially. Why should I pay some of your portion of the tax burden? Don't you receive the benefits of the government too?

I am not rich - and I pay at the highest tax bracket.

Bill Gates is rich, and he pays effectively lower than middle class taxes - much lower proportionally than me. And then everyone says that he and Buffet are heroes for saying that my taxes should be increased! Note that their plan doesn't even really change their own tax rate!

Why do you want to raise taxes on me instead of him?

I should also mention that I could have hired 3 more people (and wanted to), but I can't afford to do that because I have to save money for the phantom income taxes.

Re:So... what's the difference?

[HeckRuler]

Sorry, I thought you bought a new building and the money moved through your personal finances. That's the only way I could figure how you managed to screw up your taxes like you apparently did. Because really, if you are taking the revenue of the business and putting it back into the business, that's a deductible business expense. You have yet to explain how this isn't the case. You're making me guess here.

this is about cash flow, not profit.

And you keep saying that like you think it matters. I get it. You think if you earn a million and buy a million worth of crap you shouldn't have to pay taxes. Your bank accounts are emptying, but it's because your business is growing. And you're complaining about it. Lovely.
If you're just leasing the place, what exactly is the extra cost here?

but you feel free to belittle me and say I should support you financially.

Well I'll belittle you for putting words into my mouth. Even if you pay taxes to the government who builds a road between my house and your store, I don't see a dime of it. You are not "financially supporting" me.

Why should I pay some of your portion of the tax burden?

You don't. I pay all of my tax burden. Maybe you don't understand the need for a progressive tax system? Let me demystify that one for you. The system in which we operate is slanted towards those with money. Imagine if you had to get a loan to cover the move. That loan has cost. It is literally more expensive (percentage wise) to be poor. And this isn't just for loans. It costs more to buy from the convenience store, but if you don't have the transportation to go to a grocery store, FOR the poor it is financially rational decision. Even if you have to pay more for milk. And this extrapolates to the difference between the middle-class and the rich. If you were a bigger business, I imagine you'd have someone on the payroll to figure out the tax code and dodge as much of the taxes as possible. That's how Bill Gates and Microsoft does it. It gets progressively easier the richer you are. Hence, a progressive tax system. Besides, anything else and we revert to the robber-baron era and abolish the whole middle-class. But Bill pays less taxes than us because he's retired and is spending his fortunes. When he was earning his billions he paid a lot more. Buffet also pays less taxes than us because of the fucked up tax code with capital gains. Even he thinks he should pay more in taxes. So you're balls to the walls wrong there. I want the tax code to be even more progressive at the pinnacle. Mostly because of the consolidation in markets and the ludicrous profits of corporations.

But listen, you live in a society. Most of us work together to keep things going well. Part of that is paying taxes to a central figure who helps keep it all running. Time are good for you, be happy.

Eh, as a side-note, income is taxed directly, wealth is taxed through inflation. So, they kind of have that down already.

oh, no not a manual recount situation again :)

[youn]

last time it did not go too well

Re:oh, no not a manual recount situation again :)

[dkleinsc]

1. What do you mean by "well"? Some people mean "we got the guy that most people voted for in office". Some people mean "my guy won".

2. Which "last time" were you talking about? Bush-Gore, Coleman-Franken, or something else?

Nobody Cares

[paxprobellum]

Perhaps nobody cares because Iowa is fairly meaningless. In the grand scheme of things, carrying (or not carrying) Iowa doesn't affect your ability to gain the nomination. You need a lot more than that, and the margin better be more than 8 votes. Just saying.

Does anyone really care?

[Gr8Apes]

Seriously, it's Iowa, the only thing this one's good for is showing who definitely should not run, and even that's questionable.

They really should run all the caucuses in just a few days. There's no good reason, other than lots of opportunities to bribe, err, donate to your favorite candidate, that these should run more than a day or two for all 50 states. But, that would go against the political machine and those that keep it greased purposes.

Re:Does anyone really care?

[VolciMaster]

Seriously, it's Iowa, the only thing this one's good for is showing who definitely should not run, and even that's questionable.

They really should run all the caucuses in just a few days. There's no good reason, other than lots of opportunities to bribe, err, donate to your favorite candidate, that these should run more than a day or two for all 50 states. But, that would go against the political machine and those that keep it greased purposes.

I've never understood why caucuses and primaries aren't run all on the same day across the country ... splitting it up the way they do makes for a very lopsided outcome

Re:Does anyone really care?

[Jawnn]

Seriously, it's Iowa, the only thing this one's good for is showing who definitely should not run, and even that's questionable.

Indeed. Witness Perry's decision to stay in it. There has been some speculation that a group of serious GOP power brokers, meeting in Brenham (TX) recently has had some influence on that decision. Staying visible, at least, just might make an unelectable village idiot a great pick for VP running mate a few months from now. Romney scares the "social conservatives" who think Mormonism is "a cult", and that gay marriage and abortion are issues that matter, and Perry has plainly demonstrated that he is willing to pander to that bunch like nobody's business.

Re:Does anyone really care?

[porges]

Becase if all primaries are at the same time, then in order to have a chance a candidate has to be able to fund and run a 50-state campaign right off the bat. This way, someone who shows they can win a small election can get funding from people who want to see them go further.

Re:Does anyone really care?

[Gr8Apes]

Indeed. Witness Perry's decision to stay in it. There has been some speculation that a group of serious GOP power brokers, meeting in Brenham (TX) recently has had some influence on that decision. Staying visible, at least, just might make an unelectable village idiot a great pick for VP running mate a few months from now. Romney scares the "social conservatives" who think Mormonism is "a cult", and that gay marriage and abortion are issues that matter, and Perry has plainly demonstrated that he is willing to pander to that bunch like nobody's business.

Mormonism is a cult, and you're spot on about Perry. Should the Republican Biden come to pass, wait, that's insulting Biden... You do recall his incredible series of quotes, including that most wonderful one involving seceding from the union, or the one that single-handedly slammed all Californians as un-american (which is it? Is he pro-America or anti-America?) He's apparently this election's Republican clown, since Palin refused to go on stage again - maybe 2 brain cells fired in unison and made a rational thought?

Re:Does anyone really care?

[Gr8Apes]

That's merely an argument against the current campaign funding practices, not against a 50 state 1day caucus.

We no longer live in the dark ages. We have several instant communication mediums that allow nationwide discussions. It would be easy enough to have a fully interactive nationwide caucus with voting run in a few hours. It would remove any single state from having more sway than any other state, and thus would be more fair and equitable.

Not a Tie

[Jammer6502]

You can't call it a tie because statistics determine the margin of error to be greater than the vote difference. It makes much more sense to say the winner cannot be determined. A tie means they had the same number of votes and that is extremely unlikely.

Re:not a tie

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, in a strict sense that should be true. However, the point is that the 8 votes are statistically negligible. Basically, each candidate would have approximately a 50% chance of winning if votes were recounted. The rules say it is not a tie. However, from a practical standpoint, what it does say is that there was no demonstrated clear preference for either one.

Re:Not a Tie

[WolfWithoutAClause]

The *definition* of tie is that the winner cannot be determined because it's too close to call, as here..

Re:not a tie

[PseudonymousBraveguy]

"Slightly more likely" in this case equals "so deep in the margin of error that there is no meaningful distingtion between the votes for each of them"

Re:Not a Tie

[JSBiff]

Or maybe a tie means they had the same percentage of votes. The number of votes a candidate got can be determined with perfect accuracy because of error, which is the point of the article, so what you are left with is saying that to within such a close margin it doesn't matter, they got the same *percentage* of the vote.

Re:Not a Tie

[Toonol]

No, the caucus has rules which define a 'tie', and this isn't it.

Math is incredibly important, but sometimes rules and laws differ from it for very important reasons. The statistical definition of 'equal' may not be the only or even the most relevant definition of 'equal' in use. Sometimes, rules take into account psychology, social pressures, historical lessons, and all sorts of factors that aren't present in an overly simple 'p > 0.95' analysis.

Re:not a tie

[djmurdoch]

Right, the votes don't tell you which of them won. But that's different than a tie, which says they got the same number of votes.

The votes just haven't been counted carefully enough to know who won. But it's almost certainly not a tie.

The journalism prof said "Scientists know that when you can't tell the difference between the two things, they say that, as best they can tell, these are the same size." Which just goes to show that he doesn't understand statistics very well. The correct interpretation of the result is that you can't prove there's a difference between the two. That's a weaker conclusion than concluding that they are equal.

Re:not a tie

[buddyglass]

Nope. Care to highlight where I'm wrong? I understand the gist of the article, which is that with an 8 vote difference, given the margin of error, on cannot say with any confidence that one or the other candidate "won". That said, all else being equal, if we could flip a magic switch and eliminate all error, Romney is more likely to have been received more votes than Santorum.

not a tie

[buddyglass]

Even recognizing the certainty of there being some error, that Romney has 8 more votes means he is more likely to have been the true winner if that error were eliminated. Assuming the error is equally likely to benefit Romney as it is to benefit Santorum. That suggests something other than "a tie" to me. The most accurate thing might be to say, "We don't know whether Romney or Santorum won, but it's slightly more likely that Romney did."

The Best of Our Government

[fussy_radical]

This really demonstrates the best part of our voting process.... Tyranny of the Majority

Re:The Best of Our Government

[NeutronCowboy]

I love this phrase. It sounds meaningful, but it really isn't. It comes from people who figured out that democracy isn't all roses and rainbows, but have never experienced what life in a true tyranny is like.

Re:The Best of Our Government

[Sponge Bath]

It comes from people who figured out that democracy isn't all roses and rainbows...

This reminds me of an interview with a common man from a recent "Arab Spring" nation I heard on the radio. He was asked about an upcoming election. The translation: "How can this be democracy? There is no one who represents me!"

Welcome to the club buddy.

Re:The Best of Our Government

[EuclideanSilence]

In a federalist government, the feds don't represent anyone. The feds represent the military power to prevent anyone from usurping the power of your state. Your state represents you. If you don't like the laws on something like capital punishment, move somewhere that has laws more to your approval. There are many things to disagree over, but people tend to have common groupings of positions on those. When the feds don't try to run everything, it is much easier to have a candidate that represents you.

Re:The Best of Our Government

[fussy_radical]

Yes, it's not a tyranny in the sense that we are dragging the minority into the streets and beating them although it is possible within the system. Hopefully our social mores won't allow for such egregious examples but the tyranny is more subtle. Fore example, want to home brew on your Xbox or PS3? Nope, the majority (of Congress) has decided that you can't open up a device you own. Think abortion is killing a child? The majority doesn't think so and will continue to do so.

The term was meant to convey that there exists the chance (and it seems more so in the present) of 49.99999999% of the population being unhappy, unrepresented or even considering the outcome completely vile. In a voting age population of 193,376,975 that means that there is a potential of 95 million subject to the decision of the other 96 million. The tyranny is that there was no compromise.

Mathematics be hanged!

[ElmoGonzo]

The media requires a winner. Someone must win the race. If they reported on issues and such instead of concentrating on who is winning we'd be in some other universe.

Re:Mathematics be hanged!

[Asic Eng]

You are blaming the media for reporting the result of polls?

Re:Mathematics be hanged!

[Amorymeltzer]

I think s/he is blaming the media for reporting on the result of polls poorly.

Re:Mathematics be hanged!

[Chris Mattern]

You are blaming the media for reporting the result of polls?

This is not reporting the result of a pool. This is reporting a fiction. This is declaring a winner when the result is in fact a tie, becuase they have to have a winner.

Delegates Won

[ZombieBraintrust]

The only thing that matters is the number of delegates the canidates won. Romney, Santorum and Paul each won 7 delegates. Gingrich and Perry each won 2 delegates. Currently Romney has the most delegates because he has support from delegates not tied to elections. Romney has 18, Santorum has 8, Paul has 7 delegates total.

Re:Delegates Won

[SteveFoerster]

The sad thing is that you were able to describe this in just four sentences, yet the mainstream media hasn't mentioned this at all because all they can see is the horse race.

Re:Delegates Won

[ZombieBraintrust]

Whats even sadder is the winner needs like 1100 delegates. So the seven delegates each candidate won is a rounding error for the entire primary process. A candidate could skip Iowa and not lose much.

Re:Delegates Won

[ZombieBraintrust]

The sad thing is that you were able to describe this in just four sentences, yet the mainstream media hasn't mentioned this at all because all they can see is the horse race.

To be fair I got that information from cnn.com It is also on www.foxnews.com

Re:Delegates Won

[SteveFoerster]

Fair enough. Then I should have said "mentioned this enough for most people to notice".

Re:Delegates Won

[SteveFoerster]

Not lose much other than vital media attention. Rudy Guiliani found out in 2008 that this is a disaster when he skipped everything before Florida, and found that by then no one was taking him seriously anymore.

Re:Delegates Won

[hedwards]

It might be the only thing that matters, but Romney did win, using margin for error for this sort of thing is not really appropriate. Romney did win more of the precincts than any of the other candidates did, just because it's a small enough number not to register in the delegate count doesn't make it any less real.

Re:Delegates Won

[Anonymous Coward]

That's only partially true. Because this is a non-binding caucus, the number of delegates each candidate has is still not official. I would say that in this case, appearance is more important than reality. Now Romney's going to be in the headlines as the winner of Iowa. Assuming he wins New Hampshire like everyone predicts, the early lead (even if it's just the appearance of a lead) is going to make him look like the only viable Republican candidate. Because Santorum got so close, he still has a shot, but because he suddenly came out of nowhere, it looks like the sudden spikes and dropoffs you see from Perry, Cain, and Gingrich in the polls. Santorum has to get a close second in New Hampshire then sweep South Carolina in order to stay in the race. If he looks at all like a he's going to fizzle out like the others, then Romney will have the nomination locked up.

Re:Delegates Won

[million_monkeys]

The only thing that matters is the number of delegates the canidates won. Romney, Santorum and Paul each won 7 delegates. Gingrich and Perry each won 2 delegates.

Actually that's completey wrong. None of them got any delegates from Iowa. The Iowa Caucus doesn't assign national delegates, it elects local delegates which go on to the county meeting where state delegates are elected. Those state delegates then meet to elect national delegates. After all of that, then those national delgates go to the convention to vote. Iowa is actually one of the very last states to choose delegates. And they are not bound by the vote of the caucus.

The caucus numbers are for show and are not even used to decide the 1st set of local delegates. That's a separate vote made after people have chosen their favorite candidate. Some sources say Ron Paul is the real winner in terms of delegates because they had people sticking around volunteering to be delegates.

Re:Delegates Won

[Khashishi]

Currently Romney has the most delegates because he has support from delegates not tied to elections. Romney has 18, Santorum has 8, Paul has 7 delegates total.

Which just shows how clearly the elections are a sham.

The problem is the media

[antifoidulus]

The biggest problem is the amount the media exaggerates the importance of the Iowa straw poll(because they have 24 hours and websites to fill). Before the 24-hour news cycle, how many people actually cared about the Iowa straw polls? Now it's all everyone talks about, which means that "winning" is all the more important because it is essentially the biggest free commercial you can give yourself. Look at the massive amount of free press that Romney is given because he won. Same with Obama in 2008, He barely won the Iowa straw poll, but the media blew that all out of proportion and essentially anointed him the winner.

Re:The problem is the media

[WindBourne]

Actually, it is smart to pay attention to Iowa when it comes to the republican primary and the final. They picked huckabee last time to win and then picked mccain for president. I think Iowa just showed that Romney and probably santorum will not get the nod.

Re:The problem is the media

[mjr167]

Damn you and your pattern recognition skills!

Re:The problem is the media

[0123456]

Actually, it is smart to pay attention to Iowa when it comes to the republican primary and the final.

According to an article I read a few days ago which looked at Iowa results and compared them to the final nominations, they're pretty good at picking the Democrats, but pretty bad at picking the Republicans. So for a Republican, winning in Iowa probably means you're less likely to become President than the other candidates :).

Re:The problem is the media

[jandrese]

In short, I think centrists tend to do better in the general election. Iowa is a fairly conservative state, so they tend to elect centrist democrats and right wing republicans.

Elections are a simple majority

[tkrotchko]

Statistically of course it was a tie. But elections aren't decided statistically. It takes 50% plus 1 vote to win.

Re:Elections are a simple majority

[Wooky_linuxer]

Statistically of course it was a tie. But elections aren't decided statistically. It takes 50% plus 1 vote to win.

Except in the US of A, where you can be President with less than 50% of the total votes, of course, due to a meaningless system (to the rest of the world, at least) of delegates.

Re:Elections are a simple majority

[0123456]

Except in the US of A, where you can be President with less than 50% of the total votes, of course, due to a meaningless system (to the rest of the world, at least) of delegates.

The UK laughs at your 'less than 50%', when its last 'majority' government was elected with around 22% of the votes.

Re:Elections are a simple majority

[Zaphod The 42nd]

Except when you consider the error rate of counting the votes. This isn't even a matter of not RTFA, you didn't RTFSUMMARY.

If the error rate in counting votes is higher than the difference between two candidates' votes, then we DO NOT KNOW who actually won. It is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE that a handful of votes could have been miscounted or misplaced somewhere along the line, the people who collect and count the votes admit this.

Also, it doesn't take 50% plus 1 to win, because there are more than 1 candidate in a primary. This isn't the general election bro...

He received 25.0001% of the vote, with the next candidate receiving 25% of the vote. If we can't be sure of that .0001%, we can't declare a clear winner.
However, since this isn't the general election, it is up to the Republican Party how to handle it, not the Supreme Court or any nonsense like that.

Re:Elections are a simple majority

[residieu]

Not in this case. Like the general election in November, popular vote is not important here. Several presidents have won the election, even though another candidate got a plurality in the popular vote. It is reasonably common for no one to get 50% plus 1 vote in the popular vote.

The popular vote here is pretty meaningless. It shows that Romney, Santorum and Paul all have significant support in the state, but Iowa's delegates won't be assigned until June. Before then there are county conventions to choose delegates to the state convention in June. Neither of those are bound by the results of caucus votes. At that point, the delegates are assigned proportionally, so it is quite possible for there to be a tie with two candidates getting the same number of delegates.

Re:Elections are a simple majority

[Iceykitsune]

Except in the US of A, where you can be President with less than 50% of the total votes, of course, due to a meaningless system (to the rest of the world, at least) of delegates.

The UK laughs at your 'less than 50%', when its last 'majority' government was elected with around 22% of the votes.

And how many political parties does the UK have?

Re:Elections are a simple majority

[coolmadsi]

Except in the US of A, where you can be President with less than 50% of the total votes, of course, due to a meaningless system (to the rest of the world, at least) of delegates.

The UK laughs at your 'less than 50%', when its last 'majority' government was elected with around 22% of the votes.

And how many political parties does the UK have?

Three major ones with some smaller ones (in England at least). Scotland and Wales have some of their own parties which are more popular there, but only run there.

Re:If the count says Romney won, he won...

[L1mewater]

Except that in the Iowa caucus it is not binary at all. It's not a winner-takes-all state.

Re:Rick Santorum????

[ZombieBraintrust]

No need to start memorizing their names. These people are not important unless they actually get the job. In fact feel free to forget the name of the winners as well. The name of the current US president shoudn't effect you.

Re:Rick Santorum????

[WindBourne]

no, no. That is not our nation. That is all democracy. If you want ease of memorizing, just stay in china.

Re:If the count says Romney won, he won...

[WindBourne]

Still sitting in your parents basement? THis is about math, not about simple ideas.

Lies, not math

[Culture20]

Mathematics says 8 > 0. Lies, damned lies, and statistics, ya know.

Re:Lies, not math

[h8sg8s]

Depends on your definition of "Epsilon". Statistics is much less about finding the truth, and much more about aiming the spin.

Re:Lies, not math

[ceoyoyo]

Never trust a number without an error interval attached.

Speaking of lies, damned lies and (incorrect) statistics....

Re:Lies, not math

[ceoyoyo]

Nonsense. If you want to spin something you use a) no statistics or b) incorrect or incomplete statistics. For example, the GP's 8>0 is spin - the actual numbers are 8+-1000* == 0+-1000*.

* value made up out of thin air.

Chose winner with weighted random sample.

[starbirdman]

Hold a popular vote and then select from among the candidates randomly, weighted by their popular vote percentages.

In a two candidate race that both get 50% of the vote, the electorate has essentially said "We don't clearly know who's better." So flip a coin and go with that one. In a three way race where the 'spoiler' candidate receives 20% of the vote, select him as the winner with a 20% probability.

Pros:
* The majority doesn't completely drown out the rest.
* Less susceptible to small counting errors. (i.e. the OP).

Cons:
No chance of this being perceived fair. The conspiracy theorists are going to go apeshit the first time a 20% winner gets elected.

Revision:
Perhaps use a non-uniform distribution to push the percentages further towards the extreme--e.g. a winner of 80% of the electorate should probably be chosen 95% of the time.

Re:Chose winner with weighted random sample.

[VolciMaster]

Or do a ranking system - favorite to least favorite, and keep *every* candidate in until election day: no primaries, just an election. You get the number of points as you position on the list, lowest score wins. So, with ten candidates, you can get from 1-10 points from any given voter. If you have a tie after round one, you take the lowest three point getters and go again.

Re:Chose winner with weighted random sample.

[anyGould]

Cons: No chance of this being perceived fair. The conspiracy theorists are going to go apeshit the first time a 20% winner gets elected.

Easily fixed. Rent out the Wheel of Fortune wheel (or if that's too pricy, the Big Wheel from Price is Right), replace the usual numbers with the candidate names in the right proportion, bring out Donald Trump to ham it up, let him give it a big ol' spin, and Bob's yer uncle.

Only moderate sarcasm intended - I suspect there's a lot of people who would prefer this system.

To quote Paul Simon

[eclectus]

But either way you look at it we lose.

I hate to see it, but the Repuplican party is becoming more and more polarized, and that's not good for the country as a whole.

Re:To quote Paul Simon

[gfxguy]

I think you can be optimistic about it... if the party splits, perhaps we'll actually have a working three party system.

Re:To quote Paul Simon

[hideouspenguinboy]

That's one way to look at it. On the other hand, that polarization leads to stress inside the party that will lead to it's evolution over time. Both parties go through this kind of thing, though it's obviously more pronounced with the Republicans currently.

In the long run I think they'll emerge stronger, and until we get a viable third party (which is another, though less likely, possibility of the polarization you bring up) having two strong parties is better than having either party governing without viable opposition.

Re:To quote Paul Simon

[Sloppy]

I hate to see it, but the Repuplican party is becoming more and more polarized, and that's not good for the country as a whole.

Polarizing the big parties is one of the best things that can happen to the country as a whole. The Republican party has the same problem as the Democrat party, in being a catch-all for so many different (and incompatible!) ideas that it's not a real political party at all. The whole point of the primary system is to eliminate candidates, which results in the names that are on the ballots by election day, almost always being some of the worst choices. That hurts democracy.

Further polarization (and we need it to happen within Democrats too, where the fuck at the "Greens"? (not that I ever understood them)) could lead to mainstream acceptance of having more than two parties. That can only help.

The main sad thing is that it's happening at the federal level; I don't hear about party incohesiveness at my state level (at least not enough to make a difference), yet that's where election law is made (i.e. the stuff that keeps us stuck with two parties). We need this schisming to be happening, but need it worse at our local levels first, so that we can get the election reform to support political diversity and polarization in the bigger elections.

The polarization in the Republican party is a good thing, but nevertheless they will nominate single candidates for each position, and after that, it will all be gone for another 2-4 years.

Re:To quote Paul Simon

[anyGould]

I think you can be optimistic about it... if the party splits, perhaps we'll actually have a working three party system.

Warning: three-party systems only work if there's clear differences between the three. Look at us here in Canada where there are three national parties (four if you count BQ). Three of the four are all labeled left-wing, the fourth is Republican-light. Come election night we all learn the problems with vote-splitting.

Re:To quote Paul Simon

[Shotgun]

The main sad thing is that it's happening at the federal level; I don't hear about party incohesiveness at my state level (at least not enough to make a difference), yet that's where election law is made (i.e. the stuff that keeps us stuck with two parties). We need this schisming to be happening, but need it worse at our local levels first, so that we can get the election reform to support political diversity and polarization in the bigger elections.

Not going to happen, unfortunately.

The 24-hour news cycle is run by national (if not international) corporations. The don't want to fund 50 different news desks. It's nice for them to only have to fund one O'Reilly or Maddow show. Push the real decision making back to where it should be, and they have a confusing mish-mash to cover. They're not going to let this happen easily.

Re:Shocking

[rossdee]

Except this time they didn't (most Christian Fundies will say that Mormons aren't Christian.
(Even though they are conservative on social issues)

Re:It's not a sample.

[PIBM]

What they mean is that even if people 'count' the votes, they make errors in quite a few cases, some votes are not counted because they are lost, misread, forgotten, stuck up in the box, or things like this. Thus, there's a margin of error that they can compute and it's much larger than the 8 votes.

Majority?

[orthancstone]

What makes you think Mitt got even 50% of the vote?

He won by plurality.

I was there . . .

[hideouspenguinboy]

Couple things - the Iowa Caucuses aren't a 'vote' - they are a poll. It's very informal, and the idea is to get a close approximation of the support for the candidates. Last minute voting was common, I saw someone drop a ballot more than once, and the 18 year old kid making irritating comments behind me ended up doing the official tally.

And all of that is ok. Despite how it sounds, the people there did take the process very seriously- I was impressed with the discussion that took place. - it did what it was supposed to do, which was give a good idea of where support lied with people who cared enough to show up. The Democrat caucus process is a lot more organizationally rigorous. Same result either way.

Sour grapes.

[gfxguy]

Mathematics says it was a tie only because mathematics bet on Santorum and is a sore-loser.

Re:Sour grapes.

[ArsenneLupin]

Mathematics says it was a tie only because mathematics bet on Santorum and is a sore-loser.

Maybe mathematics just had too much spicy food before?

"Momentum"

[JSBiff]

What candidates hope to get out of Iowa, mainly, seems to be being able to say they won an election, or did way better than expected (e.g. Santorum), essentially in the hopes that it will persuade primary voters in other early primary states (NH, SC, FL, etc) to jump on the bandwagon and vote for them.

Which is sad. If you're just going to vote for the candidate everyone else is voting for, why bother voting at all, especially in a primary? Primaries should be all about voting for your *favorite* candidate, not the guy you think might win if you can just push him over the top.

Re:"Momentum"

[Dragonslicer]

What candidates hope to get out of Iowa, mainly, seems to be being able to say they won an election, or did way better than expected (e.g. Santorum), essentially in the hopes that it will persuade...

"people to give them money" is the correct ending to that sentence.

Re:"Momentum"

[Rolgar]

What it's done is drive Bachmann and Perry out out of the primary. People who would vote for those two candidates will now choose somebody else. People who would vote for those two will not gravitate towards Romney, so they will strengthen non-Romney candidates. Santorum is a likely candidate since he's not Gingrich, and his finish in Iowa will give him an edge.

Romney's strategy for the nomination is to keep enough candidates in the race for long enough to keep the other candidates from consolidating support so that he eventually becomes the candidate by plurality and is Mr. Inevitable, and enough convention voters switch to voting for him. The conservatives are trying to be the last conservative standing, consolidate all of the Tea Party, Libertarian, and other voters who don't want Romney, and win the nomination.

Personally, I'm a pro-small business and social conservative, and I haven't really looked at Santorum's history or policies. Ann Coulter's article this week supports Romney, but I'm rather leery of him since he won't admit the Massachusetts health care reform on which Obamacare was enacted is a bad law.

Margin of error

[Anon-Admin]

Umm, Last I looked the margin of error for the caucus vote was listed at 2.0% to 3.7% not 0.5% to 1.0%.

Which means that it was a three way tie.

My numbers came from the reports at NBC and CBS so they are published news reports and not direct statistical data, and you can decided how much you want to trust the news from NBC and CBS.

Personally, with a difference of less that 3% of the vote between the three I am looking forward to the next caucus vote. It is a bit exciting to see where this goes.

Re:Shocking

[Attila Dimedici]

Considering that Romney is a Mormon and no Christian Fundamentalists consider Mormons to be Christian, let alone Fundamentalists and Santorum is Roman Catholic and only a slightly larger number of Christian Fundamentalists consider Catholics to be Christian and none consider them to be Fundamentalist that would be incorrect.

Score one for the couch

[berglin]

8 votes are statistically irrelevant, but still 'every vote counts'.

At least as long as the difference is statistically significant.

Re:Rick Santorum????

[mister_playboy]

LOL... your country shits out candidates

You should check the Google results for "Santorum" and see just how accurate your choice of terminology is. :)

Reminds me of the 2008 Democratic Primary

[TheSpoom]

Except that I'm 99% certain that Romney will win based on the Republican establishment's preference of him over the others (who are seen as too extreme).

Re:Reminds me of the 2008 Democratic Primary

[Z00L00K]

Romney will probably be a tougher nut for Obama to crack than Santorum. The fight in the election will be about the center field among the voters - not the extreme right or left.

And the win for Romney with eight votes would be more a moral win than a factual win considering the statistical error margin. What's more interesting is the upcoming elections where we will see what the alternatives really are.

But considering how tough it will be the upcoming four years it's a bit surprising that there actually are candidates for the office.

Re:Reminds me of the 2008 Democratic Primary

[groslyunderpaid]

until a news agency breaks a story about romney's family owning a vacation house with a big sign out front that says "wetbackfoot"

I hear...

[squidflakes]

That this news put Mr. Santorum's followers in quite a froth.

If anything, delegates help to resolve the noise

[JSBiff]

Seems like, if anything, a delegate system helps to (somewhat arbitrarily) decide who the winner is when you have a statistical tie like this. Unfortunately, error is a reality - some people will accidentally check or fill in the bubble, or hit the button for the wrong candidate.

Hopefully, if you're using machine counting, the counting would be error free (at least, as long as the machine wasn't hacked to "adjust" the vote a little bit towards the "right" candidates).

As we saw in Florida in 2000, people will b*&%h about a very close popular vote forever, based upon errors and whatnot, and will say that whoever won "stole the vote".

With a delegate system, you essentially get a second level of determination - so, we don't have a clear winner based upon the popular vote because it's too close. Let's apportion "votes"/delegates based upon the population of each state (and as some states do, you can even split the delegates proportionally), and see who has the most delegates.

Yes, that means, in essence, that some votes end up counting more than other votes, but it doesn't seem like a completely irrational way to try to resolve the tie.

Even electronic voting doesn't remove all error

[JSBiff]

Even if you had an "ideal" electronic system which was not rigged in any way and couldn't be hacked. . .

Some people would still accidentally push the wrong button or otherwise make the wrong choice. But, when it comes to voter error, at a certain point, you have to say a vote cast is a vote cast and if you screwed up, too bad (that's assuming the UI isn't screwed up and is detecting your touches at the wrong candidate on the touch screen and registering them for that wrong candidate).

Statistics don't apply here

[chubs]

Statistics and its rules, including margins of error, do not apply when the sample size is equal to the population. "Margin of error" does not mean "probability that someone messed up". It means the margin by which the statistical sample is likely to be different than the population. When the sample is the population (in this case, every caucus members vote was counted, and therefore the sample is indeed the population), then the statistical margin of error is zero. Whoever posted this either doesn't understand statistics or purposely misused the word "margin of error" in order to get a rise out of other people who don't understand statistics.

Is it only I

[mihalisgr]

Is it only I that gets an icky smirky on the sentence: "the total number of caucus votes in the Iowa caucus, 'eking out a victory' " rather than on the news?

Re:Romneycare vs Obamacare

[dpilot]

I've noticed that Republicans have been states' rights proponents until some states start doing things that they don't like. Then they're quite happy to use federal law to trump state law.

The horse race leads to ratings

[tepples]

Then I should have said "mentioned this enough for most people to notice".

So you've rephrased:

the mainstream media hasn't mentioned this enough for most people to notice because all they can see is the horse race.

There's a reason for that:

"Fear -> anger -> hate -> suffering" -- Yoda, The Phantom Menace
"Suffering -> perseverance -> character -> hope" -- Paul, Letter to the Romans
"The horse race -> ratings -> advertisers -> profit" -- Cable news executive, my behind

Summary completely pointless

[goodben]

The summary is completely incorrect (haven't read the article). What statistics says is that from the vote you can't tell whether Romney or Santorum is more popular among eligible caucus goers. The rules for determining delegates from the caucus are independent from the statistics of popularity. In this particular contest, this is only the first round and so it's hard to estimate how the final delegate count will end up. CNN estimates that the delegates will be split 7-7-7-2-2 for Romney, Santorum, Paul, Gingrich, and Perry, respectively. The AP, based on what appears to be a more careful examination of the rules estimates that the delegates will be split 13-12 for Romney and Santorum. (The AP estimate is based on congressional districts and since Paul and the others didn't carry any of the districts, they don't think they'll get any delegates). However, even the later caucus rounds are non-binding and delegates don't have to stick to someone who does poorly later on. What this means is that the entire point of the Iowa Caucus is media perceptions. What's more, since this is a caucus, the second part of the blurb makes no since, especially the part about ballots sticking. In caucus you count supporters, not ballots and they aren't secret anyway.

Re:Summary completely pointless

[shiftless]

In caucus you count supporters, not ballots and they aren't secret anyway.

Well, except for the secret count.

Re:Romneycare vs Obamacare

[CrimsonAvenger]

I've noticed that Republicans have been states' rights proponents until some states start doing things that they don't like. Then they're quite happy to use federal law to trump state law.

Examples, please?

Not that I really doubt you, since not all Republicans are for States Rights, just as not all Democrats are opposed to States Rights (just look at the Dem's positions on gun laws - every State should be able to make its own, even when the Supremes say otherwise)....

Source of errors

[Cochonou]

First, ballots sometimes stick to the bottom of ballot boxes when the boxes are overturned, and fail to be counted

Can this really happen ? Where I vote, every vote is paper-based - but one of the things checked by the people doing the counting is that the number of registered voters matches with the number of ballots. Furthermore, it is quite easy to see any ballot sticking to the bottom since the ballot boxes are transparent. Of course, double errors can happen, but this does not seem as a big deal as the summary presents it.

Advertisers are the customers

[SteveFoerster]

Very true. It's important to remember that when it comes to commercial media, news or otherwise, their product is viewer attention and their customers are the advertisers.

Re:It's not a sample.

[jmtpi]

I agree with the AC that it is wrong to call it a "statistical" effect. I don't think it has well defined statistical properties. The margin of error on a poll is a well-defined quantity based on the sample size of a poll. Here they're trying to quantify poorly-understood effects like how often people make dumb mistakes (write unclearly, misplace a stack of ballots, etc). This is more akin to a systematic uncertainty than a statistical one.

Re:Romneycare vs Obamacare

[SuricouRaven]

Prohibition of... er, name it. Drugs, abortion, pornography. They also love spending federal money on abstinance program.

Re:Romneycare vs Obamacare

[dpilot]

I was going to give DOMA, but I don't believe that's a particularly good example, though it is federal meddling in the way states normally do business.

I read an interesting history of Roe v Wade, suggesting that it was counterproductive. In their own way, states were coming to some reasonable stances. Roe v Wade not only pushed it out "flat", but became a lightning rod for opposition. Theoretically an overturn of Roe v Wade could go in 2 directions - it could put it back to states' rights or it could push the opposite opinion out "flat". I don't know what the target is, but I suspect the latter is what's desired.

Clearly a Constitutional amendment for fetal rights is an attack of sorts on states' rights.

What do Libertarians eat?

[tepples]

If the GOP splits, the small government splinter group might end up combining with the Libertarians. But still: Republicans take away your social liberty. Democrats take away your economic liberty. And if vegetarians eat vegetables, what do Libertarians eat?

Re:What do Libertarians eat?

[chromatic]

Libertables—a salty, prepackaged (but free) lunch food product.

Re:What do Libertarians eat?

[digitalsolo]

Libraries?

winning the count

[epine]

This is increasingly a winner-take-all society in which winning the count is all that matters. It doesn't correlate strongly with competence (as we all know from Florida), but it does correlate strongly with outcome.

It was a 3-way tie

[Curunir_wolf]

This is an interesting academic discussion, but entirely irrelevant to the process. The Iowa caucus vote is non-binding, so it's really just more of a suggestion. Think of it as a big straw poll.

The actual result that came out of Iowa is a 3-way tie. Romney, Santorum, and Ron Paul each got 6 delegates.

Re:It's sad either way (headlines)

[Insightfill]

I gotta say I've been enjoying watching people have fun with the headlines. My favorite was :"Romney squeezes out Santorum"

My favorite was "Santorum Surges From Behind in Iowa".

Re:It's not a sample.

[PIBM]

Actually, systematic errors are 'fixed', and this would not be the case for many of the errors listed here. The correct definition for many of them would rather be random errors, as analysing all the ballots again would yield a different result ( if it was only systematic errors, the result of a recount would be the same). In any case, the distribution of errors can be modeled, and a statistical model defining the average error rate can be built based upon previous recounts. It is not necessary to understand what are the errors and specific rates of each to build a statistical model, the results alone can be used to do so. It would be nice to be able to quantify all of the failure modes, but then 'deliberate errors' are quite hard to predict!

7 electoral votes each

[wmelnick]

It does not matter. They each got 7 representatives to the electoral college so regardless of what the popular vote was, where it truly counts, they tied.

Why is this an issue?

[skyraker]

No one has 'won' Iowa. This election did not determine anything that matters come convention time. It simply was there for each precint to designate delagates to the county converntions, which happen in a couple months. Then the counties have their votes, and send delagates to the state convention (which I think I read was in JUNE). At that point, the state convention determines who 'wins' the states delagates to the convention. What this means is that if someone drops out of the race between now and the other conventions, the delagates assigned to them Tuesday will change their votes, which again can change any result we think we may already have. This is why primaries are so much better than caucauses.

Re:Romneycare vs Obamacare

[HeckRuler]

States are immune to all the constitutional/legal controversy?
Really? If the state of Iowa legislated something that blatantly disregarded the US constitution, it'd be fine? Huh?

Re:Iowans know how to count, this isn't floriduh

[shiftless]

People actually watch the counters do the counting and many even video record the counts and ballots

You're mistaken. The counts this year were held in a secret location, in Illinois. Didn't you hear that Anon and Occupy "threatened" to disrupt the caucus, thus obviously requiring the count be moved to a completely different state behind closed doors?

There was no known winner in 2000

[presidenteloco]

( Mathematically, speaking that is, and how could math possibly be relevant to vote counting? :-) )

The results were clearly within the margin of error of the counting (including recounting) techniques.

The only fair way to have decided it (other than a re-run) would have been a coin toss or equivalent.

Re:There was no known winner in 2000

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

The only fair way to have decided it (other than a re-run) would have been a coin toss or equivalent.

We are not going to determine the next President of the United States by a coin toss.

Re:There was no known winner in 2000

[sarkeizen]

True but the alternative is to seek out some kind of bias which people will pretend is meaningful but very likely isn't. In fact it is significantly more likely that the coin toss would reflect the will of the people than some slim majority vote.

Democracy

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

"Democracy" when describing America is usually used these days to refer to something vaguely resembling a democratic republic, where the electorate in swing states gets to vote for national leadership and everyone else gets to vote for state leadership. Most of the voting decision is actually delegated to two political parties--almost all of it is in state elections. Similar systems exist in other "democracies" I am aware of, although there are some significant variations (the number of parties, for example, or the option of votes of no confidence).

Nonbinding decision

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

It is important to note that the Supreme Court's ruling was nonprecedential--it applied only to that one election, that one time.

Re:It's sad either way (headlines)

[mkiwi]

Actually, an interesting fact: Gay marriage is legal in Iowa.*

*Since Santorum would be unlikely to condone sex outside of marriage.

Roman Republic

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

"Americans" as a whole don't think anything, except on extremely rare occasions. Certain Americans believe, mistakenly, that a Republic is a Democracy.

IIRC, Caesar's dictatorship represented the fall of the Republic. Ah yes--Wikipedia indicates that the demarcation between the fall of the Republic and the rise of the Empire is a little hand-wavy, but that Caesar's appointment as permanent dictator is one of the classic identified moments.

The Roman Republic began five centuries earlier.