Attention U.S.A.

[lukin69]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

State A has 10,000,000 voters. (Worth, let's say 10 Electoral College Votes)

State B has 9,000,000 voters. (Worth, for example, 9 votes)


If 5,000,001 people in State A vote D, the ENTIRE state is counted as D (10 votes)

If *ALL* of state B votes R, then (duh) the whole state votes R (9 votes)

In this case, even though a TOTAL of 13,999.999 voted R and 5,000,001 voted D, there would still be more D votes (10 for D, 9 for R.

This is just a very very stupid method. Period.

woot.

This is close to the reason I streak my hair.

I think some strands are more important than others.

man that explains so much.

 

[pbguy434]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

This is close to the reason I streak my hair.

I think some strands are more important than others.

By the way, you did it wrong. I appreciate the effort, though.

 

[Nottheking]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

Well this is exactly why your votes count more than you think. If you want your candidate to win, make sure you vote. Your vote plus others who have the same outlook as you might mean something when the candidate needs a vote or two to bump them above their competitor.

Actually, for a lot of people, it really doesn't matter. Think about those that live in Washington, D.C, or Idaho. The former is going to run ~90% Democrat, so if you're a Republican and live there, your vote will never make a difference, ever. Ditto for Democrats in Idaho, Utah, or Nebraska; those states are so incredibly Republican. The same holds true for a few massive states like California, New York, Illinois, Texas, and Georgia, which almost invariably are Democrat for the first three and Republican for the latter two.

Really, due to the Electoral college system, your vote only has a chance to help decide things if you live in one of a few "battleground" states, where voters are relatively close to evenly matched, and when the election does come around, the winner of the state only takes a small margin; it could've conceivably go the other way, and hence the people's votes really had a lot of value and importance.

In the 2004 election, there were eleven "swing states" that were won by a margin of less than 5%, and the winner got less than 52% of the popular vote in there:

• Pennsylvania, (21)
• Ohio, (20)
• Michigan, (17)
• Minnesota, (10)
• Wisconsin, (10)
• Colorado, (9)
• Iowa, (7)
• Oregon, (7)
• Nevada, (5)
• New Mexico, (5)
• New Hampshire, (4)

Just a slight change in vote in any one of those could've had a huge impact on the election. Those who paid attention during the 2004 election, (perhaps those present who were actually old enough to vote and did so?) the election didn't fully end until the day after, when Kerry opted not to contest the state of Ohio, after seeing a >2% margin that Bush had. (compared to Florida, where it turns out in the end that Bush may have had a negative margin) Because in the end, Bush only won the Electoral college with 286 votes, (out of 270 necessary to win) had Kerry won Ohio, he would've won the election.

Similarly, there will be a short list of states that will really matter. These can be well-identified as where McCain and Obama are spending all of their resources, both in terms of money on advertisements as well as making appearances.

By the way, you did it wrong. I appreciate the effort, though.

Indeed, his hair looks absolutely terrible.

 

[pbguy434]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

He highlights his hair because some strands are more important than others. Streaks have nothing to do with it, man.

 

[ParagonDancer]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

By the way, you did it wrong. I appreciate the effort, though.

Ah, I couldn't remember the quote exactly. R.I.P Mitch Hedburg.

 

[Errasal]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

Actually, for a lot of people, it really doesn't matter. Think about those that live in Washington, D.C, or Idaho. The former is going to run ~90% Democrat, so if you're a Republican and live there, your vote will never make a difference, ever. Ditto for Democrats in Idaho, Utah, or Nebraska; those states are so incredibly Republican. The same holds true for a few massive states like California, New York, Illinois, Texas, and Georgia, which almost invariably are Democrat for the first three and Republican for the latter two.

Really, due to the Electoral college system, your vote only has a chance to help decide things if you live in one of a few "battleground" states, where voters are relatively close to evenly matched, and when the election does come around, the winner of the state only takes a small margin; it could've conceivably go the other way, and hence the people's votes really had a lot of value and importance.

In the 2004 election, there were eleven "swing states" that were won by a margin of less than 5%, and the winner got less than 52% of the popular vote in there:

• Pennsylvania, (21)
• Ohio, (20)
• Michigan, (17)
• Minnesota, (10)
• Wisconsin, (10)
• Colorado, (9)
• Iowa, (7)
• Oregon, (7)
• Nevada, (5)
• New Mexico, (5)
• New Hampshire, (4)

Just a slight change in vote in any one of those could've had a huge impact on the election. Those who paid attention during the 2004 election, (perhaps those present who were actually old enough to vote and did so?) the election didn't fully end until the day after, when Kerry opted not to contest the state of Ohio, after seeing a >2% margin that Bush had. (compared to Florida, where it turns out in the end that Bush may have had a negative margin) Because in the end, Bush only won the Electoral college with 286 votes, (out of 270 necessary to win) had Kerry won Ohio, he would've won the election.

Similarly, there will be a short list of states that will really matter. These can be well-identified as where McCain and Obama are spending all of their resources, both in terms of money on advertisements as well as making appearances.


Indeed, his hair looks absolutely terrible.

GJ summing it up, it's so sad but true. I live in Illinois, going and voting, for me, makes no real difference.

But you know..... I prefer living here rather than going to Canada and having to drink bagged milk the rest of my life. Screw that.

 

[ne14pic]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

I'm red in Illinois, don't think my vote is going to count for shit, but i do it anyways

 

[Errasal]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

I'm red in Illinois, don't think my vote is going to count for shit, but i do it anyways

It's great that you choose to exercise you right to vote, but it's just a shame for everyone that we use the EC instead of popular vote to decide. Oh well =p.

 

[Lucifall]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

Long live Brasil's voting system. Each vote counts individually.

 

[Circa The Image]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

Two more days for those that care!

 

[psz]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

Long live Brasil's voting system. Each vote counts individually.

That would be pretty much every OTHER Democracy on Earth... Including the ones the US set up in other countries :-P

 

[pbguy434]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

I feel that the whole election process gets blown WAY out of proportion in America. It is ridiculous.

 

[Nottheking]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

For those interested, here are what appearing to be the "battleground" states for this election, also with the number of votes, and colored by who appears to be leading the polls in them:

• Florida, (27)
• Pennsylvania, (21)
• Ohio, (20)
• Michigan, (17)
• North Carolina, (15)
• Virginia, (13)
• Indiana, (11)
• Missouri, (11)
• Minnesota, (10)
• Wisconsin, (10)
• Colorado, (9)
• Nevada, (5)
• New Mexico, (5)
• New Hampshire, (4)

Currently, minus these states listed, McCain has 163 electoral votes in states that he's pretty much certain to win, (I don't believe any of what's been said about North Dakota, Georgia, Mississippi, Montana, etc. being possibly "up for grabs.") and meanwhile Obama has 190. I conside those to be states they have quite certainly.

So, from the above list, Obama needs to win 80 votes, or McCain 107, in order to win. Admitedly, current odds favor Obama; of the above battlegrounds, there's 114 votes in states leaning toward Obama, (34 more than he needs to win) with only just 11 (Indiana) in favor of McCain, and 53 in toss-up states.

That would be pretty much every OTHER Democracy on Earth... Including the ones the US set up in other countries :-P

Not quite, really. The system the US put in place in places like Iraq is basically modeled on the Westminster System used in the UK. There, no one directly elects the Prime Minister. Even though they're the head of government, the PM is selected in a manner similar to how the Speaker of the House is in the US. Except that the PM also tends to be the leader of their political party, too.

 

[psz]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

Not quite, really. The system the US put in place in places like Iraq is basically modeled on the Westminster System used in the UK. There, no one directly elects the Prime Minister. Even though they're the head of government, the PM is selected in a manner similar to how the Speaker of the House is in the US. Except that the PM also tends to be the leader of their political party, too.

I was referring to the One Person == One Vote method, as opposed to State/Regional "approximate voting" that the US Presidential election has.


And you can add China to the list of "People vote directly for damn near everyone except the President/PM" as well.

 

[Nottheking]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

I was referring to the One Person == One Vote method, as opposed to State/Regional "approximate voting" that the US Presidential election has.

No, they still have approximate voting, since each seat in Parliament is a very close approximation of the Electoral College in that it's a series of "first past the post" districts. If you happen to be a Labour voter in a highly Conservative district, (or vice-versa) then your vote really won't matter any more than a comparable situation in the US Presidential election. And it's perhaps even worse there, since they have only ONE vote for national elections; no second chance for being part of a Congressional district that swings the other direction from how the State at large does.

Now, if the UK used some form proportional representation like a lot of mainland Europe, THEN it could be considered a true "one person, one vote" system. But even then only for those using a "party list" system... With mixed-member proportional representation, some votes are still worth more than others, it's just that they make sure all votes have at least some value.

 

[ne14pic]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

That would be pretty much every OTHER Democracy on Earth... Including the ones the US set up in other countries :-P

hate to break to you guys but America is a republic
and to the republic in which it stands... so on and so forth

 

[Blacula]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

• North Carolina, (15)

Ohhhhh yes.

 

[psz]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

hate to break to you guys but America is a republic
and to the republic in which it stands... so on and so forth

Oh, I know. Just listen to every leader we have, though, and you'll see that it's a Democracy ;->

 

[Nottheking]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

As a bit on speculation... It appears that as of the end of the last day, Obama seems to hold a comfortable lead, but not one that couldn't potentially be wrong. However, it does seem that a McCain win, especially given around 25% of America has voted early with results suggested a good level of accuracy in the polls, is a long shot.

As I mentioned, there's a number of "non-battleground" states; in 36 states and DC, the election really isn't close; sure, some may label a few states I've considered "safe for McCain" to be possibly in play, but if McCain loses them, then the election is going so badly for him he's going to lose, and in a landslide, so they'd have little effect on the actual outcome. 360 out of 538 votes, or 66.9% of the vote or so, are not capable of being changed. That leaves 185 votes to be fought over...

Taking a look at how it is, Obama needs to add 73 more votes to his total, and McCain 107. So far, there are 114 leaning significantly toward Obama, 11 toward McCain, and 53 toss-ups. If McCain manages to take all three toss-up states, that still only brings him to 227 votes, leaving him 43 votes short of what he needs to win. That means to win, he'd have to take several states already leaning toward Obama. The most likely candidates would appear to be Pennsylvania, (21 votes) Ohio, (20 votes) Virginia, (13 votes) Colorado, (9 votes) Nevada (5 votes) and New Hampsire. (4 votes) That's 72 votes total, so McCain would need to both take all the states on the fence or leaning toward him without losing a single one, as well as take well over half of those states listed... Or 37.7% of all of the states leaning in Obama's favor. And of course, if McCain were to drop any of the three middle states, each has a lot of votes and he'd have to make up for it.

Hence, it's a rather long shot, and I think I'd agree with most of the media in suggesting that Obama is very likely going to win; there are so many "must win" states that are required for McCain to win, with none of them even being close to a certain victory for him, that it all adds up; already, he'd have to take three toss-up states, which being close to 50/50, would give him 1-in-8 odds of pulling THAT off.

hate to break to you guys but America is a republic
and to the republic in which it stands... so on and so forth

That is correct. The USA is a Federal Constitutional Republic, and this is also a question on the Citizenship Test.

 

[Crank]

Re: Attention U.S.A.

State A has 10,000,000 voters. (Worth, let's say 10 Electoral College Votes)

State B has 9,000,000 voters. (Worth, for example, 9 votes)


If 5,000,001 people in State A vote D, the ENTIRE state is counted as D (10 votes)

If *ALL* of state B votes R, then (duh) the whole state votes R (9 votes)

In this case, even though a TOTAL of 13,999.999 voted R and 5,000,001 voted D, there would still be more D votes (10 for D, 9 for R.

This is just a very very stupid method. Period.

thus why i have decided to write myself in, as i did on the last presidential election.