PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID

From http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Popular Vote:

Bush: 50,456,002 47.87%
Go 50,999,897 48.38%

Looks like more to me!

Jack G.

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
Do your homework.


"Jack G" wrote in message
news:FVO1d.3647$g9.70@trnddc06...
Art, can you name the other presidents who were elected with less than a
majority of the popular vote? Or have you forgotten them?

Jack G.

"Jack G" wrote in message
news:h302d.8184$5t4.4608@trnddc01...
From http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Popular Vote:

Bush: 50,456,002 47.87%
Go 50,999,897 48.38%

Looks like more to me!

Uhmmm...I believe his point is in regards to the votes that actually
count--the Electoral College ones. ISTR Bush got more of those?

Brooks


Jack G.

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
Do your homework.


"Jack G" wrote in message
news:FVO1d.3647$g9.70@trnddc06...
Art, can you name the other presidents who were elected with less than
a
majority of the popular vote? Or have you forgotten them?

Jack G.

I never mentioned Electoral votes in my post. The topic of Art's post was
the popular vote.

Jack G.
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Jack G" wrote in message
news:h302d.8184$5t4.4608@trnddc01...
From http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Popular Vote:

Bush: 50,456,002 47.87%
Go 50,999,897 48.38%

Looks like more to me!

Uhmmm...I believe his point is in regards to the votes that actually
count--the Electoral College ones. ISTR Bush got more of those?

Brooks


Jack G.

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
Do your homework.


"Jack G" wrote in message
news:FVO1d.3647$g9.70@trnddc06...
Art, can you name the other presidents who were elected with less
than
a
majority of the popular vote? Or have you forgotten them?

Jack G.

Jack:

I suspect that you are the same guy who kept ignoring all the explanations
before, and kept posting and reposting that table. If so, then the
following is a waste of bandwidth; if not, you might find the following
addition (your omission) illuminating:

Mechanical Tally Error:
Bush: 47.87 +/- 3.23 % (95% two-tailed confidence interval)
Go 48.38 +- 3.23 % (95% two tailed confidence interval)

Ballot Undercount Error, 2% - 7% local 3% estimated average (absentee etc.
ballots "not counted because they have no material effect on outcome")

So conservatively, the 0.51% difference between the two vote count totals
represents about a standard deviation's worth of difference.

So in other words, we are 80% confident that the true vote count could have
gone either way; and only 20% confident that Gore's total was actually
higher than Bush's.

Not counting, of course, fraud and/or uncounted ballots. This is just the
mechanical error of the vote counting machines.

Steve


"Jack G" wrote in message
news:h302d.8184$5t4.4608@trnddc01...
From http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Popular Vote:

Bush: 50,456,002 47.87%
Go 50,999,897 48.38%

Looks like more to me!

Jack G.

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
Do your homework.


"Jack G" wrote in message
news:FVO1d.3647$g9.70@trnddc06...
Art, can you name the other presidents who were elected with less than
a
majority of the popular vote? Or have you forgotten them?

Jack G.

I have no visibility of other posts that included the table I originally
posted - so yes I did ignore what I can not see.

The numbers that count are the official vote counts. The statistical
analysis is an interesting study - but does not change the official count.

Jack


"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
Jack:

I suspect that you are the same guy who kept ignoring all the
explanations
before, and kept posting and reposting that table. If so, then the
following is a waste of bandwidth; if not, you might find the following
addition (your omission) illuminating:

Mechanical Tally Error:
Bush: 47.87 +/- 3.23 % (95% two-tailed confidence interval)
Go 48.38 +- 3.23 % (95% two tailed confidence interval)

Ballot Undercount Error, 2% - 7% local 3% estimated average (absentee etc.
ballots "not counted because they have no material effect on outcome")

So conservatively, the 0.51% difference between the two vote count totals
represents about a standard deviation's worth of difference.

So in other words, we are 80% confident that the true vote count could
have
gone either way; and only 20% confident that Gore's total was actually
higher than Bush's.

Not counting, of course, fraud and/or uncounted ballots. This is just the
mechanical error of the vote counting machines.

Steve


"Jack G" wrote in message
news:h302d.8184$5t4.4608@trnddc01...
From http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Popular Vote:

Bush: 50,456,002 47.87%
Go 50,999,897 48.38%

Looks like more to me!

Jack G.

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
Do your homework.


"Jack G" wrote in message
news:FVO1d.3647$g9.70@trnddc06...
Art, can you name the other presidents who were elected with less
than
a
majority of the popular vote? Or have you forgotten them?

Jack G.

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
From: "Leadfoot"
Date: 9/14/2004 7:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: nXN1d.298098$Oi.247686@fed1read04


"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
The vast majority of university professors and scholars are
Democratic
liberals. Very few are neocons. The neocons just can't make the cut
into
higher
education.
They just aren't smart enough as Bush so eloquently demonstrates.

So, if Bush is so stupid, why is he President and you're just a bitter
old
man?

Because the supreme court elected him,

Remember the other guy had more people vote for him


That will never be forgotten

What Art has forgotten is that the President isn't elected by popular vote.
Perhaps he needs to go back and read the Constitution.

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
From: "Leadfoot"
Date: 9/14/2004 7:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: nXN1d.298098$Oi.247686@fed1read04


"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
The vast majority of university professors and scholars are
Democratic
liberals. Very few are neocons. The neocons just can't make the cut
into
higher
education.
They just aren't smart enough as Bush so eloquently demonstrates.

So, if Bush is so stupid, why is he President and you're just a
bitter
old
man?

Because the supreme court elected him,

Remember the other guy had more people vote for him


That will never be forgotten

What Art has forgotten is that the President isn't elected by popular
vote.
Perhaps he needs to go back and read the Constitution.

This is the same constitution that as originally written counted a slave as
3/5th of a man and didn't allow women to vote.

We now have a system where the candidates only care about votes in 14 of 50
states. IS THIS A GOOD IDEA????

The good news is there is an advantage for some of us as we don't get
inundated with crap campaign commercials on TV

"Leadfoot" wrote in message
newsdY1d.299698$Oi.13601@fed1read04...

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
From: "Leadfoot"
Date: 9/14/2004 7:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: nXN1d.298098$Oi.247686@fed1read04


"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
The vast majority of university professors and scholars are
Democratic
liberals. Very few are neocons. The neocons just can't make the
cut
into
higher
education.
They just aren't smart enough as Bush so eloquently
demonstrates.

So, if Bush is so stupid, why is he President and you're just a
bitter
old
man?

Because the supreme court elected him,

Remember the other guy had more people vote for him


That will never be forgotten

What Art has forgotten is that the President isn't elected by popular
vote.
Perhaps he needs to go back and read the Constitution.

This is the same constitution that as originally written counted a slave
as
3/5th of a man and didn't allow women to vote.

Actually, if you read it, you will find that there is NOTHING in the
Constitution that disallows women the vote. That was based on other laws,
but not the Constitution.

We now have a system where the candidates only care about votes in 14 of
50
states. IS THIS A GOOD IDEA????

Then change it.

"Leadfoot" wrote

We now have a system where the candidates only care about votes in 14 of
50
states. IS THIS A GOOD IDEA????

A straight popular vote would have the candidates only care about 3
*cities*. NYC, Chicago, and LA
The metro areas of those cities comprise ~40 million people. Equal to the 23
smallest states.

Is THAT a good idea?

Pete

In article odY1d.299698$Oi.13601@fed1read04,
"Leadfoot" writes:

We now have a system where the candidates only care about votes in 14 of 50
states. IS THIS A GOOD IDEA????

Yes.

If we went to a strict popularity contest (Popular vote only) we'd have
a system where only 6 or 7 out of 50 States count - (And not even all
ovf those - The areas that would dominate are a few cities and their
suburbs) IS THAT A GOOD IDEA? Hell, no! Especially when one considers
that these urban areas are net resource sinks - they don't produce
enough of anything to survive, and are dependant an the rest of the
Nation. Giving them unconstrained power to do as they will is a Really
Bad Idea. Think of the conditions that led to the downfall of Rome.
It wouldn't be much different at all.

The Electoral College is a very clever scheme to weight things such
that the rest of teh country gets a voice. It's still largely
weighted by population, but the poetion of the Electoral votes that
are tied to a States existance ('bout 19%) provide a damper on the
dangers of Tyrrany of the Majority. The balance is such that the
Electoral Vote follows the Popular Vote in the main - until the race
is too close to reliably call. It then applies just enough feedback
to prevent the possibility of someone seizing power by only influencing
a few Political Machines (As, indeed existed back in the days of the
Articles of Confederation) to swing his way.

The good news is there is an advantage for some of us as we don't get
inundated with crap campaign commercials on TV

The even better news is that my vote counts more than yours. That's
not a slap at you, personally. It means that we end up with a nation
of equal Citizens - not denizens of a few over-populated conurbations
milking the productive parts of the Nation.

The Founding Fathers wer clever folks.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster