![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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$Oi.247686@fed1read04 "Ragnar" wrote in message ... "ArtKramr" wrote in message ... The vast majority of university professors and scholars are Democratic liberals. Very few are neocons. The neocons just can't make the cut into higher education. They just aren't smart enough as Bush so eloquently demonstrates. So, if Bush is so stupid, why is he President and you're just a bitter old man? Because the supreme court elected him, Remember the other guy had more people vote for him That will never be forgotten What Art has forgotten is that the President isn't elected by popular vote. Perhaps he needs to go back and read the Constitution. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Ragnar" wrote in message ... "ArtKramr" wrote in message ... Subject: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID From: "Leadfoot" Date: 9/14/2004 7:39 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: nXN1d.298098$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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Leadfoot" wrote in message news ![]() "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$Oi.247686@fed1read04 "Ragnar" wrote in message ... "ArtKramr" wrote in message ... The vast majority of university professors and scholars are Democratic liberals. Very few are neocons. The neocons just can't make the cut into higher education. They just aren't smart enough as Bush so eloquently demonstrates. So, if Bush is so stupid, why is he President and you're just a bitter old man? Because the supreme court elected him, Remember the other guy had more people vote for him That will never be forgotten What Art has forgotten is that the President isn't elected by popular vote. Perhaps he needs to go back and read the Constitution. This is the same constitution that as originally written counted a slave as 3/5th of a man and didn't allow women to vote. Actually, if you read it, you will find that there is NOTHING in the Constitution that disallows women the vote. That was based on other laws, but not the Constitution. We now have a system where the candidates only care about votes in 14 of 50 states. IS THIS A GOOD IDEA???? Then change it. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Leadfoot" wrote We now have a system where the candidates only care about votes in 14 of 50 states. IS THIS A GOOD IDEA???? A straight popular vote would have the candidates only care about 3 *cities*. NYC, Chicago, and LA The metro areas of those cities comprise ~40 million people. Equal to the 23 smallest states. Is THAT a good idea? Pete |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article odY1d.299698$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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________-+__ ihuvpe | RobertR237 | Home Built | 84 | November 26th 04 05:19 PM |
(NEOCONS) GOING BACK WHERE THEY CAME FROM | MORRIS434 | Military Aviation | 0 | April 23rd 04 02:29 PM |
No US soldier should have 2 die for Israel 4 oil | Ewe n0 who | Military Aviation | 1 | April 9th 04 11:25 PM |
No End to War | Grantland | Military Aviation | 0 | March 26th 04 04:20 AM |
De Borchgrave: WMD, Gulf of Tonkin, and Neocons | MORRIS434 | Military Aviation | 0 | February 12th 04 08:41 PM |