Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?

"D. Strang" wrote:
"Ace" wrote

Now, let's say that in 19 of those 20 states only one person votes per
state and that vote is cast for candidate A, and in one of those 20
states 20 people vote for candidate B.

In the popular vote candidate A receives 19 votes and candidate B
receives 20 votes.

Which candidate is elected, and by what majority?

Candidate A will receive 19 electoral votes, and Candidate B will receive
1 electoral vote. Candidate A is the winner 19:1

There has never been an election with only 20 States the 1820 election
included 23 and there were 235 electoral votes available. The 1816 election
included 19 States and there were 221 electoral votes available.

btw. Any post by "Ace" should be ignored.

By your math, that would show the system estimated the preliminary
("popular") votes cast were around 50.27% for Gore, and 49.73% for Bush.

1) If the known uncounted ballots went 65% for Bush (best estimates show
~80% would have gone to Bush), this estimate would have to be adjusted to
give Bush the higher number;

and

2) Given the error rate (one-tailed) of 3% around the estimates, we can
only say we are less than 60% confident that the actual number of votes cast
for Gore were more than those cast for Bush- not exactly Vegas odds, where
slot machines pay off 97.5% or better. The estimates of the preliminary
("popular") voting show a solid tie.

and

3) The actual votes cast for either man were cast by the electors. The
Electoral College, with a much lower margin of error, decisively cast the
higher number of votes for Bush than Gore.

(Note: one of the reasons why we have an electoral college in the first
place is to "break ties" such as these; avoiding the parliamentary system of
installing partial governements.)

O.K.- that's the third time this has been explained to you.

If you persist in your delusions, you must be Stoopid or Evil.

Steve Swartz


"Ace" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:37:29 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

So who has the greater number of votes cast in their favour? Bush
or
Gore?

Bush. He had the most electoral votes.

You change the question. Who had the greater number of votes cast in
their favour?

the popular vote is entertaining

I like being entertained. Who had the greater number of votes cast in
their favour. Bush or Gore?

No way to know, Ace.

Jeeze, you really need to pay attention.

Do I get two apologies now: One for the first time youj told this fib,
and
a second one for the second time?

This is very rum.

I ask a simple question and I get three different answers.

Q: Who had the greater number of votes [popular vote by context] cast
in their favour, Bush or Gore?

A1: Bush
A2: It doesn't matter
A3: No one knows

I suspect the answer is Gore and you are all wrong.

My information is that Al Gore won 50,999,897 votes and George Bush
won 50,456,002 votes.

Except in states where the electoral votes are not earned "all or nothing"
but on a proportional basis.

Not very many states do this, IIRC.

Steve Swartz


"D. Strang" wrote in message
news:%sDJc.2057$Zr.1567@okepread01...
"Ace" wrote

Now, let's say that in 19 of those 20 states only one person votes per
state and that vote is cast for candidate A, and in one of those 20
states 20 people vote for candidate B.

In the popular vote candidate A receives 19 votes and candidate B
receives 20 votes.

Which candidate is elected, and by what majority?

Candidate A will receive 19 electoral votes, and Candidate B will receive
1 electoral vote. Candidate A is the winner 19:1

EVERYTHING IS FLAWED

Grow up

Still waiting for my apology; now two apologies.

Steve Swartz



"Ace" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:19:10 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

So the system is flawed?

Come back when you get a clue.

It was a question, not a statement.

Do you consider the US voting system to be perfect?

Perfect? How old are you?

Have you ever- ever- even heard of anything in reality (outside of
various
faith systems) ever even remotely considered "Perfect" anywhere, anytime?

What are you, nuts? Or just a kid?

Sorry for the sarcasm and "impoliteness."

But this feigned ignorance as a way to bait an unasked question is, well,
sophomoric. Therefore, I feel free to sink to your level without regret.

If the system ain't perfect it's flawed - which was my point several
messages ago.

THE US ELECTORAL SYSTEM IS FLAWED

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:26:22 +0100, Ace wrote:

[snip]

But Bush won more states and more counties than Gore.

So some people's votes ate worth more than other's?

Only if they live in a district with a large number of
illegals and non-citizens who get counted for purposes
of enumeration but don't get to vote thereby diluting the
vote of someone who lives in a district where everyone is
a citizen.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:16:46 +0100, Ace wrote:

On 15 Jul 2004 16:47:27 GMT, "ian maclure" wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 07:21:22 +0100, Ace wrote:

[snip]

Washington was a traitor to his King and to his country. Not that

Yeah, the Rebellion Against LAwful Authority is problematic
if viewed from that perspective but I dare say precious few
in These United States look at it that way.

I can't really see it in any other way. George Washington was a in
the British army and turned mutiny against his overlords.

No, at the time he was a Colonel in the Viriginia Militia.
He was never a British Regular.
And you're still hair-splitting. Your distinction would only
have mattered had the British won. And, somebody correct me
if I'm wrong, they didn't.

[snip]

The King granted the US its independence in Paris on 3rd September
1783.

What other choice did he have?
You can call it what you like.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

Howard Berkowitz wrote:
In article EylJc.1429$8v2.407@lakeread01, "sanjian"
wrote:

That's a strange definition of democracy.



Saddam had once studied law but hadn't completed the progam. He
decided, as president, that he would like the degree. So, he showed
up at the oral exams with two bodyguards, and looked at the
professors while cleaning his fingernails with the blade sight of his
pistols.

After the professors retired to deliberate, one said "Shocking! He
does not demonstrate the slightest knowledge of Iraqi law."

A wiser professor countered. "No. He has just given us a demonstration
that he understands current Iraqi law, perfectly."

Fortunately, his idea of jurisprudence will not help him now.

"Leslie Swartz" wrote:
Except in states where the electoral votes are not earned "all or nothing"
but on a proportional basis.

Not very many states do this, IIRC.

Even then his count is "wrong" - the minimum number of electoral votes a
State can have is 3.




Steve Swartz


"D. Strang" wrote in message
news:%sDJc.2057$Zr.1567@okepread01...
"Ace" wrote

Now, let's say that in 19 of those 20 states only one person votes per
state and that vote is cast for candidate A, and in one of those 20
states 20 people vote for candidate B.

In the popular vote candidate A receives 19 votes and candidate B
receives 20 votes.

Which candidate is elected, and by what majority?

Candidate A will receive 19 electoral votes, and Candidate B will
receive
1 electoral vote. Candidate A is the winner 19:1

ian maclure wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 07:21:22 +0100, Ace wrote:

It should be noted that this is shysterish hairsplitting.
Washington filled a billet that calls for a General in most
armies of the period if not a Field Marshal/Prince of the Blood.

In other words, if Washington was not a general, then the word has no
meaning.

Ian MacLure wrote:
Ace wrote in
:

[snip]

So who has the greater number of votes cast in their favour? Bush or
Gore?

That would only be relevant if the popular vote determined who got
to be president.

You know full well thats not how the system works.
Algore could have lost 49 states by oh say a number just larger
than the margin of error, won Kalifornia by a lanslide and lost
the election notwithstanding that he might have a majority or
plurality of the popular vote.

And-uh note that this is not the first time a President did not
win the popular vote.

The big question is why we talk about the popular vote as if it's actually
fully counted.