• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bush stole the election...or whatever

True or false:

- Gore would win some recounts, but only by carefully selecting a particular "hanging chad" concept, and not others, including the one officially sanctioned before the election.

- The Buchanan votes from the "confused districts", if statistically redistibuted proportionally for how votes went in similar demographic districts in the state, would have been enough to make Gore win. (Note that this could never be accomplished legally.)
 
[R2-D2 and Chewbacca are playing the holographic game aboard the Millennium Falcon]
Chewbacca: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrgh
C-3PO: He made a fair move. Screaming about it can't help you.
Han Solo: Let him have it. It's not wise to upset a Wookiee.
C-3PO: But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a droid.
Han Solo: That's 'cause droids don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. Wookiees are known to do that.
Chewbacca: Grrf.
C-3PO: I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy, R2: let the Wookiee win.
Source
Click to expand...

Always let the Wookiee win.
 
Beerina said:
True or false:

(...snip...)

- The Buchanan votes from the "confused districts", if statistically redistibuted proportionally for how votes went in similar demographic districts in the state, would have been enough to make Gore win. (Note that this could never be accomplished legally.)
Click to expand...
False.
 
JLam said:
The Kent Hovind ass kicking thread was derailed into a discussion about the 2000 election. That's silly.

This is a thread for whomever wants to argue about the damn 2000 election.
Click to expand...
Spilled milk.
Tears.

The chance to rectify the tactical errors of 2000 (that cost Gore votes in Florida before the chad hanging could be an issue) was in 2004. A different set of tactical political errors were chosen as a strategy.

It is now 2006. Welcome to the present.

DR
 
Upchurch said:
I refrained from posting my response in that thread, but here is what it would have been:

271 > 266
Click to expand...
In a republic, I hear that now and again, the representatives do not merely rubber stamp the emotions of the mob.

JFK had some interesting thoughts on that matter, and won a pulitzer prize for the book he wrote on the topic.

DR
 
For what it's worth I spent quite a bit of time studying the 2000 election in Florida including doing some projections based on various ideas.

My conclusions:
If intent of the voters was the issue Gore would have won.

If who would have won if a perfect mechanism for counting the votes is the issue, no one will ever know. The election was just too close for a definitive decision when so much of the data was ambiguous. I think this was borne out by the results of the media sponsored recount which found Bush winning by most standards but Gore winning by some.
 
davefoc said:
For what it's worth I spent quite a bit of time studying the 2000 election in Florida including doing some projections based on various ideas.

My conclusions:
If intent of the voters was the issue Gore would have won.

If who would have won if a perfect mechanism for counting the votes is the issue, no one will ever know. The election was just too close for a definitive decision when so much of the data was ambiguous. I think this was borne out by the results of the media sponsored recount which found Bush winning by most standards but Gore winning by some.
Click to expand...
Dave, I still don't understand why a ballot by ballot recount wasn't a good idea. What is wrong with doing that? I'd have been happy to wait the weeks it took, and the country would know.

Why was that approach opposed?

DR
 
davefoc said:
My conclusions:
If intent of the voters was the issue Gore would have won.
Click to expand...
I don't know on what you base those conclusions. However, if you are correct (and I tend to think that you are), I consider Bush's victory to be a failure of the election system.

To use a bad analogy, we were using Newtonian mechanics to describe a Relativistic system. Newton is good for certain approximations within given conditions, but breaks down in extreme cases. Likewise, our electoral system is not reliable when the race is extremely close.
 
Upchurch said:
Likewise, our electoral system is not reliable when the race is extremely close.
Click to expand...
[slight derail]
Interesting argument in favor of keeping the electoral college. If the nationwide vote was extremely close, would you really want to have a nationwide recount (think Florida 2000 x 50)? The electoral college limits the damage to the individual states where the vote is extremely close.
[/slight derail]
 
BPSCG said:
[slight derail]
Interesting argument in favor of keeping the electoral college. If the nationwide vote was extremely close, would you really want to have a nationwide recount (think Florida 2000 x 50)? The electoral college limits the damage to the individual states where the vote is extremely close.
[/slight derail]
Click to expand...

[continueing derail]
I believe that would be offset by a proportional decrease in likelihood of a "close vote" for any arbitrary value of "close".
[/continueing derail]

Aaron

P.S. I like the electoral college, and furthermore would like to repeal the amendment providing for direct election of senators. This is supposed to be a federalism, dang it!
 
HeavyAaron said:
[continueing derail]
I believe that would be offset by a proportional decrease in likelihood of a "close vote" for any arbitrary value of "close".
[/continueing derail]

Aaron

P.S. I like the electoral college, and furthermore would like to repeal the amendment providing for direct election of senators. This is supposed to be a federalism, dang it!
Click to expand...
Wonderful, another fan of the old spoils system. :p There are enough unelected members of government, in state and federal cabinets, thanks.

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
Wonderful, another fan of the old spoils system. :p There are enough unelected members of government, in state and federal cabinets, thanks.

DR
Click to expand...

Without that amendment states would be welcome to still appoint their senators by popular election, if they so chose. States were free to choose their senators by any means they liked. Now they aren't.

Aaron
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom