|
» GC Stats |
Members: 329,603
Threads: 115,662
Posts: 2,204,713
|
| Welcome to our newest member, angeltsoz9101 |
|
 |
|
09-13-2004, 08:27 AM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,624
|
|
|
Electoral Vote Predictor
|
09-13-2004, 08:31 AM
|
|
Super Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Posts: 18,667
|
|
|
Here's another one
Election Projection 2004
Click on the map for details
Last updated: 09/12/04 Current Projected Tally: Electoral Votes: Bush 285, Kerry 253
Popular Vote: Bush 51.1%, Kerry 47.0%
http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html
__________________
SN -SINCE 1869-
"EXCELLING WITH HONOR"
S N E T T
Mu Tau 5, Central Oklahoma
|
09-13-2004, 09:54 AM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Mile High America
Posts: 17,088
|
|
|
Still a "long" time until election day (ugh!). A lot of things can change. These "predictors" are silly.
__________________
Fraternally,
DeltAlum
DTD
The above is the opinion of the poster which may or may not be based in known facts and does not necessarily reflect the views of Delta Tau Delta or Greek Chat -- but it might.
|
09-13-2004, 10:08 AM
|
|
Super Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Posts: 18,667
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DeltAlum
Still a "long" time until election day (ugh!). A lot of things can change. These "predictors" are silly.
|
Agreed. Especially when they differ by more than 30 electoral votes. That's a heck of a margin of victory.
Maybe it's because one counts the swinging chads and the other doesn't?
__________________
SN -SINCE 1869-
"EXCELLING WITH HONOR"
S N E T T
Mu Tau 5, Central Oklahoma
|
09-13-2004, 10:29 AM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Listening to a Mariachi band on the N train
Posts: 5,707
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ktsnake
Agreed.
|
I agree with ktsnake agreeing with DeltAlum.
|
09-13-2004, 10:35 AM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Mile High America
Posts: 17,088
|
|
|
There is a movement afoot in Colorado to end the "Winner take all" situation regarding delegates to the Electoral College, and doing it by actual percentage of the popular vote.
That way, it wouldn't be possible (at least in theory) to win the popular vote and lose in the Electoral College process.
My question is why hasn't it always been that way?
__________________
Fraternally,
DeltAlum
DTD
The above is the opinion of the poster which may or may not be based in known facts and does not necessarily reflect the views of Delta Tau Delta or Greek Chat -- but it might.
|
09-13-2004, 10:42 AM
|
|
Super Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Posts: 18,667
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DeltAlum
There is a movement afoot in Colorado to end the "Winner take all" situation regarding delegates to the Electoral College, and doing it by actual percentage of the popular vote.
That way, it wouldn't be possible (at least in theory) to win the popular vote and lose in the Electoral College process.
My question is why hasn't it always been that way?
|
For one thing, it forces Candidates to really run their campaigns on a state by state scale rather than on a national one. I guarantee you, if we go to a popular vote, states like Oklahoma, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, etc. with smaller populations will cease to matter. Everything will concentrate even moreso than now on California, Florida, etc.
I'm a big fan of the current system. I don't really think it's broken.
But, I'm sure that candidates would cease to campaign as hard in Colorado if this happened due to the fact that they could almost count on it being around a 50-50 split instead of an important block of votes.
__________________
SN -SINCE 1869-
"EXCELLING WITH HONOR"
S N E T T
Mu Tau 5, Central Oklahoma
|
09-13-2004, 11:22 AM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Listening to a Mariachi band on the N train
Posts: 5,707
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DeltAlum
There is a movement afoot in Colorado to end the "Winner take all" situation regarding delegates to the Electoral College, and doing it by actual percentage of the popular vote.
That way, it wouldn't be possible (at least in theory) to win the popular vote and lose in the Electoral College process.
My question is why hasn't it always been that way?
|
I believe that Maine and Nebraska did away with "winner takes all" for presidential elections. The winner does take all for two votes, and the other electoral votes correspond to the congressional districts. A candidate must win each of the votes, one district at a time.
|
09-13-2004, 11:45 AM
|
|
Super Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Posts: 18,667
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
I believe that Maine and Nebraska did away with "winner takes all" for presidential elections. The winner does take all for two votes, and the other electoral votes correspond to the congressional districts. A candidate must win each of the votes, one district at a time.
|
That's an even worse way to do it. Most congressional districts are drawn in such a way that they include a majority population that is heavy Democratic or Republican leaning. This would be almost certain to guarantee that these states are ignored when the election occurs.
__________________
SN -SINCE 1869-
"EXCELLING WITH HONOR"
S N E T T
Mu Tau 5, Central Oklahoma
|
09-13-2004, 01:17 PM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Mile High America
Posts: 17,088
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ktsnake
Most congressional districts are drawn in such a way that they include a majority population that is heavy Democratic or Republican leaning.
|
Let's hear it for the famous Gerrymander.
__________________
Fraternally,
DeltAlum
DTD
The above is the opinion of the poster which may or may not be based in known facts and does not necessarily reflect the views of Delta Tau Delta or Greek Chat -- but it might.
|
09-13-2004, 03:47 PM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 9,328
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DeltAlum
Let's hear it for the famous Gerrymander.
|
Named after a MA congressman...not that that's a good thing.
|
09-13-2004, 04:06 PM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Mile High America
Posts: 17,088
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by KSigkid
Named after a MA congressman...not that that's a good thing.
|
Thought he was the governor -- but it's been a long time since I learned about that.
__________________
Fraternally,
DeltAlum
DTD
The above is the opinion of the poster which may or may not be based in known facts and does not necessarily reflect the views of Delta Tau Delta or Greek Chat -- but it might.
|
09-13-2004, 05:32 PM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Listening to a Mariachi band on the N train
Posts: 5,707
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DeltAlum
Thought he was the governor -- but it's been a long time since I learned about that.
|
He was a governor in Massachusetts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A632990
Gerrymander - In 1812 Governor Eldridge Gerry of Massachussets revised local Congressional boundaries so as to prevent his fellow Democrats from suffering an ignominous defeat. The painter Gilbert Stuart saw a map of the area in question while working at the Boston Centinel newspaer, declared it to resemble a salamander, and promptly augmented it with wings, claws and a beak to create a cartoon. His editor, Benjamin Russell, decided that Gerry-mander was a more appropriate name for it, and the word almost immediately became the popular term for any unfair adjustment of electoral boundaries, as the Gerry-mander cartoon (2497x5372 image here: http://memory.loc.gov/rbc/rbpe/rbpe0...0100/001dr.jpg) was subsequently copied extensively in political literature. Stuart's other, greater claim to fame is as the painter of George Washington's portrait as used on the one dollar bill, and Gerry emerged from the scandal relatively unscathed, going on to be James Madison's Vice-President.
|
09-13-2004, 06:46 PM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 1,516
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DeltAlum
My question is why hasn't it always been that way?
|
The founding fathers wanted a buffer between the populous and the government. They didn’t trust the people to pick the right leaders
|
09-13-2004, 07:05 PM
|
|
Super Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Posts: 18,667
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by XOMichelle
The founding fathers wanted a buffer between the populous and the government. They didn’t trust the people to pick the right leaders
|
And it still works today for different reasons. People in low-population states such as mine definitely need to be against something like that. It would make us nearly worthless in presidential elections.
__________________
SN -SINCE 1869-
"EXCELLING WITH HONOR"
S N E T T
Mu Tau 5, Central Oklahoma
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
