Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

You probably could bribe an elector... not that 1 elector would make any difference...

Well, in an election this close, one elector definitely could make a difference, as the "Votemaster" points out. But if not one, then how about three or five? Either has the cash to arrange that, and it's certainly plausible that the election might be that close.Say one candidate wins states whose votes add up to 266, and the other gets 272 (this is an unlikely combination, but it works for. Either candidate would only have to "compel" three electors in order to arrange a tie, and in a tie, Bush can't lose.

_________________

Well, as the votes are shaping up now, 1 would hardly matter, just as 4 or 5.

Are you going according to the EV Predictor? While I get a kick out of the site, I don't think that even the Votemaster would call it an accurate reflection of this election's outcome. You're right, if the election was held today and the poll data was completely accurate (and it never is), then Bush would have to "buy" 38 votes, which, even though he could certainly afford it, wouldn't fly with the American people. There would be riots. Or at least I like to think so. But anyway, check out the graph just before F9/11 released. And that was just two months ago. Think how much could change between now and November.

_________________

Looks like Farenheit 9/11 really shot Bush down.
I didn't see the movie, and I won't see a political movie, especially if the filmmaker is a President-Bashing person.

We already had a discussion about this, and you can read my opinions about it there. I didn't mean to bring up F9/11 or its impact on the election (which is questionable -- if it caused a Kerry bounce, it seems temporary), I was just using it as a chronological point of reference.

_________________

Maybe Bush does have a Trump Card:

Name: Donald Trump
Powers: Buying stuff
Type: Wind
Power Level: 16
Special Abilities: Regenerating Power Units (2 per round)

(you have to imagine a cool picture of DT in a wizard's outfit)

_________________

Yer fired. <point>

of course, Trump has spoken out against Bush...

in regards to the original question, I would say no. I wouldn't put any dirty trick past this administration, but their campaign has been run so slipshod, I just don't think they have anything in their pocket. all they've been doing is throwing everything they can think up at voters, trying to get something to stick. pity for them, nothing's sticking.

ETA: oh yeah, and in recent history, there's usually one elector that votes differently than they're supposed to. in 2000, one of Gore's electors in DC abstained to protest DC's lack of representation in Congress. but this was always when there was a clear winner. I don't think anyone would be foolish enough to switch or abstain if it was 270-268 -- imagine the amount of pissed-off people they'd encounter.

we, the citezens, dont ellect who will be president, the electoral college does. by missing one vote just means a canidate will have less votes for the popular vote. to me the popular vote is nothing. it just sees who people want, but it is all the electoral college's opinion that counts really.

_________________
its friday night and im home all night (all night)
and saturday night doesnt look much better (oooahhoo)
and nobody likes me coz im a loser (hey! you're a loser)
and everything is going to go my way someday, someday
everything is gonna go my way someday

Warlord:

Your vote helps determine the electoral vote. If you don't vote, then the electoral vote representing your state/district could end up going to the other candidate.

_________________

"Usually"? Okay, no, there isn't "usually" one such elector, not even "in recent history". One incident in the past 15 years does not indicate a trend.



Um, warlord, did you just miss the whole conversation? And the part where we posted a lot of links that describe how the electoral college works? Yes, sometimes electors don't vote according to the popular vote. Does that mean that the Electoral College has been running things all these years with no regard for the popular vote of their constituency? Of course not.

Look at it this way, in the 215 years of Presidential elections in the U.S., 20,237 electoral votes (you have no idea what a pain it was to figure out that number, but I'm pretty sure it's accurate) have been cast. Of those, somewhere between 8 and 85 votes (I refuse to counts the votes changed due to candidate deaths) haven't gone along with the popular vote that they represent. That's somewhere between 0.04% and 0.4% (yes, four hundredths and four tenths of one percent) of the total votes cast , and as you know it has never influenced the outcome of a Presidential race.

The Electoral college system is not great. It may not even be very good. And I appreciate a good bit of cynicism when it comes to this country's electoral process. But your vote does dicate the outcome of the election.

_________________

Thank you IJ. Good use of documentation.

_________________

um. well, I was referring to the past, say, 30-40 years. it happened in 2000, 1988, 1976, 1972, and 1968. it's not a trend, but I'd hardly call that one incident.

You said "in recent history". Maybe 40 years is "recent history" to Greeks, but that's an entire sixth (plus) of this country's entire history.

_________________

Aggghhhrrhhhvffvak;jdra;emvaaewwr.awe.r,

More GOP antics.

Jeb Bush's Florida Department of Law Enforcement is taking time out of the Law Enforcement part of its job to spend some quality time with elderly black voters.

To paraphrase a Metafilter commenter:


And Republican John Pappageorge, State Rep in Michigan, is helping encourage his party to "suppress the [83% black] Detroit vote". But don't worry, he wants to get "[get] the vote down ... with a positive message." Maybe Jeb could give him some tips on "positive messages" for black voters.

_________________

So what do all of you think about the ironically-named Swift Boat Veterans for *cough*sputter* Truth?

The New York Times says Rove is behind it all, but we had assumed as much anyway, right?

You can read quite a lot about the group over at NYT, or you can check out my pal Lane's slightly more bombastic analysis. Ooh, fun times.

"I'm George Bush and I approved this sham."

_________________

[url=http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB9ATWE2YD.html[/url]Military Documents Cast Doubt on Kerry Critic's Version of Combat, Published Report Says[/url]


So a Larry Thurlow wins a bronze star for being under fire. Later Larry makes an affidavit that John Kerry doesn't deserve his bronze star for being in that very same fire fight. Hmm, did anybody think the records on this wouldn't come out?


George Elliot retracts criticism of Kerry


This is what they do. They did the same to McCain in 2000.


McCain slams ad questioning Kerry's medals; White House won't condemn it
McCain deplores anti-Kerry ad



And check out this article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on August 10, 2004, written by Jim Rassmann, the man who Kerry saved to earn his bronze star.



Also, see this snopes article on the topic.

And just for good measure, a picture of Kerry with his crewmates:

Tom, why didn't you major in journalism?

_________________

I really think Tom just majored in google and wikipedia.

sneaky ninja edit: Rereading through his post I just realized that there isn't a single link from google or wikipedia... doh

Anyway, I am just now starting to realize how ridiculous this whole debate is. Both sides.

We are arguing about something that happened more then 35 years ago. I really think there are much more important current issues that ought to be getting all of the spotlight. All of this mudslinging and name calling (on both sides) just makes me ill.

I really don't care if Bush was in the national guard, or if Kerry was in the navy, nor what either of them did. I do care about their opinions on taxes, stem-cell research, job outsourcing, and the current war in Iraq. I am not the best person for staying up to date with each parties views (and advertisements). But what I do see are threads in message forums such as this one, where people debate stuff that happened loong ago.

I am not saying that what they did or didn't do isn't important (and the issue of honesty is VERY important). It just makes me wonder when people base their whole opinion of either candidate on an issue like this.

Sorry for the rant. It really wasn't directed at anyone in particular (or really even at this thread). I didn't feel like creating a new thread, and just felt that it fit best here.

_________________

I totally agree, Stu, except that I am talking about something that happened just this year. The topic of the ad isn't an issue, here -- everybody knows (or should know) that Kerry served honorably in his war, and so on -- the issue is that the Bushies, et al financed an ad that blatantly lies to the American people, and won't apologize for it.

_________________

I found another great article about GOP vote-tampering in the 2000 election. They sure are a swell bunch.

Remember those 51,000 black voters I mentioned awhile back who didn't get to vote last time 'round because of arrangements Bush's Campaign Manager made? The above reminds us of the other one million whose votes were conveniently "discarded".

_________________

one thing thats starting to tick me off about the campaign commercials is that the candidates are not saying what they have, but what their opponents don't have.

Vote not bush '04

Well, this is nothing new, of course, but just for a little perspective, last I heard (you can Google it if you like, and let me know if my numbers are off), about two-thirds of Bush's ads are attack ads, as compared to one quarter of Kerry's.

_________________

Today's news: Jeb Bush has already started manipulating Florida's ballots by defying a court order to get Ralph Nader's name on the ballot. I think "thick as thieves" is the phrase I'm looking for here.

_________________

I just wonder what Ralph Nader has to say about that.

_________________

I don't exactly understand what is going on here...

It seems that the democrats want to keep Nader off the ballot (which makes sense, seeing as he would most likely hurt their chances). But why is he being kept off the ballot at all?

Saying "because a judge said so" doesn't really cut it. (It would just as bad as a republican tampering with votes)

_________________

The Democrats want Nader off the ballot because he has no chance of winning and almost every Nader voter would be a Kerry voter if Nader didn't make the ballot.

The Republicans have been trying very, very hard in battleground states petitioning to get Nader on the ballot. It's very surreal the lengths these guys go to.

The reason the judge ruled that Nader isn't allowed on the ballot is because he believes the Reform Party is "a shell of its former self" and isn't a legitimate national party under Florida's election laws.

And in the news, as of today, Nader is again off the ballot. This is going to be interesting, especially considering that overseas absentee ballots go out next week.

_________________

I still don't understand why Nadar should be off the ballot. (I completely understand why people want him on/off the ballot). What is/are the criteria for being on the ballot? If there is some reason that he should be off the ballot, then I can agree with the judge. Otherwise it just seems he is trying to do the same sort of thing that you (ij) complain so much about the republicans doing last election.

(Coming from someone who voted for Nader last election, as a vote for anyone other then bush in Utah is as good as a vote for my llama)

_________________

From what I understand, in order for a candidate to be on the ballot in most states, he must be endorsed by a national party and he must get a certain number of signatures on a petition.

This is the part where most of the articles I found fell short. They all said that the judge believes that the Reform Party, per Florida's election laws, is not a legitimate national party and that it didn't follow the law in endorsing Nader. What I haven't been able to determine is exactly what those laws are. I'd appreciate any help in this department.

At any rate, the fact that the Republicans are ostensibly doing more to get Nader on the ballot than is his own party is telling in and of itself.

_________________