[GeeYouEye]

I found electoral-vote.com elsewhere, but I do appreciate the links to the other sites.

The thing about the Colorado proposal is that it's blatantly partisan, and in general not a good idea. For the former, consider that the same thing was proposed in CA... and was branded as "undemocratic and unreasonable". For the latter, it means that, should other states adopt a similar thing, and possibly even without (depending on which states go which way), is that it means it's possible for neither candidate to get the 270 needed to win; so it goes to the House. Given the very divided and partisan nature of the House these days, I don't want them electing the President, no matter which side of the aisle the majority sits on.

[voodoo]

I think the US should change the way a president is elected so the majority of the US people would choose the president. Not a minority like happened in 2000.

[Ω]

Unfortunately all elections are flawed.

In reality the best person for the job will never be able to run due to the process, and in all likelihood would never want the job in the first place!

It is the system at the present, and we will have to live with it

[BlackGriffen]

I've written extensively on possible replacements for the electoral college. The simplest one is: the winner is the one who gets the most votes from those who get some minimum fraction of the vote (eg 1/3) in some other fraction of the states (eg 2/3) - with an instant runoff of some kind between the two most popular candidates if nobody meets the requirement.

That's not entirely germane to the thread, though.

For today's results, I recommend this: . <-grain of salt

Electoral-vote.com has Kerry surging: Kerry 239, Bush 256, tied 43. The grain of salt comes from the fact that most of the new results are Zogby, who tends to be anti-incumbent (even in the Clinton days).
Pollkatz's graph shows something similar: Kerry 282, Bush 256. Though the origin of the change is likely the same Zogby results, so the depicted shift probably requires that same grain of salt.

This does show, however, my point that a few % in key states can make for wild swings in the electoral college. Just getting Jersey back, for instance would put Kerry in the lead again in electoral-vote.com's rankings.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I've written extensively on possible replacements for the electoral college. The simplest one is: the winner is the one who gets the most votes from those who get some minimum fraction of the vote (eg 1/3) in some other fraction of the states (eg 2/3) - with an instant runoff of some kind between the two most popular candidates if nobody meets the requirement.

That's not entirely germane to the thread, though.

For today's results, I recommend this: . <-grain of salt

Electoral-vote.com has Kerry surging: Kerry 239, Bush 256, tied 43. The grain of salt comes from the fact that most of the new results are Zogby, who tends to be anti-incumbent (even in the Clinton days).
Pollkatz's graph shows something similar: Kerry 282, Bush 256. Though the origin of the change is likely the same Zogby results, so the depicted shift probably requires that same grain of salt.

This does show, however, my point that a few % in key states can make for wild swings in the electoral college. Just getting Jersey back, for instance would put Kerry in the lead again in electoral-vote.com's rankings.

BlackGriffen

I'd be very surprised if Arkansas goes anywhere but to Bush. But what blows me away is that Zogby has Maryland exactly tied. Anyone who knows Maryland will know how remarkable that is. Notwithstanding the fact that it now has its first Republican governor since Agnew, the state is a solid Democratic stronghold. It should be absolutely safe for Kerry. So either the poll is off, or there is something quite interesting going on in this campaign.

[BlackGriffen]

Kerry may be focusing too much on the battleground states. That should change, at least a little, as he has a string of national appearances coming up. Then there's also the debates.

He may be forced to do some home turf defense with more than free publicity before this is over, though.

BlackGriffen

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I think the US should change the way a president is elected so the majority of the US people would choose the president. Not a minority like happened in 2000.

Which would be even LESS FAIR.

BTW Voodoo you know that thousands of Democrats voted twice. So the "More people voted for Gore" statement is a bit iffy since it was SO CLOSE.

What we do know is more Democrats voted twice. Of ALL the people who voted twice, 12% were Republican, and 68% were Democrat.

That tells you who the real cheaters are.

[Zimphire]

BTW Black http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/ is a HIGHLY left leaning page and it's designer needs to learn how to code.

Actually BOTH pages are highly left. The other however seems to be a bit more HONEST when it comes to polls.

Bush is still leading in the double digits.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I think the US should change the way a president is elected so the majority of the US people would choose the president. Not a minority like happened in 2000.

If Gore had been elected, it still would have been a minority. Both had less than 50% of the popular vote. FYI.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Bush is still leading in the double digits.

According to what? That Time magazine poll, which was debunked shortly after its release? Rasmussen (one of the more right-leaning pollsters) said that it was more like 3%.

Personally, I am also bothered by the left slant of Electoral-vote.com, but I don't think it affects the results much. Really just the commentary. He seems committed to showing accurate results from the latest polls, and I don't think he'd exclude results that weren't in line with his political beliefs. And I'm really not convinced that bending or faking poll results would be all that beneficial. No one with half a brain is going to change their mind just because one candidate is ahead of the other; it would just be telling people what they want to hear.

So, as much as I'd like to believe that Kerry's way ahead now, I know that in reality it's still very close, and Bush has a slight lead. I was worried last week though - Bush really pulled ahead.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
According to what? That Time magazine poll, which was debunked shortly after its release? Rasmussen (one of the more right-leaning pollsters) said that it was more like 3%.

Personally, I am also bothered by the left slant of Electoral-vote.com, but I don't think it affects the results much. Really just the commentary. He seems committed to showing accurate results from the latest polls, and I don't think he'd exclude results that weren't in line with his political beliefs. And I'm really not convinced that bending or faking poll results would be all that beneficial. No one with half a brain is going to change their mind just because one candidate is ahead of the other; it would just be telling people what they want to hear.

So, as much as I'd like to believe that Kerry's way ahead now, I know that in reality it's still very close, and Bush has a slight lead. I was worried last week though - Bush really pulled ahead.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/sep/sep21.html

Kerry 239 _ Bush 256

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
...
BTW Voodoo you know that thousands of Democrats voted twice. So the "More people voted for Gore" statement is a bit iffy since it was SO CLOSE.

What we do know is more Democrats voted twice. Of ALL the people who voted twice, 12% were Republican, and 68% were Democrat.

That tells you who the real cheaters are.

Are you talking about those people who are registered in both FL and NY? If you are, I wasn't aware of any proof that they had actually voted twice. But your statement is rather strong ("What we do know is..."), so if you have some time to spare, perhaps you can provide some proof that, that actually did happen.

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/sep/sep21.html

Kerry 239 _ Bush 256

Seems one of you is talking about the electoral votes and the other about percentages.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by E's Lil Theorem:
Are you talking about those people who are registered in both FL and NY? If you are, I wasn't aware of any proof that they had actually voted twice. But your statement is rather strong ("What we do know is..."), so if you have some time to spare, perhaps you can provide some proof that, that actually did happen.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040...3359-3761r.htm

A little-reported phenomenon appears to have had an impact on results in Florida in the 2000 election and could resurface in the upcoming November vote.
____According to an investigation by the New York Daily News, approximately 46,000 New Yorkers are registered to vote in both New York and in Florida, and of those voters, 68 percent are Democrats, 12 percent are Republicans and 16 percent are independent. Almost 1,700 voters that registered in both states requested that absentee ballots be sent to their homes in the other state, where they are also registered. Those numbers suggest that up to 1,000 illegal votes were cast for Al Gore in Florida.
The issue is important because the Democrats continue to claim that George W. Bush stole Florida in the 2000 election. Apparently, however, it was the Democrats who were cheating. Any credible look at Florida in 2000 should include the issue of double-voting. Mr. Bush won in pivotal Florida by a margin of 537 votes.
____Double-voting strikes fundamentally at America's democracy. Unfortunately, there are no attractive methods of countering the problem. Some have proposed a national voter-registration system that would assign federal voter ID numbers, but that would encroach upon an area that is legitimately a function of state government, not Washington. One less intrusive approach to checking the problem may be a voluntary system of state-to-state cooperation in sharing data to detect double-voting.
____Under current law, voters already are subject to serious penalties for cheating. Those who cast a ballot more than once face a fine of up to $10,000 and five years in jail. But deterrence is undermined by the fact that violations are virtually impossible to uncover.
____Policy-makers should begin a debate about strategies to counter double-voting, including state-to-state cooperation. As yet, there are no plans to match registries across state lines. The 2000 election highlighted how critical each vote can be, but a vote should not be counted twice. Florida Republicans should be prepared for the possibility of Democratic double-voting. They also need to be prepared for the likelihood that blowing the whistle on such illegal activity will subject them to false charges that the GOP is trying to steal the election.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by E's Lil Theorem:
Seems one of you is talking about the electoral votes and the other about percentages.

Ah, well the electoral is the only one that really matters.

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040...3359-3761r.htm

... Almost 1,700 voters that registered in both states requested that absentee ballots be sent to their homes in the other state, where they are also registered. Those numbers suggest that up to 1,000 illegal votes were cast for Al Gore in Florida.
...

This isn't proof, by the way. For all we know all 1,700 votes were casted for Bush (or maybe those 1,700 only voted through the absentee ballot and never stepped foot in a voting booth in any state). Until someone actually looks at those sheets where they mark that you voted (along with the absentee ballots) and figures how many of those are Democrats and how many are Republicans (which might not be possible), all we can do is speculate with the statistics we have (which is what that fella is doing).

He does, however, bring up an excellent point: voting registration reform.

[Zimphire]

Of course people went out of their way to register in BOTH States only to not vote.

That seems highly likely! wait, not it doesn't.

It's hard enough to get people to register that WANT to vote. Let a lone register TWO states and then not vote.

These people voted in NY, and then sent absentee ballots to Florida.

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
...

These people voted in NY, and then sent absentee ballots to Florida.

I can't overemphasize that we don't know that. But for the sake of this discussion lets say that's true in which case you still don't know how they voted.

Like I said before, all we can do is play with the statistics we have. Playing with the statistics, however, doesn't prove what you said earlier.

[Zimphire]

I would say it was a safe assumption to make that REGISTERED Democrats that went through the trouble of purposely REGISTERING IN TWO STATES (Which is knowingly illegal) Probably had the intentions of swaying the voting tally.

It's not an odd conclusion to come to. And it's probably 99.999% correct.

But I will give you that .001% of a likely chance that they went through all that trouble and didn't do anything.

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
... a safe assumption to make... And it's probably ..

All right, seems we've come to an agreement since you're now giving me assumptions and probabilities instead of concrete proof, which is what I was saying earlier (i.e., there's no concrete proof that what you claimed happened actually did happen).

[voodoo]

Originally posted by E's Lil Theorem:
All right, seems we've come to an agreement since you're now giving me assumptions and probabilities instead of concrete proof, which is what I was saying earlier (i.e., there's no concrete proof that what you claimed happened actually did happen).

***SMACKDOWN***

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by E's Lil Theorem:
All right, seems we've come to an agreement since you're now giving me assumptions and probabilities instead of concrete proof, which is what I was saying earlier (i.e., there's no concrete proof that what you claimed happened actually did happen).

LAWL! I am saying that it's 99.9% percent likely it did happen. Not 100% proof no.

Just like we don't have 100% proof that the CBS documents were fake, but have came to the conclusion that yes they are.

Do you at least admit that this is probably the case?

Heck the lefties like to scream that Bush stole the election as if it were factual. And there is less proof backing that up than there is with this.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by voodoo:
***SMACKDOWN***

That was hardly smackdown material fanboy.

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
LAWL! I am saying that it's 99.9% percent likely it did happen. Not 100% proof no...

Yes, but that's your assumption. There's no proof to back up such a statement, though for some there might be enough evidence to speculate (and only speculate) such a thing did happen. You, however, claim it's true, which neither of us can prove at this time.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Do you at least admit that this is probably the case?

Some shady business might have gone on, but with the information that's available it's difficult to say which of the two parties screwed around more.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by E's Lil Theorem:
Yes, but that's your assumption. There's no proof to back up such a statement,

That is the conclusion I have came to after reading the PROOF that they do have.
Notice, no one is screaming or coming out denying said accusations either. There is a reason for that.

though for some there might be enough evidence to speculate (and only speculate) such a thing did happen. You, however, claim it's true, which neither of us can prove at this time.
Some shady business might have gone on, but with the information that's available it's difficult to say which of the two parties screwed around more.

It's difficult to say it DIDN'T happen. It would be a stretch to say so. It's not difficult to assume it happened.

Some shady business might have gone on, but with the information that's available it's difficult to say which of the two parties screwed around more

I am speaking about this particular instance. Given the proof we do have, would you not say it's more than likely that these people did vote twice?

Like I said, we don't have SOLID proof that those CBS documents are fake. But since we do have a lot of proof they are, we have come to the conclusion that they are indeed fake.

This is no different.

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

...
I am speaking about this particular instance. Given the proof we do have, would you not say it's more than likely that these people did vote twice?
....

Like I said, some shady business might have gone on (i.e., voting twice), but with the information that's available it's difficult to say (with any certainty) which of the two parties screwed around more.

Look, I presented two different outcomes to you earlier, 1) all 1,700 voted for Bush, 2) they only used their absentee ballots and did not step foot in a voting booth. I'll reword them to make them more plausible, 1) more than half of the 1,700 voted for Bush, 2) two-thirds only used their absentee ballots and did not step foot in a voting booth. With the evidence currently available, you can't prove these are incorrect much like you can't prove (only speculate) that your original statement is correct. You may certainly throw those statistics back at me, but those do not prove what you originally said.

[Zimphire]

Yeah you are right! I don't know why I thought otherwise!

All kinds of people purposely register in TWO states illegally with no intention of messing with the voting outcome. I mean I am sure thousands of people go through the trouble of doing such a thing and then NOT vote in both states.

It happens all the time! So it's up in the air!



Again, this is like the CBS incident.

No 100% proof it's fake. But there is enough proof there to safely assume it was fake.

Either way, by even what YOU said, one cannot say that Gore actually WON the popular vote. There is no proof of that now there is doubt!

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yeah you are right! I don't know why I thought otherwise!

All kinds of people purposely register in TWO states illegally with no intention of messing with the voting outcome.

It happens all the time! So it's up in the air!

....

Your sarcasm does not prove your statement any more than your statistics did. The fact remains that we do not know which of the two parties screwed around more, but you, without concrete proof, claimed that you knew more Democrats voted twice.

[Zimphire]

I showed you were there didn't need to be concrete proof 100% known to come to a conclusion. Yes indeed I did.

When the obvious stares at you in the face, 100% concrete proof is not needed.

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I showed you were there didn't need to be concrete proof 100% known to come to a conclusion. Yes indeed I did.

But that's not what you said. Had you said something like, "I've come the conclusion, based on the information available, that there are more Democrats that vote twice than republicans," it would have been different. I would have taken that as your opinion, but you presented it as a fact. When I asked for proof of said "fact," you could have said, "It's my opinion based on the information available." But instead you merely gave me some statistics and tried to pass them as proof. Those statistics seem to let you come to such a conclusion, which is fine, as long as you present it as such, but they do not prove what you originally said.

BTW, here's what you said (obviously, my emphasis):

What we do know is more Democrats voted twice.

What's obvious to me is that, currently, there's no proof that this is true. It can be your opinion, but a fact that does not make.

[Zimphire]

Heh, we DO KNOW that those CBS documents are fake.

No 100% proofage of that is needed.

Again, that is just the conclusion that it has come down to.

People don't register to vote in two different states on purpose illegally without the intent of getting their vote counted twice. It's as simple as that.

[voodoo]

Proofage?

No entry found for proofage.


Did you mean proof age?
Suggestions:
pro ofage
pro-ofage
proof age
proof-age
prophage
proface
profane
proofer
proofed
proofs
prophages
proof
provoke
provorg
pregage
primage
prisage
profaner
proofing
provocate
prophane
prophase

[Ω]

Why do certain people turn every political thread into a flame war?

If you have a point to raise, make another thread and get the the **** out of this one because past != now

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by _?_:
Why do you certain people turn every political thread into a flame war?

If you have a point to raise, make another thread and get the the **** out of this one because past != now

I know. we've tried to get the liberals to cut back on the profanity and namecalling, but have had limited success so far.

[Logic]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I know. we've tried to get the liberals to cut back on the profanity and namecalling, but have had limited success so far.

Yup, it's only the "liberals" that do that

[voodoo]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I know. we've tried to get the liberals to cut back on the profanity and namecalling, but have had limited success so far.

Ah how pious of you

The name calling isn't limited to people with one political leaning. For instance you've accused me of name calling yet I'm a conservative.

Would it be unfair of me to ask you to get *everyone* to cut back on profanity and name-calling? - or wouldn't you be comfortable with it?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Logic:
Yup, it's only the "liberals" that do that

It's about 80/20 in their favor. If we could get them to stop with the "STFUs", calling people dic[k]s and asshats, just to name a few. They do hold quite an advantage in that catagory.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by voodoo:

Would it be unfair of me to ask you to get *everyone* to cut back on profanity and name-calling? - or wouldn't you be comfortable with it?

Sure. You get your side to cut back and I'll work on the other. Deal?


Me? Pious? Wow, that's a first.

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Sure. You get your side to cut back and I'll work on the other. Deal?...

Aren't you both concervative and hence on the same side?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by E's Lil Theorem:
Aren't you both concervative and hence on the same side?

He sides with the U.S. liberals more than U.S. Conservatives, so he's on their side.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
He sides with the U.S. liberals more than U.S. Conservatives, so he's on their side.

I'm a European Christian conservative. Apparently that makes me a communist in the eyes of people in the US

[voodoo]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Sure. You get your side to cut back and I'll work on the other. Deal?


Me? Pious? Wow, that's a first.

I think it is worth a shot. So ok. Deal.

[Zimphire]

[Zimphire]

Anyhow, to get back on topic, anyone wanna make a guess as to what the numbers will be tomorrow?

[Twilly Spree]

Kerry 269 Bush 253

apparently. Us in the Bush camp will have to work harder to keep our president. The Florida liberals are growing stronger.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Anyhow, to get back on topic, anyone wanna make a guess as to what the numbers will be tomorrow?

I'd say:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/ Kerry 269 Bush 253
http://rasmussenreports.com/ Kerry 204 Bush 213
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ Kerry 200 Bush 284

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by E's Lil Theorem:
This isn't proof, by the way. For all we know all 1,700 votes were casted for Bush (or maybe those 1,700 only voted through the absentee ballot and never stepped foot in a voting booth in any state).

Even if 1,700 were for Gore, you remove those and Gore still won the popular vote by 538,247 votes. Is there more double voting we should worry about?

The final 2000 results were:
BUSH: Electoral 271 States won 30 Percent of votes 48% Total Votes 50,456,169
GORE: Electoral 266 States won 21 Percent of votes 48% Total Votes 50,996,116

[SimeyTheLimey]

Realclearpolitics has an interesting analysis that is useful aside from the day-to-day numbers:

2000 Results in 2004 EV's: After reapportionment, keeping the states the same as 2000 gives Bush 278 electoral votes and Kerry 260 electoral votes. 270 Electoral Votes are needed to win. So, in order to win Kerry has to flip 10 Electoral Votes and hold all of the Gore states. (Because ties are split by the House of Representatives Bush can probably win with 269 EVs)

In a simplified analysis, Bush has to win both FL and OH to win. Kerry simply has to win either FL or OH. If Kerry does not win either FL or OH, he has very little chance of becoming President.

Without one of these two states Kerry can get to 268/269 by winning NH and NV, but to get over 270 he will have to carry either WV or MO. It is hard to imagine Kerry losing OH, but winning MO or WV.

Bush needs to win both FL-27 and OH-20, but if he were to lose one of the two he has a small chance of picking up the lost EV's by winning some combination of either WI-10, NM-5, MN-10, IA-7 and OR-7 (and also denying Kerry pickups in NV and NH). Unlike Kerry's second-chance scenario, Bush could conceivably lose OH and still hold on to the Presidency by flipping WI and NM and holding on to NV.

If Kerry loses PA or MI he loses.

If Bush loses any one of AZ, CO, TN or AR he loses.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Realclearpolitics has an interesting analysis that is useful aside from the day-to-day numbers:

Funny tidbt: IIRC, no Republican has ever won the Whitehouse without OH.

See what I mean about a couple % in a few key states swinging the vote wildly? Get back NJ, PA, and FL, lose IA and NM, and Kerry gets the lead.

And I'd bet that most of these shifts are within the margin of error of the polls.

BlackGriffen

[djohnson]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
And I'd bet that most of these shifts are within the margin of error of the polls.

BlackGriffen

I will agree with that. It is funny to see that the projected final result for today increased even though the daily poll went down...

9/22
Bush 330
Kerry 192

9/21
Bush 318
Kerry 166

I predict the numbers will continue to wildly fluctuate until the election. Does anyone know if they call the same people each time in the polls or are they different people?