If they just make the poll close at the same time across the country, 6pm in Hawaii/11pm in the East, then all the votes would be counted at the same time and it wouldn't look like 1 state decided for the rest.
At 12:43 PM 11/7/2004, QuadPirate wrote:
I hear you Tod, I live in Ark and I felt the same way.____________________________________________________
Mark
-------Original Message-------
From: Tod E. Santee
Date: Sunday, November 07, 2004 14:25:30
To: QuadPirate
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
Mark,
I agree... Bush did not win by 3 million votes in the US, he won by 130,000 votes (less than my city population) in Ohio.
I'm tired of my vote not counting... It really doesn't if I live in Arizona and keep hearing "Ohio will decide this election," or Florida, or Pennsylvania, or New Hampshire, or Iowa. Why shouldn't my vote really help "decide" an election? Why did 537 FL votes decide it in 2000 when the "error" rate will always be much higher than 537 votes out of over 103,000,000 cast? In fact, it's higher than the usual / expected state error rate.
QuadPirate wrote:
Tod it should stay out but there's no doubt who went to polls for Bush in the mid west at least.The war wasn't a big issue because neither one was going to just pull out we're building permanentmilitary bases there right now.I don't like the fact that they said moral values won this election like if you're not a christian you don't have values that's a bunch of crap I have more values than a lot of people I know that go to church. This tax subject and over hauling it should be easier than they say, let's just have a flat tax for everyonebut then his rich voters would come unglued. I'm so tired of these rich people getting all the breaks and have everything they'll ever need and more but they think they should pay less than people that have nothing and we continue to let this happen because they are the people paying for these campaigns and the tax cut is their payoff. You know what is bugging me is the electoral votes because I was watching some news program and they said Bush won Ohio only by around 130,000 votes even though the popular vote he won by was 3 million and some change so Bush could've won the popular vote by almost 3 million and still lost the election there's something wrong about that.So this election really would've been a mess if that would've happened. Mark
-------Original Message-------
From: Tod E. Santee
Date: Saturday, November 06, 2004 18:56:06
To: Jim Lubin
Cc: Quad List
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
Jim,
First, this "church crap" should stay out of ANY official campaign material and debates... And I'm an Evang. Christian!
Evangelical Christians alone? I doubt it. How about the military and the people making more than $200,000/yr that Kerry promised to tax more to pay for, among other things, abortions for anyone woman who wants one. He said it in the second debate. The defining marriage amendments were only on ballots in 11 states, including Oregon who voted for the marriage amendment and also for Kerry. See, I don't push my Christian agenda on anyone here or anywhere else... and neither should any candidate, campaign, or elected official. I can't tell a gay/lesbian they CAN'T get married because MY religion is against it... Just like I can't tell women they have to keep their heads covered during prayer because the Bible says so.
As for Nader... He shot himself in the foot when, even as his own party wouldn't support him... in fact begged him NOT to run, he arrogantly went on with it (as I believe he should have IF he really believed he could make a difference) as if he was a real candidate. I used to respect him... support him. But this time, he knew he didn't count. Even with the Republican support for him and the Dems pushing against him (all that proving HIS point) he resulted in a less-than-zero vote percent. Pathetic!
As far as who was voted for and against in '92, Perot's voters in '92 were voting both FOR Perot and AGAINST both Bush and Clinton.
So, if you want to be fair, Perot's "Against the Others" votes should either be split equally (unless better data is available... I'm not searching) or included fully in both "Against" counts.
62.3% Against G.H.W.Bush, and
56.7% Against Clinton
(If ALL Perot voters were voting Against Clinton/Bush)
Clinton being seen as the least of the evils.
If split to assume only half were truly voting against the major parties and the rest really liked Perot, then it's
57.8% Against G.H.W.Bush
42.2% Against Clintion
(Still, Clinton is the least of the evils with Perot having the support of 9.5% of voters.)
Best regards,
Tod
Jim Lubin wrote:
Tod,
So election 2004, 51% voted for the person who won, 49% voted against.
In 1992, 43.3% voted for the person who won, 56.7% voted against. <snip>
Nader might have had more votes in 2004 if the Democratic party didn't work so hard to suppress voter choice by keeping Nader off the ballots in many states. If they had a candidate that was actually worthy to be president what would they have to fear? People would have been motivated to come out and vote for Kerry, as they clearly did for Bush.
IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved -
Click
Here 
