I am committing the 'evil' of not reading all posts in
this thread before replying (else I'd be responding
sometime next week, I fear!)...
...Not to mention top-posting! ;)
John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 03:49 AM 10/11/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
massive snip
You say electoral
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 14:53:23 -0800 (PST), Deborah Harrell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:
who apologizes if somebody already said this, and felt
a teeny bit smug about avoiding the long lines to vote
today (although a wait of 1.25 hours last Fri, in
Early Voting, was hardly better!) :)
Holy cow -
In a message dated 11/2/2004 8:50:07 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Holy cow - 75 mins? I walked in, waited for the lady in
front of me to get her ballot from the people checking
addresses, got my ballot, voted, turned it in and left. Total
time: ~7 mins including
I went to vote at around 5:15pm and was home by 5:45. Most of that time was
taken up by driving to, from, and around the voting site (@20min) and the
store to pick up dinners (gnoccis...).
Here in my county we still use voting machines. They're avocado green (or
alternatively, they resemble
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 11/2/2004 8:50:07 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Holy cow - 75 mins? I walked in, waited for the lady in
front of me to get her ballot from the people checking
addresses, got my ballot, voted, turned it in and left.
On Nov 2, 2004, at 8:14 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 11/2/2004 8:50:07 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Holy cow - 75 mins? I walked in, waited for the lady in
front of me to get her ballot from the people checking
addresses, got my
Oh, and Nick's wife was still standing in line at close to 9:00.
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
big snip
So it wouldn't be as worthwhile for the candidates
to focus on CO
because there's less return for their effort? You
mean something
like the 33 or so other states that the candidates
don't need to
bother with because they're virtually
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:13:55 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 11:55 AM 10/11/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
I agree that there's a lot of good though behind it, but I think that
times have changed and the system doesn't serve us that well any
longer, as it stands. But really my main
Bryon Daly wrote:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:13:55 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
At 11:55 AM 10/11/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
I agree that there's a lot of good though behind it, but I think
that times have changed and the system doesn't serve us that well
any longer, as it stands. But
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:50:11 -0500, Robert Seeberger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem with the electoral college is not in the electoral
college, but in the way populations are represented in Congress. I
would think that this lack of representation on an everyday basis
would be of much
At 03:53 AM 10/24/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
2) It forces attention on small States. For example, a lot of attention
is being given to Iowa and New Mexico in this election cycle. Under a
proportional system, it would take a shift of 10-20% to shift even one EV
in those States. On the
- Original Message -
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: The Electoral College (Was: Re: 2004 Presidential Race
Analysis)
Byron, I honestly can't tell from your comments here - but do
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 22:53:31 -0400, John D. Giorgis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 03:53 AM 10/24/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
2) It forces attention on small States. For example, a lot of attention
is being given to Iowa and New Mexico in this election cycle. Under a
proportional system,
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 00:25:44 -0400, Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(See spreadsheet at: http://users.rcn.com/daly5/EVbalance.xls)
Doh! It's:
http://users.rcn.com/daly5/ECbalance.xls
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
At 11:55 AM 10/11/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
I agree that there's a lot of good though behind it, but I think that
times have changed and the system doesn't serve us that well any
longer, as it stands. But really my main argument was the need to fix
the winner takes the state system rather than
At 01:55 PM 10/20/2004 -0500 Gary Denton wrote:
If you believe in democracy shouldn't you favor abolishing the
Electoral College?
But I don't believe in democracy. I believe in republicanism.
JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:06:29 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 10/12/2004 8:10:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Byron, I'd like you to perform a simple thought experiment. Imagine that
your proposed proportional system were in
From: Erik Reuter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I was wondering if the public may have been clever enough to have been
a bit mischievous during the polling, by making it appear closer, they
may well have squeezed another billion or two out of our formerly stingy PM,
Before I were to
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:07:15 -0400, John D. Giorgis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 06:48 PM 10/11/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
And of course if all the states did this, then it wouldn't be a
disadvantage to anyone.
No, it would disproportionately benefit the largest States.For example,
From: Warren Ockrassa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd agree with EC concerns. There are better systems in place now in
other countries that we'd do well to consider. I'm fond of runoff
elections. Had they been in place in 2000, Gore would have taken the
house. (Since most dual votes for
From: Erik Reuter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The data is really too close to call. People can analyze all
they want, it doesn't change the fact that the polls are
within the margin of error.
Our recent election turned out to be a mini-landslide for the incumbent
conservative Liberal
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 07:10:48PM +1000, Andrew Paul wrote:
Our recent election turned out to be a mini-landslide for the
incumbent conservative Liberal party. Newspaper headlines on the
morning of the poll were still calling it a 50/50 race, based on some
professional polls.
What was the
At 02:39 AM 10/12/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
And of course if all the states did this, then it wouldn't be a
disadvantage to anyone.
No, it would disproportionately benefit the largest States.For example,
1/52nd of the vote in California would move one Electoral Vote - or about
2%.
At 07:10 PM 10/12/2004 +1000 Andrew Paul wrote:
From: Erik Reuter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The data is really too close to call. People can analyze all
they want, it doesn't change the fact that the polls are
within the margin of error.
Using a large number of polls can substantially
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 07:24:35AM -0400, JDG wrote:
That is, while one poll of 50-46 would be within the margin of error
- having six such polls would lead you to say with some confidence
that candidate A is slightly ahead, probably by around 50-46.
Fine, if true, but your analysis is not
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 08:07:25AM -0400, JDG wrote:
It should be self-evident that your advice would be to concentrate on
the largest States.
Not at all. Perhaps if you think overly-simplistically like the Bush
administration...
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
- Original Message -
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 6:24 AM
Subject: RE: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis
At 07:10 PM 10/12/2004 +1000 Andrew Paul wrote:
From: Erik Reuter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The data
Erik Reuter wrote:
What was the margin of error of the poll? Quantify your landslided,
how much did the winner get?
Different polls gave different margins, but they were all way short of
the actual result - way short.
The most prominent polls were talking 50:50 with margins of 3% for
Newspoll,
At 10:04 AM 10/12/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote:
Most polls just before the 2000 election showed such a bias. IIRC, Zogby
was the one poll that was close to on top of the right number. IIRC, that
was true in the previous election, tool.
I would argue that Harris came out ahead of Zogby in 2000,
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Most polls just before the 2000 election showed such
a bias. IIRC, Zogby
was the one poll that was close to on top of the
right number. IIRC, that
was true in the previous election, tool.
Dan M.
This may be right, but I seem to recall that Zogby
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 01:16:31 -0400, John D. Giorgis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sure that other people here are following the election very closely, so
I wanted to post some thoughts about where things stand, 3 weeks and 1
debate before the election.
Interesting analysis, John. Thanks.
90% of people called for polls hang up.
xponent
In November Maru
rob
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The data is really too close to call. People can analyze all they want,
it doesn't change the fact that the polls are within the margin of
error.
For example, Zogby and the Wall Street Journal come up with a Kerry win:
OCTOBER 6, 2004
The presidential debate has lifted John Kerry back to where
At 05:25 AM Monday 10/11/04, Robert Seeberger wrote:
90% of people called for polls hang up.
Did you get that result from a poll?
-- Ronn! :)
Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever.
-- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy
The Electorial College is in place so that the
American People will be prevented from electing a
Hamster as president, and have the results validated,
something that happened at my University for Student
Body President. Also, by having that disconnect from
the will of the majority of Americans,
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 05:47:26 -0700 (PDT), Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Electorial College is in place so that the
American People will be prevented from electing a
Hamster as president, and have the results validated,
something that happened at my University for Student
Body
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 01:16:31 -0400, John D. Giorgis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consider, for example, this more detailed look:
Bush States Never in Doubt:
AK, UT, ID, MT, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, MS, AL, GA, SC, KY, IN
133 EV's
Odd. I just get 96.
Kerry States Never in Doubt:
HI, CA, IL,
At 01:22 PM 10/11/2004 -0500 Julia Randolph wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 01:16:31 -0400, John D. Giorgis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consider, for example, this more detailed look:
Bush States Never in Doubt:
AK, UT, ID, MT, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, MS, AL, GA, SC, KY, IN
133 EV's
Odd. I just get
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:01:16 -0400, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 11:55:05AM -0400, Bryon Daly wrote:
I agree that there's a lot of good though behind it, but I think that
times have changed and the system doesn't serve us that well any
longer, as it stands.
Translation: states where your vote doesn't mean squat, especially if
you're in the minority party there. Both parties know who will win so
neither will expend much effort (if any) in these places.
Even though I'm planning to vote for the guy who will win my state, I
resent the fact that my vote
In a message dated 10/11/2004 8:47:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Damon Agretto [EMAIL
PROTECTED] writes:
The Electorial College is in place so that the
American People will be prevented from electing a
Hamster as president, and have the results validated,
something that happened at my University
On Oct 11, 2004, at 1:27 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no way that the electoral college can function in the manner
that you suggest and even if it could it has surely failed to prevent
the election of a hamster.
Hey now. Hamsters are reasonably intelligent. Just because they, like
- Original Message -
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 12:16 AM
Subject: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis
Bush States Never in Doubt:
AK, UT, ID, MT, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, MS, AL, GA, SC, KY, IN
133 EV's
About the closest
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:37:15 -0400, John D. Giorgis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 03:49 AM 10/11/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
Bush States Never in Doubt:
AK, UT, ID, MT, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, MS, AL, GA, SC, KY, IN
Kerry States Never in Doubt:
HI, CA, IL, DC, MD, NY, VT, MA, CT, RI
Robert Seeberger wrote:
90% of people called for polls hang up.
21.5% of all statistics are true
92.5% of all statistics are false
Alberto Monteiro
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
At 06:48 PM 10/11/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
And of course if all the states did this, then it wouldn't be a
disadvantage to anyone.
No, it would disproportionately benefit the largest States.For example,
1/52nd of the vote in California would move one Electoral Vote - or about
2%.You
John D. Giorgis wrote:
After all, remember that due to
redistricting, a straight re-run of the 2000 election would produce a
278-260 Bush win.
I think I now understand the US EC voting better now, except this one
thing - I thought it was already done as Byron has suggested - that each
--- Russell Chapman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think I now understand the US EC voting better
now, except this one
thing - I thought it was already done as Byron has
suggested - that each
electoral district represented one vote in the EC,
and the party with
the most votes in that
At 10:16 AM 10/12/2004 +1000 Russell Chapman wrote:
After all, remember that due to
redistricting, a straight re-run of the 2000 election would produce a
278-260 Bush win.
I think I now understand the US EC voting better now, except this one
thing - I thought it was already done as Byron
Damon Agretto wrote:
The Electorial College is in place so that the
American People will be prevented from electing a
Hamster as president, and have the results validated,
something that happened at my University for Student
Body President. snip
Although the system can nerf election results
Bryon Daly wrote:
Translation: states where your vote doesn't mean squat, especially if
you're in the minority party there. Both parties know who will win so
neither will expend much effort (if any) in these places.
and to add a quote from Dr Brin...
If you find it persuasive, please share it
But doesn't near universal literacy, mass-media and
particularly
television change all that?
It seems to me that, whether they use it wisely or
not, all Americans
now have the ability to make an informed decision
about their leaders,
which certainly wasn't the case 200 years ago.
I lost a chunk of my email over the weekend, so please forgive me if someone's
posted this article before in this thread. This is a mathematical argument
about why we should keep the electoral college that I stumbled across quite by
accident the other day:
I'm sure that other people here are following the election very closely, so
I wanted to post some thoughts about where things stand, 3 weeks and 1
debate before the election.
Before the 1st debate, Bush had managed to hang on to quite a poll bouncs
from the Republican National Convention and
55 matches
Mail list logo
