Tricky Dicky's Revenge

Subject: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: Suffet
Date: 14 Dec 00 - 07:27 PM

TRICKY DICKY'S REVENGE
Lyrics: Stephen L. Suffet © 2000
Tune: ROSIN THE BEAU (ACRES OF CLAMS)

I lived all my life in Chicago,
In the county the world knows as Cook,
I voted each time for Mayor Daley,
The boss that the world knew as crook.
And when it came time to re-ti-i-re,
A West Palm Beach condo I bought,
Each Sunday I sang in the choir,
And I voted for Gore, so I thought!

In Chicago we counted dead voters,
The cadavers all flocked to the polls,
Down here they don't count the live ones,
Unless they make clearly punched holes.
It's payback for Richard M. Ni-i-xon,
A cosmic kick in the tush,
Young Jack licked Dick back in '60,
But poor Albert just couldn't lick Bush!

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: Oversoul
Date: 14 Dec 00 - 08:07 PM

You might consider a career in manual labor, sir. Parody and conscience seem beyond your grasp, do you like to shovel snow? Whistle at the ladies? Play in "open tunings?". Sure you do! The doctor will be right with you.

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: GUEST,Judy Predmore
Date: 15 Dec 00 - 07:21 PM

Nice parody. Nice to hear the connection between Nixon & Florida...

I've been wondering why I haven't heard any journalists mention Nixon in the last month. They've mentioned the extra Chicago votes for Kennedy, complements of Mayor Daley. They've mentioned other close elections, & elections where the popular vote winner lost the electoral college.

But what about fixing the election way before the votes were cast? Breaking & entering to find info to slaughter your opponent at the poles?

I can't wait until the undervotes in Florida are finally counted, even if they don't count toward this election...

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: DougR
Date: 15 Dec 00 - 09:45 PM

Guest Judy Predmore: no problem with counting the votes, but if one is to attach any credence to the count, one will have to come up with an objective way to do the count.

Since they couldn't do that during all the falderal, down Florida way during the past month, it's questionable they can do so now. I have no doubt, though, that the Tabloids will come up with a definitive way to count them in order to sell papers.

Friends, if the count could have been done in a fair (favorite word of the Democrats) and definitive way, the election would have been over long ago. It is not fair, however, regardless of which side you are on, to count votes unless there is a clear indication of the voter's intent! No scratches, no indentations, only penatration (love the word) can determine that. It should be, I would think, a given that if a voter is not enthused about any candidates for President, that he/she might vote for other candidates on the ballot and not vote for a presidential candidate.

DougR

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Dec 00 - 09:50 PM

you betcha, Doug! A fine standard! I'll sign off on that!..

(ummm...we will be getting those OLD voting machines in the poor black areas tuned up and/or replaced first, won't we?)

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Dec 00 - 09:51 PM

...so's we can have "equal penetration opportunities" for all.....

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: GUEST,Judy Predmore
Date: 15 Dec 00 - 10:28 PM

Well, it will never be a perfect count, but maybe if they take the time, they can come close. I've heard some journalists say that if some liberal news media counts them, a conservative one will be right at their heels to do a conservative count. I'd like to hear what both sides say... But I didn't really want to get into this - I mostly wanted to comment on Nixon...

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 16 Dec 00 - 11:26 AM

Good stuff Suffet.

Rick

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Dec 00 - 01:32 PM

So far as I can see the only reason the votes weren't recounted was that one side didn't want that to happen, because they were ahead, and didn't want to risk it. So it successfully obstructed the recount by legal and extra-legal methods. (The fact that this was Bush's side is irrelevant to the issues involved.)

I really can't see why an indentation is any more ambiguous than a clear hole, though it might take a little longer in the counting. But with both sides agreed that all valid votes should be included, and cooperating in getting this done as expeditely as possible, sorting out that kind of issue would have bee no big deal. Whatever rule was agreed would apply equally to votes for all candidates.

Manual recounts are routine elsewhere, and non-controverial. I cannot conceive of a candidate in a British or Irish election daring to try to obstruct a recount. If they did try, and it leaked out, they'd be finished.

I gather there is an effort by "the winners" to get the votes in Florida locked up for eight years, on grounds of "national security". Presumably the assumption is that, if they are counted, the result will be embarassing to Bush. (That's a new doctrine to me - it never seemed to slow down things in respect of inquiring into Clinton's various embarassing, if at times entertaining, activities.)

Which seems to suggest a clear assumption that Gore actually had more people voting for him than Bush in Florida. Over the past few weeks that assumption seems to have been about the only thing Bush and Gore and company had in common.

The laugh would be if it turns out that Bush actually did get more votes in Florida, which is after all possible.

This'll be a great film. I hope they get the Monty Python team to write the script.

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Dec 00 - 02:05 PM

I think that have. It was just being followed.......

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Dec 00 - 02:55 PM

Only in America?

They were dimpled and pimpled and simple and clear
they were somebody voting for someone's idea.
And they should have been counted, but that wouldn't do -
for somebody stopped it, for he thought he might lose.

When the time of elections came round in it's time
That big politician, oh his words were so fine,
He said "Trust the people", and "Count every vote"
but the words that he said, it's in water they're wrote.

When the voting was done with and the counting came on,
before it was over, he said "I'm the one",
for on the first count he came in by a nose,
and he said, "Now it's finished, let the counting be closed."

But there's thousands and thousands of votes thrown away,
By the worn out machines that have long had their day,
and when they were counted the votes they were true -
but the man who was winning said they wouldn't do.

They were dimpled and pimpled and simple and clear
they were somebody's voting for someone's idea.
And they should have been counted, but that wouldn't do -
for somebody stopped it, for he thought he might lose.

And he stood like a rock, with his head in the sand,
and the battle was waged in the courts of the land
and the counting was halted, and his friends did their stuff,
and the votes lying waiting - well they weren't good enough.

They were dimpled and pimpled and simple and clear
they were somebody's voting for someone's idea.
And they should have been counted, but that wouldn't do -
for somebody stopped it, for he thought he might lose.

And somebody said "Well at least now it's done",
and someone conceded, although he had won,
and somebody lives in a house on the hill-
but the votes that weren't counted are haunting him still.

They were dimpled and pimpled and simple and clear
they were somebody's voting for someone's idea.
And they should have been counted, but that wouldn't do -
for somebody stopped it, for he thought he might lose.

No names - that's not what it's about. This song is about the people who had their votes stolen, not about the man who may have benefitted by the theft, or the man who may have lost out...

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: Troll
Date: 17 Dec 00 - 12:39 AM

If some of you would take the time to learn about how the polls are set up, you'd be a little less likely to buy all the demagoguery about "old worn-out machines" and "deliberate disinfranchisment".
The machines have to be certified to be in good working order by the Supervisor of Elections. In Miami-Dade this person is a Democrat. The machines are checked, the BATTERIES are checked, and the machines are sealed.
The machines are then distributed to the precincts. The only way that the machines will not record the vote is,a) if there is no vote,b) if there are two votes,c)if the power is off,e.g.someone unplugged the machine.
If the battery goes dead, all the votes will be lost. Thats why they check them BEFORE they are sealed.
There was a huge voter registration drive in Miami-Dade prior to the election. The NAACP did a fantastic job of registering black voters.
Some of these voters were not on the list when they got to the polls. At this point no one is quite sure why. Checking the rolls is a very time consuming job. People move and don't notify the Sup. of Ele. Thats a big one. They go to the wrong polling place. Their name has been purged because they haven't voted for two years (Fla law). Any number of reasons.
But the only way the demagogues can keep their position of power is to convince their followers that they are VICTIMS. Jackson does it; Limbaugh does it. Without victims, these men are lost. Thats what this whole brouhaha is about.
There ARE problems here in Fla. (as well as other places) and they are being investigated. The Justice Dept. has been working on a case in Duval Co.(Jacksonville) for two years. There are things in south Fla. that must be checked.
The problem with the purge list definitely needs close scrutiny. The Sup. of Ele. in my county rejected it when she found her name on it. It was certainly flawed. Now, was it deliberate? Hopefully we can find out.
But stolen votes? The demagogues would have you believe so: " They STOLE your vote but I will see that you receive JUSTICE!"or " The Democrats are just a bunch of CRYBABIES who thought that WE would ROLL OVER and PLAY DEAD and let them STEAL the election!"
So. Who ya gonna believe?

troll

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Dec 00 - 04:09 AM

I say we let Ronald McDonalds design all voting machines, with little pictures of each candidate and all the voter has to do is touch them, much as their employees ring up an order in their restaurants! So what if you get two BigMacs, just delete and start over, then push enter when you are absolutely sure you have the order right.**BG**

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Dec 00 - 04:21 AM

Obstructing the process of a recount=deliberate disenfranchisement. In any election anywhere.

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: Troll
Date: 17 Dec 00 - 12:27 PM

Give it up McGrath. You've been told the circumstances of what happened in Miami-Dade. Why don't you want to believe it?
A recount is supposed to take place before witnesses from BOTH sides. By what tortured feat of logic do you conclude that preventing the recount from being moved to a place where witnesses cannot go for lack of space constitutes obstruction?
I would seriously like to know.

troll

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: Troll
Date: 17 Dec 00 - 12:45 PM

BTW, I read in the Drudge Report that in congressional district 17 (part of Miami-Dade and Broward co.s), a racially gerrymandered district, 49% of the residents are functionally illeterate. Stands to reason if you can't read, you're going to have trouble understanding a ballot. The same problem exists in other gerrymanderes districts in other South Fla. Co.s

troll

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Dec 00 - 03:17 PM

I'm referring primarily to Bush's efforts through the legal system to obstruct the count, and refusal to support the idea of a manual recount throughout the whole state. That was conscious, deliberate and successful. It was done to avoid the risk that a full count would take away the wafer-thin majority which he had fluked, which was well within the margin of error of the mechanised countig system.

Even the Washington Supreme Court accepted that this meant that significant numbers of perfectly valid votes were not counterd as a result. The people concerned were therefore disenfranchised.

And I think that is much much more important than who gets to be elected. If most people in Florida voted for Bush, that's their decision and according to the rules it was right that he won. By obstructing an adequate recount he ensured that it cannot be known whether he won or not. More important, he disregarded the rights of citizens. And there wasn't even the excuse that the agreed leagl requirements had been broken, as with the absentee votes (which were not in fact excluded.)

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: DougR
Date: 17 Dec 00 - 11:09 PM

McGrath: Suppose an undecided voter entered the voting booth, didn't like Bush and didn't like Gore, but said to himself, "oh what the hell," and decided to vote for one of them. Then, before the ballot was penetrated (there's that word again Bill) he/she changed his mind and said, "to hell with it, I don't like either one of them," but an indention had been made in the ballot anyway. In your mind, should the candidate get the vote?

DougR

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Dec 00 - 05:00 AM

Yes, I'd think so. I'd would think the likelihood of a vote being improperly registered here would be far smaller than the likelihood of a valid vote being excluded.

The number of people who actually consciously go to the ballot booth and abstain or spoil their vote is quite remarkably small, whereas the number of excluded votes in this election appear to have been remarkably large.

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: Irish sergeant
Date: 18 Dec 00 - 09:34 AM

O.K., I have my opinion. I think there was BS on bothsides. but I do believe that GW shouldn't be president elect. That's why I voted against him but the courts have spoken. I believe a proper non-partisan recount should have been done and it wasn't. All of my Republican friends on mudcat and elsewhere got what they wanted. Bully for them. Long live King George, God help the nation! The country now gets to relive the Reagan years. Trickle down economics didn't work then, they won't work now, and the honourable Governor of Texas isn't half the manm either Ronnie or George sr are. Enjoy it. As for me I assume with this wonderful new administration, that my dollar will buy less over the next four years. Enjoy the last few days of Clinton. We're in for a hell of a ride over the next four some-odd years. At least with Clinton we could say he slept with women that we wouldn't. Kindest reguards, Neil

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 18 Dec 00 - 09:53 AM

There has never been an objective standard for any election in the U.S. On the basis of this, I think every election should be cancelled or overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. One consistent standard has been clear throughout the states, though. The "clear intent of the voter". THis doesn't count in South Florida.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court picked the president, it's time for Democrats to be wary of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices they pick.

As our Republican friends keep telling us, "this is not a true democracy but a republic." In other words, a vote doesn't really count.

Frank

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Dec 00 - 09:53 AM

DougR, in your example, the voter shouldn't turn in the ballot, since they haven't voted for anyone, and it would then be moot whether to count it or not!

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 18 Dec 00 - 10:00 AM

The Drudge report is an interesting source of information. Does anyone question how accurate it is?

Also, what constitutes "illeteracy"? Or was that illiteracy? :)

BTW, literacy tests were often given to black voters in the South before the Civil Rights Movement made that illegal. The U.S. Supreme Court seems to have forgotten that.

Frank

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: Auxiris
Date: 18 Dec 00 - 11:55 AM

I say the thing to do now is to get rid of that "electoral college" nonsense and change over to poular vote. Maybe then people would take the trouble to vote, if they really thought it would COUNT for something.

cheers,

Aux

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: DougR
Date: 18 Dec 00 - 12:07 PM

McGrath: I don't know where you are getting your statistics, but I'd like to know. From what I have read, the number of people who vote for other offices, but do not vote for President, in any year is quite high. Because of the disenchantment of millions of potential voters for either candidate this time around, it would seem to me that the figure might be abnormally high in this past election.

Recount the ballots if you like, but count only those votes for either candidate that clearly shows the voter's intent, not what some "reader" interprets as the voter's intent.

Your logic escapes me. Mark it up to old age (on my part) if you like.

DougR

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Dec 00 - 01:18 PM

"count only those votes for either candidate that clearly shows the voter's intent, not what some "reader" interprets as the voter's intent"

That's what I've been suggesting all along. But I think that a decent dent in a bit iof peper is as good an indication of an intent as a hole clean through. Anyway, so long as the same rule is applied regardless of the candidate, it shouldn't make any difference. And the rule applied should be the one that was least likely to disqualify valid votes.

My criticism of the Bush lot is that they were not saying those kind of things, and trying to ensure that the recount was as fair as possible. They were trying successfully to obstruct the manual recount - they even argued that a manual recount, which just does not stand up. That was cynical and shameful, and would have been cynical and shameful whichever candidate tried it on. Or perhaps "shameless" is the more fitting word.

And that seems logical to me.

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Dec 00 - 01:23 PM

I missed 8 words important words out of that penmultimate paragraph, they're here, in italics: My criticism of the Bush lot is that they were not saying those kind of things, and trying to ensure that the recount was as fair as possible. They were trying successfully to obstruct the manual recount - they even argued that a manual recount was intrinsically less accurate than a machine count, which just does not stand up. That was cynical and shameful, and would have been cynical and shameful whichever candidate tried it on. Or perhaps "shameless" is the more fitting word.

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: DougR
Date: 18 Dec 00 - 06:26 PM

Okie doakie, McGrath.

DougR

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: Troll
Date: 18 Dec 00 - 07:12 PM

I have found the Drudge report to be an excellent source. There is usually a column by Matt Drudge and eight or ten headlines of breaking stories from AP, Reuters, etc. There are also links to 100 columnists who range from Rush Limbaugh to Hunter S. Thompson.
In addition, you can access AP and Reuters,-both national and international- and a wide variety of newspapers of national and international origin.
As I said, a most useful site.
Frank Hamilton, I suppose it was OK when FDR tried to pach the Court in the 30's and I really don't believe that the Warren Court reflected the "will of the people" with their decisions on prayer for example. Whether anyone likes it or not, we DO live in a Federal Republic and, since the states use the popular vote to choose the electors, yes, your vote does count.
McGrath, please tell me where to find the research that shows that hand counts are more accurate than machine counts. Yes, you are correct in saying that Bush did not want a statewide recount. He did not obstruct one. He couldn't have. Gore was LEGALLY entitled to one IF he wanted one.
He didn't want one.
When his lawyers were up before Judge Sauls (I think it was) the Judge asked them if they wanted to address the matter of a statewide recount.
They remained silent.
If thete had been agreed upon standards for what constituted a valid vote I feel certain that Bush would have had to give in on the recount question. But there were none, and in Broward Co. they actually changed standards in the middle of the counting. This was, I believe, admitted by David Boies in his testimony before the Supreme Court when he said that the standards were left up to the individual canvassers. This does NOT make for a just and fair count by any non-partisan standard.

troll

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Dec 00 - 08:29 PM

I knew we'd end up agreed if we kept on long enough...

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Dec 00 - 05:14 AM

That last post was referring to what Doug said.

Bottom line is, no double standards. Anyone who accepts exactly the same standards if their man is behind as when he's ahead, that's fair enough.

But pretty clearly that wasn't the case in the recent shenanigans, or people wouldn't have lined up on different sides over different ways of dealing with technical issues, taking the side that would help their candidate. That was just shoddy and unworthy of anyone with any committment to democracy.

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Dec 00 - 07:11 AM

"McGrath, please tell me where to find the research that shows that hand counts are more accurate than machine counts."

Actually there's a methodological problem here. The only way of checking whether a count is accurate is to do a recount. That's either got to be a hand recount or a machine recount. If you do them both, and they come up with a different result, which is the more accurate one? What do you measure it against?

I know that if my life depended on it, I'd sooner trust a careful count carried out by human beings than a machine. And I do not think I am cynical in believing that, whichever candidate in an election like that in Florida had come in a few hundred votes behind, they'd have been asking for a hand recount.

I'm not cynical enough to assume that whichever candidate came in a couple of hundred votes ahead would have been opposed such a count. And I'm not naive enough to assume they would not have opposed it. But either way, I can't see that being opposed to a full manual recount would have been consistent with a proper regard for the democratic process.)

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Dec 00 - 07:59 AM

Troll: please tell me where to find the research that shows that hand counts are more accurate than machine counts

It depends, Troll, upon what you mean by 'accurate'. Free of bias, close to the correct number, consistently repeatable?

When tested in ergonomy labs, humans make about 1 error in 500 in trying to count correctly. If you assume that errors are independent, these errors will largely cancel out, but nevertheless the overall absolute error will increase with the overall number of to be counted items, though the overall relative error will decrease with the total number of items.

Of course, human counting is not reliable in getting the same result every time. Let a large number of cards be counted by you and someone else it is not very probable you get the same result at the first try. However, if you go on counting and agree to take the first result in which you agree, you'll be suprisingly close to the truth.

Machines are mostly (I do not know the machines in question here) much better than humans to get the same result consistently on successive tries. However, they might have an undetected bias (it is not probable that e.g. three humans coming from different interested parties have the same consistent bias) and then would be consistently away from truth.

However, neither the use of humans nor machines solves the problem which ballots are to be counted. That has to be decided independently from counting. And if there is a bias in which ballot should be counted or not, nothing helps you out (except clear rules, preferably before an election).

McGrath, the methodological problem could be solved (if the problem in tha last paragraph is assumed to be solved). Let ten humans count independently and take as result the number which most of them have (have them count again, if there is no winning number). This procedure is extremely close to truth.

From a methodological point of view, the problem in the USA elections was that the margin of error in Florida was much larger than the difference in votes for the two leading candidates and that it mattered who won in Florida for the overall result. This of course is only a big problem in a 'winner takes it all' voting system and a negligible problem in 'split the electors votes' systems.

The too big chance component in the USA's present system has as a consequence that they'll never know who would have been the winner if an Omniscient would have counted. I guess such a situation would occur not much more often than once in a century. But there are voting systems in other democracies in which this problem does not appear much more often than about once in a millenium.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: Troll
Date: 19 Dec 00 - 08:15 AM

Thanks, Wolfgang. I was speaking primarily of consistent repeatability, although freedom from bias would surely be good. The goal being, of course, a corec and accurate count.
We do need some clear rules as to just what constitutes a valid ballot, but no one ever dreamed that something like this would happen.
I blame, at least in part the media and their "projected winners" based on exit polls. When they project a winner before the polls have closed everywhere, it is unfair to everyone-voters and candidates alike.
Hopefully this will be corrected before the next national election-by self policing if possible; through legislation if necessary.

troll

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: Irish sergeant
Date: 19 Dec 00 - 08:47 AM

There will always be question that this election was stolen and I believe that would occur had the desicion went the othere way. Let me state that I believe the time has come to do away with the electoral college. Let whoever gets the most vote win not what some electors decide. I do hope I am wrong about the esteemed governor but I doubt that I am. Let the pillaging begin! Kindest reguards, Neil

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: Troll
Date: 19 Dec 00 - 09:06 AM

Neil, lookat the reasons behind the electoral college. I think they are still valid.

troll

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Dec 00 - 10:09 AM

Just a comment partially relevant to the electoral college: No, I'm not going to tell you whether you should keep it or not that's completely up to you. It certainly looks old fashioned to Europeans, but there is one advantage I have not seen mentioned yet:

There is often a trade-off between total justice to each vote(r) and stability of a government. A couple of voting systems give precedence to stability of government by giving the winning party more than their due share of the seats (electorate,...). In Britain, usually the relatively largest party gets the absolute majority of the seats, in other countries (as Germany) there is a cutoff at a certain percentage of votes so that only parties with more than e.g. 5% of the votes get seats in the parliament. The USA system also has some of these built in mechanisms (one of them the electorate college) to ensure that the stronger party gets more than its due share and is able to make a strong government.

There is an obvious disadvantage to all these systems: It can happen that the will of the majority of the voters is different from the majority in the parliament. In Germany, for instance, in the 1969 election, Willy Brandt came to power (with my voice!) and made a much needed major change in our politics angainst the will of the majority of the people. A right wing party had 4.6% of the votes and with a tiny bit more votes for them, Brandt would not have been elected. But since all of their votes were discarded he had a comfortable majority in the parliament.

Now look around the world to countries with voting systems that are extremely fair to the will of each single voter, like Italy (until five years ago) and Israel. They have but a succession of governments dependent upon single votes (in the parliament) and their governments are blackmailable by tiny parties with one or two seats (and very individual interests).

My impression is that the completely fair voting systems have on the average the disadvantage of leading to unstable governments (we choose our present system among other reasons from our bad experiences with the completely fair before Hitler voting system).

The fledgling democracies in the East of Europe in the last two decades looked to the Western democracies for models for their voting systems. Most if not all of them choose systems which were not completely fair but ensured that the majority had a bit of additional advantage. They opted for stability at the expense of fairness.

The electorate college is surely not the only way to ensure a strong president and is not infallible. But don't you agree with me that those democracies have more stable governments that have slightly unfair voting systems? I'm sure, however, that there are exceptions that I do not know of and I'd love to know them.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: DougR
Date: 19 Dec 00 - 10:43 AM

I really doubt we will see the end to the electoral college in American politics. Doing away with it would require an amendment to the Constitution, and I don't believe the less populated states that would be "disenfranchised" by eliminating the EC would vote to ratify the amendment.

This was a unique election caused, I believe, because neither party fielded a particularly popular candidate. Charisma is required in order to appeal to a majority of the voters, and neither candidate was blessed with an overabundance of that.

I may be wrong, of course, but I believe the "likeability" of the candidate is more important to that same majority than issues are. It shouldn't be, but I think it is.

FDR, Eisenhower, Truman (upon becoming president), Kennedy, Clinton, Nixon, even Goldwater, who was never president,had charisma. I think John McCain has it too, and probably would have garnered a larger popular vote than Bush did, maybe even Gore.

I don't think the EC is going away though.

DougR

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Dec 00 - 11:59 AM

The obvious way to change it would be for all the States to to have the same system as I believe Maine and Nebraska, where the elctoral college votes are split proportionally to the popular vote.

Theoretically you could still get a situation where the candidate who got the most votes didn't win, but it'd be very much less likely to happen. Moreover it would mean that there'd be some point in voting if you lived in a non-swing state. (As it is, what is the pouint in voting in a state where the margin of victory form either side is large?)

It's been suggested that this would mean that small states would lose influence under that system, but I can't see it. In fact,it'd be the other way - it would mean there'd be an incentive on candidates to take more notice of the states where they knew they had relatively little support.

I think that the Supreme Court, in giving such importance to the principle of uniformity of counting, may have opened a can of worms. The logical corollary is surely a voting system that gives some eqality of importance to voters in all parts of the USA.

Subject: RE: Tricky Dicky's Revenge
From: GUEST,Voluntary US citizen.
Date: 19 Dec 00 - 02:02 PM

A real electoral college system would consist of electors who were better known to the voters than the candidates. The idea was that they could better be trusted to know which of the candidates was lying than the mere populace.

But apart from that, if Nader's electors saw how clearly they were outnumbered, they'd throw in with Gore's lot. The problem is not the electoral college, it's winner-take-all. But the Florida problem is worse. By any decent statistical analysis, Florida had no significant preference for either candidate. The correct representation for Florida in the electoral college was no votes.

If Queen Elizabeth will throw in the BBC, I say we should take her mythical offer to take us back.