Election Day

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 11/01/2004 @ 08:40:36 PM
Go Kerry!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3875 Posts 11/01/2004 @ 10:29:22 PM
Prediction Time Popular Vote: Bush 51% - Kerry 47% Electoral Count: Bush 300 - Kerry 238		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 11/01/2004 @ 10:32:13 PM
Ditka 75 Hurricane Andrew 0		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 11/01/2004 @ 10:34:20 PM
By the way...the NRA just ran thier obligitory "The democratic candidate will take your guns" commercial.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 11/01/2004 @ 10:42:16 PM
Kerry 50 Bush 48 Nader 1 Jack MeHoff 1 Kerry 273 Bush 265 Bush tries to recount MN.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - We can do this easy, or we can do it real easy 11/02/2004 @ 08:24:53 AM
City of Madison Treasurer - Micah LaDousa - 1 Vote		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - I'm on a boat! Everybody look at me cause I'm sailing on a boat! 11/02/2004 @ 09:31:19 AM
I have consistently opposed the war in front of anti-war groups and consistently supported the war in front of pro-war delegations. That is not flip-flopping, it's pandering and America deserves a president who knows the difference.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 11/02/2004 @ 06:16:30 PM
A few phrases I don't want to hear for a long time. flip-flop rubber stamp liberal media my opponent		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 11/02/2004 @ 06:55:34 PM
I dont know if this will change but...		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 11/02/2004 @ 07:08:22 PM
Woo Hoo! I hope everyone voted today. It's weird how you vote. Connect the lines. Odd.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 11/03/2004 @ 12:08:32 AM
If he didn't worry about being accountable before what is it going to be like now? Democracy doesn't work. All you Bush people were brainwashed. At least the douche to end all douches Tim Michels didn't win.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 11/03/2004 @ 12:20:07 AM
What the hell are you talking about		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 11/03/2004 @ 12:57:28 AM
If you don't know what I'm talking about then that's exactly what I'm talking about.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 11/03/2004 @ 10:50:27 AM
Absolute bullshit. I don't know how we can be the richest and most powerful nation and still be the stupidest. At least Wisconsin voted the right way. Stupid southern states and Ohio. I am so mad right now.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 11/03/2004 @ 02:42:51 PM
Most pissed however will be Eminem who put all his eggs in one basket and will now lose out on millions of dollars worth of presidential rap sessions.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3875 Posts 11/03/2004 @ 07:34:56 PM
Jeremy and Sarah, you both forgot the line about how you are now going to move to Canada or Europe or something like that.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	icbeast - 3619 Posts 11/03/2004 @ 08:22:34 PM
No more red and yellow!!!!!!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 11/03/2004 @ 09:38:04 PM
I actually don't care that much. If you don't want red and yellow then go pick another scheme.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 11/03/2004 @ 09:41:38 PM
I think its time to break out the Page 3 Turkey.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	carl (Guest) 11/03/2004 @ 11:29:34 PM
there hasnt been a time when i didn't think (other than micah and my brother peter) that there are only two people running for president: Bush Not Bush. well, Bush won popular and electoral. Im sure some people will call some kind of "technical bs" or something, but it happened. its time to stop being angry and time to move on. Not like being pissed is going to change anything.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 11/04/2004 @ 07:10:58 AM
Well, when he does something stupid, (or numerous things) you at least have known where I stood and I can shout a big fat, "I voted for Kerry!" Good luck earning my trust.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 11/04/2004 @ 07:16:26 AM
According to pollsters not bush would've won in a landslide. The thing is that, despite critisism from the republicans, people didn't just vote for "not bush"		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 11/04/2004 @ 11:28:24 AM
Bush has shown absolutely no effort to "win the trust" of his opponents in the 4 years he's been in office, why should I have any hope that he is going to suddenly change his mind for the next 4 years. At best all I can see is 4 more years of the same, and these last 4 years were not good.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 11/04/2004 @ 11:35:59 AM
But Scott, who better to unite the two parties and country in general than the person that divided it so fiercly in the first place?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carl (Guest) 11/04/2004 @ 12:39:24 PM
Heres a question, and I don't mean for it to sound the way it does... so forgive me. Who can honestly (of page 3 viewers, staff etc)say that they can measure (in any exact way) how their life has changed by bush being president? I mean his mess ups, his lies, what have you? I might be one of them, having 15 months of active duty time in and 12 being in a combat/hazardous duty area. Have your bank accounts diminished? have they gotten bigger? people are yelling about jobs, but sarah, you just got one, i hear... jeremy, you have a new job and a brand new car. Im working, micah has a job, the list goes on. I am definately a minority here on page3 and in our age bracket... but i voted Bush. I won't apologize, either, and i know you didnt ask me to. I voted for the person i thought would be the better leader. I know bush will act on instinct and stick to his plan, whatever it is. I never got the idea from kerry that he would ever stand up for anything long enough to make it matter. Im a hater of the hair, too.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 11/04/2004 @ 02:44:36 PM
I have a shitty job I hate but you're right, which is why it doesn't bother me as much this time. For one he actually won this time and secondly thing can't get much worse. Ultimately most poeples day to day lives aren't effected either way.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3875 Posts 11/04/2004 @ 07:03:17 PM
About the whole uniter/divider thing. While I'm sure the President could do more to ease tensions between the two sides, it is a two way street and the Democrats certainly haven't shown any effort to get along. That's one of the reasons the GOP went after Daschle this election, because he was playing obstructionist in the Senate. Bush didn't divide the country, it was divided since the 2000 election, and the whole debacle that surrounded that election created deep animosity towards the President by many Democrats.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Pie Racist 11/04/2004 @ 11:30:30 PM
It also doesn't help the "fairness" factor that every area that actually has people in it goes dem but we end up having to go with what the people in the boondox want to do.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3875 Posts 11/05/2004 @ 12:48:59 AM
So, it's not fair that rural people may decide how the country goes, but it is fair if urban areas decide? Your statements personify the label "liberal elite". Democrats argue so often how Bush is so arrogant, and yet they are so arrogant themselves that they believe all people in the south or midwest are all stupid hicks who shouldn't have a voice in the direction of this country.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 11/05/2004 @ 07:19:28 AM
They shouldn't have more of a voice.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - 584 Posts 11/05/2004 @ 08:25:52 AM
Ways the president has affected my life: 1) I probably owe close to $6000 more than I should in college loans due to my grants being cut. 2) Sure I got a job out of college. Everything I do right now could be done by an 8th grader. And a HUGE percentage of people are paying $25-50K for college and getting out and only being able to fine $22K a year jobs. Creating jobs is great, but when they're mostly minimum wage, its not great. Thats wrong, and I have a plan.....(HUMOR) 3) Reinquist doesn't matter, but if Sandra Day O'Conner is forced to retire, you're gonna see your lives change. And please don't say immediately reversing Roe v. Wade is gonna be great, cause if you want it to go back to back alleys and coat hangers, that is waht would happen. 4) Being in a war affects everyone, regardless of your personal involvement. No offense, Carl, but having your best friend have 15 months of active duty is a pretty shitty time. I'd also say its less of a "liberal elite" and more of an "uneducated majority" as well as a huge population of elderly who are voting for the republican party, and not the candidate who doesn't really stand for a whole lot of classic Republican values.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 11/05/2004 @ 09:52:18 AM
Word		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 11/05/2004 @ 09:53:18 AM
The Midwest did vote for Kerry. It depends on how u define midwest		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - 584 Posts 11/05/2004 @ 10:47:46 AM
heh heh http://attenuation.net/files/iq.htm		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Ombudsman 11/05/2004 @ 02:49:48 PM
Too bad that table is a hoax. Average IQ by State - a hoax!!!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/05/2004 @ 02:59:59 PM
exit polls actually showed that people making more than $100,000 or more voted in favor of bush 58%-41%, while those making less than $100,000 voted for Kerry 50-49. Further broken down, in the above $50,000, bush got 56%-44%, and under %50,000 got kerry 55%-44%.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 11/05/2004 @ 06:03:08 PM
And of course if one website says another is a hoax using other just as unproven data, or nothing at all, to backup it's claim the latter is automatically the valid one.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 11/05/2004 @ 07:55:47 PM
Bush voters got a bigger say this year that Kerry voters. While I was figuring that out I came across this, thought it was interesting. - Wyoming gets 3 votes in the Electoral College (2 Senators plus one Rep) - Wyoming's population is 501,000 - So Wyoming get one Electoral vote per 167,000 people. (501,000 / 3). - California has 55 Electoral votes (2 Senators plus 53 Reps) - California's population is 35.5 million. - So California gets one Electoral vote per 645,000 people. (35.5 million / 55). - Comparing the Electoral votes per person, Wyoming's people get almost 4 times as much representation as do Californians in the Electoral College Now let's do the same numbers for the Senate: - Wyoming gets 2 votes in the Senate - So Wyoming get one Senate vote per 251,000 people. (501,000 / 2). - California gets 2 votes in the Senate - So California gets one Senate vote per 1,780,000 people. (35.5 million / 2). - Comparing the Senate votes per person, Wyoming's people get over 7 times as much representation as do Californians in the Senate. Then after I did it all myself I found this Make the Green blue and yellow red and it looks alot like another map I've seen alot latey. Discount swing states and it looks EXACTLY like like that map.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 11/06/2004 @ 02:46:30 AM
Apparently, exactly = sort of 1. For the hoax thing. If you go back to the page Micah gave, it now has a link to the retraction by the Economist, who originally printed the chart as Bush vs. Gore. Plus at the botton he also gives a link to a guy who looked more at the data. 2. While its true that the "Senate" electoral votes give small states an advantage, I would guess that a lot of that advantage is wiped out by the fact that 1 state with a high number of electoral votes is more desirable that having to win many small states. 3. Either way the Electoral College is set up so you have to win some small and some large states to win the presidency.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 11/06/2004 @ 03:18:31 AM
Who said anything about going after states and wanting to win in bigger chunks? My point is it's hard to convince people to get out and vote when half the votes dont mean anything and rural votes count 3 times more. My point was that it's not fair that the people who live in the middle of no where get over represented in national elections and, for that matter, the whole rest of the time. There's so many reasons why the electoral college has to go and I've never heard any decent reason justifying it. What the hell do states have to do with a national election anyway?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 11/06/2004 @ 05:22:09 AM
From a paper I wrote on the EC: The Electoral College gives us a system where candidates must appeal to the broadest range of people possible to win the election. If the election were decided by a direct popular vote, candidates would spend the majority of their time and resources on the population heavy coasts. The people living in sparsely populated states would all but be ignored. The Elections in 1888 and 2000 bear this out. In the 1888 Presidential Election, Grover Cleveland won the popular vote by less than 1% of the total vote, yet he lost the Electoral College to Benjamin Harrison by a vote of 233-168. This may not look fair, but when you look deeper you see why the Electoral College works. During the campaign Cleveland ran on policies that heavily favored the Southern coastal states. As a result he carried 7 Southern costal states with percentages ranging from 65% - 82% of the total votes in those states. Harrison, meanwhile, took 20 of the remaining 31 states at much closer margins and won the Presidency.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 11/06/2004 @ 05:23:30 AM
In the year 2000 Al Gore (like Cleveland) won the popular vote by less than 1%, yet lost the Electoral College vote to George W. Bush 271-266. In this election Gores platform appealed to people living in highly populated areas, thus out of the 20 states (plus the District of Columbia) Gore won; he carried the two states with the largest populations (California and New York) by a wide margin. This gave Gore the advantage in the popular vote, but Bush took the Electoral College by winning 30 total states, 13 of which had 6 Electoral Votes or less. In both of these cases the Electoral College prevented a candidate from winning the election by catering to specific population centers. The candidates who won were able to put forth ideas that had nationwide support.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3875 Posts 11/06/2004 @ 05:26:23 AM
And: Ultimately, there will be pros and cons in any system we use to decide the Presidential Elections. To me, there is just as strong a case for the country to elect the candidate who wins the most states, as there is to elect the candidate who wins the popular vote. After all this is the United States of America, not the United Peoples of America. Of course, while the popular vote method gives an undue advantage to the highly populated states, if you went by who won the most states, the lightly populated states would get the advantage. When our Founding Fathers outlined the Electoral College they gave us a system that balanced the election power of the big and small states. The same principle is found in the Connecticut Compromise for the Legislative Branch that created the House of Representatives (advantage to the big states) and the Senate (advantage to the small states). I tried posting these 3 entries as 1 big post, but it wouldn't go through, so I had to break it up. Sorry if it causes any confusion.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 11/06/2004 @ 09:50:41 AM
If your policies cater to more people they cater to more people. Why punish highly populated areas? Again, why do the bumpkins get to decide?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 11/06/2004 @ 10:27:31 AM
Because, the founding fathers felt that broad national support was more beneficial to the country than a straight majority vote. And really, enough with the rural bashing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 11/06/2004 @ 11:12:07 AM
If that was really the goal every state would be worth 1.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3875 Posts 11/06/2004 @ 11:39:27 AM
As I alluded to in my 5:26 post, they could have done that but that would have given too much power to the small states. So they compromised. It's not perfect, but it balances the power between big and small states while promoting "national" campaigns over single issue/regional campaigns.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 11/06/2004 @ 02:35:41 PM
If thinking big states should have bigger say (by which I mean equal say) is elitest then thinking small states should have bigger say is moronic. Power shouldn't be "balanced" at all, it should be equal.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3875 Posts 11/06/2004 @ 11:59:35 PM
It's not thinking that big states should have a bigger say that is elitist. What's elitist thinking that all the rural voters are idiots who were brainwashed. The problem with a straight popular vote is that "power" would still not be equal. While each vote would be equal, the power of the people to influence the platforms would not. People in large cities would get more attention, simply because of the fact that they are more accessible to the candidates.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 11/07/2004 @ 02:54:49 AM
But that's basically what happens now. They only hit the swing states. Demo- means people not square feet of country covered.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 11/07/2004 @ 12:18:35 PM
This article explains the Electoral College better than I probably ever could. The first half discusses the history behind the EC and historical elections, the second half focuses on the EC today and the pros/cons. Warning: It is fairly long, but in my mind, worthwhile reading. The Electoral College		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 11/07/2004 @ 03:02:52 PM
Here's a good (and funny) rebuttal of the European media's reaction to the Election. Even if you didn't vote for Bush you still can probably enjoy some of the humor. Believe it or not, it wasn't just rednecks who voted for Bush		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/08/2004 @ 10:20:30 AM
If any of you happen to read the spectator today, I wrote a letter that is steeply surrounded with political banter.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 11/08/2004 @ 07:20:13 PM
Stupid europeans. Also Scott owes me 30 seconds of my life.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/08/2004 @ 09:29:28 PM
word		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.