|
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Get out and VOTE tomorrow!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 11-02-2004 09:20 AM
http://www.snopes.com/sports/football/election.asp
quote:
Claim: The outcome of Washington Redskins home football games has correctly predicted the winner of every U.S. presidential election since 1936.
Status: True.
Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2004]
FOOTBALL + ELECTION
Did you know....??
The Washington Redskins have proved to be a time-tested election predictor. In the previous 15 elections, if the Washington Redskins have lost their last home game prior to the election, the incumbent party has lost the White House. When they have won, the incumbent has stayed in power.
This election year, that deciding game takes place on Sunday, October 31 ... vs. Green Bay.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041101/ap_on_sp_fo_ne/fbn_redskins___poliltics_6
quote:
Sports - Football
Does Redskins Loss Portend Kerry Victory?
Mon Nov 1, 7:50 AM ET
MANCHESTER, N.H. - John Kerry (news - web sites) supporters got a welcome omen for their candidate on Sunday: The Green Bay Packers (news) defeated the Washington Redskins.
If history holds, the 28-14 score portends a victory for Kerry on Tuesday because the result of the Redskins' final home game before the presidential election has always accurately predicted the White House winner.
If the Redskins win, the incumbent party wins. If they lose, the incumbent party is ousted...
The Democratic candidate, who describes himself as superstitious and carries a lucky buckeye, cheered the omen.
"I couldn't be more thrilled with the Packers win today," Kerry said. "The Packers have done their part. This Tuesday, we'll do ours."
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chris Hipp
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1462
From: Mesquite, Tx (east of Dallas)
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 11-02-2004 09:42 AM
So this football rule; over the last 15 elections, how many of those were where the incumbent was not eligible to run for another term? Just in my lifetime there would have been two presidents that could not have run again, Reagan and Clinton, so does that 15 not include those years, and previous elections of the sort? If not then that is pretty dumb if you ask me.
As for abolishing the electoral college: there is a rule in politics, those in power want to stay in power. By getting rid of the electoral college, state representatives would lose much of his/her power.
Another thing to remember is that the popular vote is the entire country. It really doesnt matter if every single person in the state of Texas, california, florida and new york vote for Bush, he would still lose because it is whether he wins the state or not. So basically you are voting for your state to win and that goes into the electoral college.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Cunningham
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Anchorage, AK
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-02-2004 01:25 PM
Someone please correct me if I'm way off here, but my understanding of the electoral college "problem" is the following.
Each state has a number of electoral "votes" equal to its number of U.S. Senators (always 2) plus its number of U.S. Representatives (number changes periodically based on population census of the state, something like 1 per 500,000 citizens or some such). This helps out the influence of smaller states rather than just doing it by population. For example: Alaska has 3 electoral votes (for its 2 Senators and 1 Representative). If done purely by population, they would have only 1 electoral vote. If done purely by popular vote (straight numbers comparison of cast ballots) their influence on the national elections would be practically nothing.
Now California has the most electoral votes (55) because of its huge population. Here's where the problem occurs. If 51% of the people in California vote Republican and 49% vote Democrat, the Republican gets all 55 electoral votes. This effectively means that nearly half of the population has had their vote rendered meaningless. To continue our example from above, if the Republican wins all the "big" states by very narrow margins while the Democrat wins handily in most of the "small" states the Republican can win the election by electoral college votes even though a straight tally of the total votes would put the Democrat as the winner. Granted, this has only happened very rarely (twice if I remember correctly) so its not that big an issue, but it does seem to defy common sense.
Overall, it's a good system. In the collection of states, it gives the "little guy" a bit more of a voice in deciding its own future. Using popular voting puts all the power in places like L.A. and New York and the rest of us just go along for the ride. There are issues with it that don't seem to make sense, but it'll work well enough until something better is proposed.
- Mike
- edit : spelling corrections, sheesh! -
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic