Offical Election Prediction Thread
Forlorn
Join Date: 2002-11-01 Member: 2634Banned
Join Date: 2002-11-01 Member: 2634Banned
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Call your shots</div> Okay, just make your predictions, the first one being who is going to win, the second guess being the amount of electorial votes won.
Canidate: Bush
Electorial votes:
Either he gets over 300, or they both get under 270, it goes to congress and Bush wins again.
And guys... please don't hold any hard feelings k? Spread teh <3, there's no reason to hate each other over a game...
Canidate: Bush
Electorial votes:
Either he gets over 300, or they both get under 270, it goes to congress and Bush wins again.
And guys... please don't hold any hard feelings k? Spread teh <3, there's no reason to hate each other over a game...
Comments
It's going to be close again, really close, but I think Bush'll make it in the end. It won't go to Congress though.
Of course there is always the slim possibility that somehow one candidate manages to completely own the other.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Scholars continue to debate the reasons for the adoption of the Electoral College. Some believe it was created to protect small states. Others believe that the Founding Fathers intended to create a system of indirect election whereby the electors would come to a carefully considered decision to nominate a selection of good candidates and then the House of Representatives would again make a careful consideration of the names presented. Others still believe the system of electing the President was given little thought beyond a desire to have George Washington as the first President, pointing in particular to the extremely casual way in which the Vice-President was selected, despite being only a heartbeat from the Presidency, and that Congress was intended to be the most important part of the constitution. Still others hold that it was devised as a compromise between the election of a President by popular vote and by the Congress, although initially the electors were selected by the state legislatures and it was not until later that states started holding a popular poll for the Presidential elections to determine how they would cast their votes. Yet another theory contends that the Framers strongly opposed the deveopment of political parties, as evidenced by the total absense of any reference to parties in the Constitution, and were aware of the difficulties in mass communication, and were attempting to devise a system that would function well with neither cheap, instantaneous, nationwide communication nor a strong political party system.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College</a>
The reason why this (retarded) system exists isn't very clear, but it doesn't apparently have much to do with "states rights".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Can somebody give me an America vote system for dummies 101?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See the link above.
This is based around my experiences with the Australian election. The other side didnt just object to Howard politically - they hated him with a fierce and almost fanatical passion. Rabid hate is the best way to put off swinging voters from your cause - and Bush has plenty of that aimed at him. Add to that the fact that not many people actually consider Kerry to be a good leader, with his strongest attribute simply being his biology (he aint Bush), it doesnt bode well for Democrats.
But I wouldnt be shocked if Kerry got in - Bush has sodded up with the Iraq war claims, and his economic handling doesnt have anyone in raptures.
If you take a look at the link I provided you'll see why this is. The electoral system helps enforce the "two partiness". Which is why its a waste of time to vote here.
This would both destroy the 2-party system we have now and remove the stupid electoral college system...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Scholars continue to debate the reasons for the adoption of the Electoral College. Some believe it was created to protect small states. Others believe that the Founding Fathers intended to create a system of indirect election whereby the electors would come to a carefully considered decision to nominate a selection of good candidates and then the House of Representatives would again make a careful consideration of the names presented. Others still believe the system of electing the President was given little thought beyond a desire to have George Washington as the first President, pointing in particular to the extremely casual way in which the Vice-President was selected, despite being only a heartbeat from the Presidency, and that Congress was intended to be the most important part of the constitution. Still others hold that it was devised as a compromise between the election of a President by popular vote and by the Congress, although initially the electors were selected by the state legislatures and it was not until later that states started holding a popular poll for the Presidential elections to determine how they would cast their votes. Yet another theory contends that the Framers strongly opposed the deveopment of political parties, as evidenced by the total absense of any reference to parties in the Constitution, and were aware of the difficulties in mass communication, and were attempting to devise a system that would function well with neither cheap, instantaneous, nationwide communication nor a strong political party system.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College</a>
The reason why this (retarded) system exists isn't very clear, but it doesn't apparently have much to do with "states rights".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Can somebody give me an America vote system for dummies 101?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See the link above. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually it does... and if you understood American politics you'd know that too.
Here's how it works:
Electorial votes of a state always go to the majority of the population of said state's vote.
So if bush wins the popular vote of NH then so do the electorial votes go to Bush.
In THEORY, these votes could go oppisite of their constitancy... but to my knowledge it's never happened simply because to tick off your voters would make you lose your job rather fast.
And electorial votes are disproportionately set up to give more votes to smaller states and less to larger states, yet the larger states still have more setup overall.
It's a perfect mix of states rights vs. population rights, which was a key factor when they were trying to get states to join in the federation.
And honestly, I think it still holds today, it's just that the masses don't like it because of their own ignorance...
I remember back in the day, freshman year of highschool I got into a fight with my liberal history teacher, telling him that the electorial system was trash and should be replaced with popular vote. Boy, did the ignorance look foolish when he simply said to me, "But popular vote decides where the electorial votes go." After that incident, it was clear to me that the electorial system makes sense...
For being a state built on beer and beef, we seem to be the only ones with our collective heads not stuck up our ****.
I'm going with Kerry for a win, since in the past, swing voters have nearly always gone with the candidate that ISN'T president, and this is going to be an election decided by swing votters.
Let's say there's 3 states.
Populations:
State A
------- -- Worth 5 electoral votes
5 P's
4 Q's
(Total - 9)
State B
------- -- Worth 3 electoral votes
4 P's
3 Q's
(Total - 7)
State C
------- -- Worth 4 electoral votes
1 P's
7 Q's
(Total - 8)
That means there are 10 P's and 14 Q's.
Let's say the all vote for the appropriate party.
This means that the P's win by an overwhelming majority. The Q's only win State C while the P's win State A and B.
Yeah, it sure makes sense to me.
As for a prediction, I really don't want to say I have one because it really is up in the air regardless of what anyone in the press tells us. But my gut says it's Bush for another 4 years. And he'll win with a clear popular majority and electoral majority.
Because Nadar is an idiot. I don't know much about the libertarian canidat, so I won't comment on him too much. He just doesn't have the money to get his name out there. We are going to have to go through 4 more years of mediocracy no matter which canidate wins. Hopefully we have better canidates next time.
Edit: - forgot to predict -
Hard to say;
Bush wins,
60 minutes' and NY Times' plan for a election eve story hammering Bush was ruined by a leak, they had to run the story early. America(like most countries) has a short memory, Bush will pick up states that Kerry thought were a sure thing. He wins via electoral vote.
If it goes to the House or the Supreme Court he wins also.
I don't think we'll know the winner on Nov. 3rd, I think those days are over.
Ether way I’m still taking Nov. 3rd off, I’ve been waiting for the 2nd like its Christmas, and I’m having an election party at my friends. Plenty of alcohol if Bush loses, plenty more if he wins. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Popular vote- Kerry.
I really really hope Kerry wins, but the only way that could happen is if more than 50% of the people actually get out and vote.
Let's say there's 3 states.
Populations:
State A
------- -- Worth 5 electoral votes
5 P's
4 Q's
(Total - 9)
State B
------- -- Worth 3 electoral votes
4 P's
3 Q's
(Total - 7)
State C
------- -- Worth 4 electoral votes
1 P's
7 Q's
(Total - 8)
That means there are 10 P's and 14 Q's.
Let's say the all vote for the appropriate party.
This means that the P's win by an overwhelming majority. The Q's only win State C while the P's win State A and B.
Yeah, it sure makes sense to me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The electoral system protects the elections from being decided by the states with the biggest populations. I don't have figures on the exact populations of the states but with an election based solely on the popular vote, a candidate could just promise the big states like New York, California, etc. special tax relief or policies that benefit them specifically. Thus all the states who have more farm animals than people would be left out.
Unless I just confused myself while eating this beef patty.
My election guess is that we won't know until the end of November. I suspect that Florida and Ohio are going to have massive legal challenges to their systems because they have so many electoral votes. Democrats will make the claim, be it true or not, that massive voter disenfranchisement is going on and people who should be allowed to vote won't be or their ballots will be destroyed.
I think that Kerry will win. I suspect that many voters that have been traditionally dormant and the massive get-out-the-vote campaigns by Dems will turn things around for this election. There is also the third party factor. I don't think that Nader will get nearly as many votes as he did last time and I do think that the Libertarian party will come into play in Nevada, where the Libertarians have a sizable base (for a third party). I think that the youth vote is going to be the "swing" vote of this election. Not Catholics or other large voting blocs that have been focused on in the press.
Bah, I may as well stop flapping my fingers, heres a <a href='http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041020/nyw153_1.html' target='_blank'>Link</a>.
Suffice it to say I think Kerry will win this round of elections.
--http://slashdot.org/
So for those of you who believe in superstition (I'm looking at you, christians), all signs point to Kerry.
Also breaking news: I'm going to be voting after all. I'm showing up to help re-elect Senator Feingold, but while I'm there I don't think it would hurt to cast my vote for Badnarik. It'll be like I never voted for president at all!
Now now that’s for the rioters and SWAT teams to decide, don't try and suck all the fun out of this thing. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Seriously though that Redskins thing has had a nice long run, shame it's going to have to end.
Don't look at us, statisically we want bush to win, go blame those crazy libral buddists or something <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/mad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
This year is simply too important to the world to go third-party. I can and will however vote libertarian for all local offices. Tho feingold is an awful good guy.... whatev.
Prediction, Kerry wins popular, but Supreme court, as appointed by Bush will give the win to Emporer Bush, and theres nothing we can do about it because the Stormtroopers headed by Riechsmarshall Rumsfeld will quell any 'terrorist activity' of civilians uprising against the all-holy american-system.
That's like all the news polls poured into one
I hate to derail the thread, but how does the electoral college keep small states relevant?
Isn't this correct:
States (big and small) that are significantly in favor of one candidate are ignored completely, and states that are "swing" are focused on if they have a significant amount of electors (read Ohio and Florida). Colorado has gotten a lot of attention in the media because of one of its initiatives, but good luck catching one of the candidates there.
This would both destroy the 2-party system we have now and remove the stupid electoral college system...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bingo, and people wonder why voter turnout sucked so much they needed to get P. Diddy involved (is there anything that man can't do?)
When 1 person's vote is worthless because the vast majority in his state votes for the other guy.. then that's something wrong with the democratic process..
I think it's funny that I see people campaining in my neighbourhood for the democratic candidate when this is a highly democratic area.. Where they should be is in the areas held by Bush at the moment.. Why have people show support for your guy when they are all voting for him anyway...
It's interesting being a Canadian living in the middle of this.. We do things so much different back home.
The biggest flaw with the electoral system isn't so much that it exists, but how it currently works (winner takes all). A vote for Kerry in a red state or Bush in a blue is basically thrown away, since a 51-49 "majority" means the minority gets 0% representation for the state.
And since fixing the problem directly would require new legislation in each state, or even changing their individual constitutions (or even just electors waking up en masse, which is even more unlikely), it's easier to just get rid of the electoral college altogether since it doesn't really surve a purpose anymore.
Keep in mind that the number of electoral votes a state would get is still the same, so small states don't get screwed by this measure. The only thing that would be different is that the popular vote would be in the same proportion as the electoral, and the insulating layer would be removed. I've always thought that the real purpose of the college is that the founding fathers did not trust the people to make an informed decision, which was certainly true of the times before information traveled any faster than horses.
I personally like the Maine electoral system. The overall winner of the state gets the two votes that are derived from the two senators that each state gets. However, each congressional district decides where their representative vote goes. So, using Maine for an example, it seems that Maine is going with Kerry. If Kerry wins the state overall, he gets two votes. But let's say that Bush gets more votes in northern ME. Bush would get one electoral vote and Kerry would get three.
There is a drawback to this, in that it wouldn't be very good for large states since it drastically increases the benefits of gerrymandering, which I find to be utterly F'ing reprehensible. I personally think that gerrymanderers should be publicly flogged.