Bush say: 4 more years ?

[ZUBi]

Advertisement

so this is it?

[Gaumont]

lol good one.

well seems they get 4 more years of bush, lets just hope he does better this term

[chernabog_ca]

I can't believe it. I figured for sure Kerry would have won the close race.

[amr.ramadan]

I don't understand. Does it fall to Kerry's hand to concede? Will they now not count the provisional ballots?

Honestly, I find these elections quite unfair, for whoever it was that would have won. It looks like it is so much based on estimates, rather than true numbers.

Also, could someone tell me where each state's electoral weight came from? Why would California have a weight almost tripple that of Ohio? Number of citizines?

[corfy]

Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census).

(edited - I guess I should have clarified that every state gets at least 3 electoral votes, because every state has at least one person on the US House of Representatives.)

In this case, California has nearly three times the number of votes as Ohio because it has nearly 3 times the population.

Results are based on a combination of precints that have reported in, exit polls that were taken after people voted, and polls shortly before the election. As more and more actual results come in, then the results become more based on fact that projection. Obviously, some states are easier to project than others.

And yes, every vote will be counted, because there are other races hanging in the balance than just the presidential race... the question at this point is whether those uncounted votes will really make a difference to the presidential race.

Also, you have to realize that people want results as soon as possible, so you have to get into the practice of predicting in order to satisfy people's curiosity. Obviously, it can backfire now and then.

And actually, the final vote won't be made until next month, and here is where it really gets confusing, and where I think they should cut out a step. The last night's election didn't technically elect a president, it elected people to vote for the president (aka, the electoral college). Each state will send the number of delagates based on how many electoral votes it has to vote for the president in mid-December. Although it is highly likely that those electoral voters will vote for the president that won their state, it is not a sure thing. They can vote for anyone they want to, although the instances where an electoral representative didn't vote for the president that won the state is rare. It has happened, but not often.

So for you Kerry supporters, you still have hope. Although I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

(edit - thought of something else... sorry. Perhaps not all of the provisional ballots will be counted. Part of the reason they are provisional is the people showed up to vote, but their names weren't on the directory of voters. They were then given a ballot to fill out, but that ballot will only be counted after it is confirmed that the person is an eligible voter in that precinct, which, obviously, could take some time. This helps rule out the possibility that someone will vote multiple times in different precincts, yet still gives people the opportunity to vote.)

[amr.ramadan]

Then you mean that 252 electoral voters will probably vote for Kerry next December, with 254 for Bush. This is of course besides Iowa, New Mexico and Ohio. Won't this repeat what happened today?

[corfy]

Presumably, by then Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio won't be undecided. In fact, if all three go with Bush (as it appears now, but don't hold me to that) then Bush will have 286 votes to Kerry's 252, more than the 270 votes needed to win the election.

But yes, it is a possibility that what we have gone through last night and today could be repeated next month.

[corfy]

Found this at http://people.howstuffworks.com/question472.htm. This is apparently a few years old, because the 2000 election is another example of a person winning the popular vote but not being elected president.

And I didn't realize that although the votes are cast next month, they aren't actually counted until January.

How does the Electoral College work?

It may surprise you to know that Russia has a more direct presidential election process than the United States. In the United States, a system called the Electoral College periodically allows a candidate who receives fewer popular votes to win an election. In fact, there have been several presidential candidates who won the popular vote, but lost the election because they received fewer electoral votes. In Russia, where no such system exists, the candidate who receives a majority of popular votes wins the election.

Every four years, on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November, millions of U.S. citizens go to local voting booths to elect, among other officials, the next president and vice president of their country. Their votes will be recorded and counted, and winners will be declared. But the results of the popular vote are not guaranteed to stand because the Electoral College has not cast its vote.

The Electoral College is a controversial mechanism of presidential elections that was created by the framers of the U.S. Constitution as a compromise for the presidential election process. At the time, some politicians believed a purely popular election was too reckless, while others objected to giving Congress the power to select the president. The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.

Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. senators plus the number of its U.S. representatives. Currently, the Electoral College includes 538 electors, 535 for the total number of congressional members, and three who represent Washington, D.C., as allowed by the 23rd Amendment. On the Monday following the second Wednesday in December, the electors of each state meet in their respective state capitals to officially cast their votes for president and vice president. This year that day is Dec. 18. These votes are then sealed and sent to the president of the Senate, who on Jan. 6 opens and reads the votes in the presence of both houses of Congress. The winner is sworn into office at noon Jan. 20. Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, which is entirely legal.

In most presidential elections, a candidate who wins the popular vote will also receive the majority of the electoral votes, but this is not always the case. There have been three presidents who have won an election with fewer popular votes than their opponent but more electoral votes.

Here are the three elections when the candidate who led the popular vote did not win the office:

* 1824: John Quincy Adams received more than 38,000 fewer votes than Andrew Jackson, but neither candidate won a majority of the Electoral College. Adams was awarded the presidency when the election was thrown to the House of Representatives.
* 1876: Nearly unanimous support from small states gave Rutherford B. Hayes a one-vote margin in the Electoral College, despite the fact that he lost the popular vote to Samuel J. Tilden by 264,000 votes. Hayes carried five out of the six smallest states (excluding Delaware). These five states plus Colorado gave Hayes 22 electoral votes with only 109,000 popular votes. At the time, Colorado had been just been admitted to the Union and decided to appoint electors instead of holding elections. So, Hayes won Colorado's three electoral votes with zero popular votes. It was the only time in U.S. history that small state support has decided an election.
* 1888: Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote by 95,713 votes to Grover Cleveland, but won the electoral vote by 65. In this instance, some say the Electoral College worked the way it is designed to work by preventing a candidate from winning an election based on support from one region of the country. The South overwhelmingly supported Cleveland, and he won by more than 425,000 votes in six southern states. However, in the rest of the country he lost by more than 300,000 votes.

Today, a candidate must receive 270 of the 538 votes to win the election. In cases where no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the decision is thrown to the House of Representatives by virtue of the 12th Amendment. The House then selects the president by majority vote with each state delegation receiving one vote to cast for the three candidates who received the most electoral votes.

Here are the two elections that were decided by the House of Representatives:

* 1801: Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, both Democrat-Republicans, received the same number of electoral votes, despite the fact that Burr was running as a vice presidential candidate, not for the presidency. Following 36 successive votes in the House, Jefferson was finally elected president.
* 1825: As mentioned above, Andrew Jackson received a majority of the popular vote over John Quincy Adams, but neither man received a 131-vote majority of electoral votes needed at the time to claim the presidency. Adams won the House vote on the first ballot.

Proponents of the Electoral College say that the system served its purpose in the elections listed above, despite the fact that the candidate who won the popular vote didn't always win the election. The Electoral College is a block, or weighed, voting system that is designed to give more power to the states with more votes, but allows for small states to swing an election, as happened in 1876. Under this system, each state is assigned a specific number of votes that is proportional to its population, so that each state's power is representative of its population. So, while winning the popular vote may not ensure a candidate's victory, a candidate must gain popular support of a particular state to win the votes in that state. The goal of any candidate is to put together the right combination of states that will give him or her 270 electoral votes.

[amr.ramadan]

Ah! This is a pain in the a**. They should've just used the Popular Vote as the only measure.

[corfy]

Well, this system has been in place and has worked for over 200 years. I agree, though, that a popular vote would probably be better, but they should at least get rid of this election after the election. Just my two cents worth.

[Mark Strube]

Actually for the results on the news did NOT combine exit polls in the results. In fact, they didn't even mention exit polls. The news channels tried to be responsible this time. The results are based SOLEY on official vote counts. Using exit polls is what got us into the news mess 4 years ago.

As for the provisional ballots, there aren't enough of them in the first place to make up for the number of votes Bush won by in that state.

I honestly don't think provisional ballots should EVER be counted! These are all by voters who haven't registered... why should they be allowed to vote?

In my area you don't even need to present a photo ID to be allowed to vote... ridiculous!

[corfy]

Originally Posted by Mark Strube

Actually for the results on the news did NOT combine exit polls in the results. In fact, they didn't even mention exit polls. The news channels tried to be responsible this time. The results are based SOLEY on official vote counts. Using exit polls is what got us into the news mess 4 years ago.

I beg to differ... most, if not all, of the news channels gave California to Kerry before a single California precinct had reported their official results.

Kinda surprised me when California was changed to blue within minutes of the polls closing when 0% of the precincts reported in, with 0% of those people voting for Bush and 0% of those people voting for Kerry.

Of course, Kerry had no trouble winning California, so that wasn't a surprise, but still, that was based on exit polls and not on actual results. I'm sure other states were similar.

[corfy]

Oh, and to answer your earlier question... I myself was a provisional ballot once when I moved shortly before the election. Although I officially reported the move before the deadline, and was given new polling location, when I showed up to vote, my name wasn't in the book. Not sure why, but I was able to vote, and presumably, it counted.

[ZUBi]

numbers says all. but only America CAN (?) do it...



the whole world is kinda against, but that stupid american politics & this bull$hit election. America, suffer even more, that all I can say...

[chernabog_ca]

Where did you get that map from Zubi? I'm curious as to why they would show all of Canada as supporting Kerry except for Alberta.