|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The political junkie POTUS prediction thread
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
There is no "present" vote in the US Senate. It's either yes or no.
There's "Not Voting" and some lists do indicate when a person is present but chooses not to vote (which is different from "Not Voting" - although how "Not Voting" is different from "absent" I have no idea...). Here's an example that shows all four terms in usage.
So 'Present' is what I'd call 'abstaining'. It's fairly common this side of the pond when voting by hand at a meeting to ask who abstains (and I've been known to do it a fair amount at Student meetings). In fact, in the Welsh Assembly, where we have electronic voting, there are three buttons, Yes, No and Abstain. 'Did Not Vote' records people who did not press any buttons (generally because they weren't in the chamber at the time).
OOI, how are votes conducted in Congress and the Senate? Division Lobbies like the House of Commons or electronic (like Wales and Scotland) or some other way?
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
It is possible to vote 'aye' and 'no' in the House of Commons.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
How? You have to walk through one lobby or the other.
.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zorro
Shipmate
# 9156
|
Posted
I think FreeJack is confusing the process of a motion being debated in the commons and members yelling things loudly with the process of voting-it's not the same thing, as the above poster pointed out you vote by walking through a lobby, the "ayes to the right" and the "nos to the left," the shouting and jeering is just archaic bullshit we have to put up with because in centuries of democracy nobody's quite gotten their head around not behaving like a particularly grouchy 5 year old when it comes to making important national decisions.
Zorro.
--------------------
It is so hard to believe, because it is so hard to obey. Soren Kierkegaard
Well, churches really should be like sluts; take everyone no matter who they are or whether they can pay. Spiffy da wondersheep
Posts: 2568 | From: Baja California (actually the UK but that's where my fans know me from) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I found this link online. Overall looks like a small but significant Obama lead. What do more experienced US eyes make of this info?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
I think all you can take from these numbers is that Obama has some advantage. The polls themselves are near meaningless as we don't elect Presidents by the popular vote.
How much of an advantage is hard to say. I do think, however, that the Palin Surge will drop off some over the next two months.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I found this link online. Overall looks like a small but significant Obama lead. What do more experienced US eyes make of this info?
The old saying goes that there is only one poll that really matters (the vote). As odd as it sounds, a lot of voters aren't paying attention to the election yet. Many will make up their minds after the debates (they probably won't watch the debates, but they'll hear on talk radio or read in the papaer who "won" and see a thirty second clip from the debate on the TV news. Democracy sure ain't pretty...
Anyway, the other wild card in this election is that a huge number of new people have been registered to vote this year, especially by the Democrats. Nobody knows if these newbies will actually show up to vote. So they really can't be reliably polled. Sure, they think one guy or the other is old or elitist or what-have-you. And, if you call them on the phone and ask who they're going to vote for, they'll give you a name. But will they show up at the poll (do they even know where their polling place is?) Nobody can say with confidence.
That's a big part of why the politicos are so pleased with Obama's organization on the ground. On election day, he has a lot of people who will go door-to-door and make sure that these dingbats can find the poll. If needs be, they'll drive them there. In close elections, you can drive enough dingbats to the poll to put you in office.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Here's an electoral college predictor that has been showing McCain ahead for several days now which seems to fly in the face of the consensus.
In his FAQ the guy suggests his is more accurate than most because it tracks individual state polls, but who knows?
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
Here's an electoral college predictor that has been showing McCain ahead for several days now which seems to fly in the face of the consensus.
In his FAQ the guy suggests his is more accurate than most because it tracks individual state polls, but who knows?
But currently Pennsylvania is exactly tied 46% each, and so 21 votes are not allocated and there's only 13 between them. If Pennsylvania went Dem, Obama would overtake McCain. Also there are a further 61 Barely Dem and 81 Barely Rep which are statisically uncertain. Thus that shows it is very close!
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
If Pennsylvania went Dem, Obama would overtake McCain.
Exactly, but IIRC those people cling to their guns and religion.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
Re: Tclune's post
quote:
found this link online. Overall looks like a small but significant Obama lead. What do more experienced US eyes make of this info?
I noted that almost all the figures show a consistent 8% as undecided. With the polls so even it looks as if these undecided will determine the outcome...if they decide to vote.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Re: Tclune's post
quote:
found this link online. Overall looks like a small but significant Obama lead. What do more experienced US eyes make of this info?
Just want to give credit where credit is due. The quote above is from Barnabus, not me. Ross might accuse me of plagiarism if I don't... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
Here's an electoral college predictor that has been showing McCain ahead for several days now which seems to fly in the face of the consensus.
In his FAQ the guy suggests his is more accurate than most because it tracks individual state polls, but who knows?
As far as I can tell, his only difference in outcome from realclearpolitics and the New York Times is that he's not calling PA barely Democratic.
He is using state by state polls, just like the other sources, but is limiting himself to the most recent poll, rather than a rolling average of polls.
In particular, the most recent poll in PA, showing the tie, is of registered voters. Other recent polls in PA (all post Republican convention) are of 'likely voters'. They're not really the same animal, of course Obama does better in recent polls of 'likely voters' in PA. Some polling agencies are quite good at identifying 'likely voters', others less so. But then registered voters don't necessarily vote. All part of the glorious fog.
We are, however, seeing the erosion of McCain's convention surge. The polls in Ohio and Virginia, for example, have tightened by a couple of percentage points.
One difference in Ohio this year is that the secretary of state, in control of elections, is a Democrat. Despite an anticipated huge African American turnout, we will not see the travesty of hours of waiting at polling stations in predominantly black areas. There is absentee voting in advance for anyone who wants it by mail, and for 7 days prior to the election, in-person advance voting at stations around the state. This will favor the Democratic candidate in 2008 as compared with the Democratic candidate in 2004; to what extent it provides a similar bump to the Republican candidate in 2008 is unclear.
I'd say all in all, things look pretty good for the Obama campaign now. He is a better campaigner as a slight underdog anyway.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
Here's an electoral college predictor that has been showing McCain ahead for several days now which seems to fly in the face of the consensus.
In his FAQ the guy suggests his is more accurate than most because it tracks individual state polls, but who knows?
As far as I can tell, his only difference in outcome from realclearpolitics and the New York Times is that he's not calling PA barely Democratic.
He is using state by state polls, just like the other sources, but is limiting himself to the most recent poll, rather than a rolling average of polls.
He's using an average of the polls conducted in the past week.
It is noticeable that McCain's lead has shrunk recently.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
He is a better campaigner as a slight underdog anyway.
So you think he's begun to understand humility now.
Time will tell.
(MAYBE I ought to go with the repubs by 2.5% popularly.)
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
It is noticeable that McCain's lead has shrunk recently.
That's just the convention bounce receding. Things are pretty much back to where they were before the party conventions, with Obama narrowly ahead.
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
Here's an electoral college predictor that has been showing McCain ahead for several days now which seems to fly in the face of the consensus.
In his FAQ the guy suggests his is more accurate than most because it tracks individual state polls, but who knows?
As far as I can tell, his only difference in outcome from realclearpolitics and the New York Times is that he's not calling PA barely Democratic.
He is using state by state polls, just like the other sources, but is limiting himself to the most recent poll, rather than a rolling average of polls.
Whereas fivethirtyeight.com uses a rolling average of state by state polls, and is currently projecting Obama to win the electoral college.
They're also saying there's an increased chance of an electoral college tie. My first thought: What a nightmare that would be. My second: we should have a pool on that on the political junkie thread.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
He is a better campaigner as a slight underdog anyway.
So you think he's begun to understand humility now.
I don't think that's it at all. ISTM that Obama has an unflappable air at all times. When he is ahead, some folks interpret that as arrogance. When he's behind, people tend to interpret the same air as grace under pressure. So I get the impression that it is based more on how people respond than on what Obama actually does.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
Would an electoral college tie mean the Supreme Court gets to choose the POTUS again? Please say it ain't so!
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
we should have a pool on that on the political junkie thread.
Brave words! It's fun looking back on this thread with hindsight, and seeing how quickly the unexpected happens. (And afterwards we all say "Oh, I knew that.")
There's still a long time to go, and I haven't got a clue what'll happen.
[ETA: I'm not dissing speculation - that's part of the junkie fun.]
[ 19. September 2008, 17:21: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
A couple of interesting things here:
Sarah Palin's approval drops
and actually gives her the lowest approval rating of the four candidates.
And a bit more on the mentioned possiblity of an electoral collage tie.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Would an electoral college tie mean the Supreme Court gets to choose the POTUS again? Please say it ain't so!
No, the House of Representatives would. If memory serves, that actually happened once (the actual idea is that the House chooses if nobody gets a majority of the electoral votes, if memory serves. So a viable third-party candidacy could easily throw an election into the House).
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
So you think he's begun to understand humility now.
Time will tell.
If I were Obama I'd be mightily pissed off that just about everyone in this country seems to think of themselves as my spiritual advisor.
But then I'd just play into the stereotype of the angry black male and lose the election.
Good thing I'm not him I guess.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
Emily Bazelon has an interesting Slate article on how both Obama and McCain have gone weaselly recently on the excesses of executive power under GW. FYI
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
I think that in a pool, I would go with the safest bet and use recent history as a strong predictor. If the election is as close as it is shaping up to be, I see Obama taking all the Gore states plus New Hampshire and thereby winning the election.
If this is not the case, due to some major developments duing the next six weeks, I see a rather big win for either Obama or McCain.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
basso
Ship’s Crypt Keeper
# 4228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
No, the House of Representatives would. If memory serves, that actually happened once
Twice, in 1800 and 1824. The House elected Thomas Jefferson (over Aaron Burr) in 1800 and John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson in 1824.
The idea of an election possibly going to the House fills me with horror. What would happen first is that the electors from each state would vote in their respective state capitals, and nearly anything might happen in that case.
(Google "Faithless elector".)
Posts: 4358 | From: Bay Area, Calif | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
So Todd Palin is refusing to honor his subpoena in the so-called Troopergate investigation, under the advice of the GOP campaign organization. This is blatant disregard of the U.S. justice system, and I find it appalling. (Sort of like another recent administration.)
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
In which universe does he get a choice ? Surely he'd just be jailed for contempt of court ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
I think it was a subpoena from an Alaskan legislative committee, so not exactly the justice system, and not Federal.
However, given that Palin promised cooperation with this bipartisan state legislative commission, it does seem that her image as a reformer ought to take something of a hit. Apparently, it seems that her cooperation is conditional on not being asked any difficult questions. Or at least that is how I interpret the excuse given - that the (bipartisan) commission has become too political.
It appears that none of her employees will be cooperating with the commission either.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
In which universe does he get a choice ? Surely he'd just be jailed for contempt of court ?
It is not voluntary, but the linked article says it can take months of failing to appear before there is a penalty, unlike a true judicial summons.
Thus they should easily be able to derail the report until after the election.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
I think that in a pool, I would go with the safest bet and use recent history as a strong predictor. If the election is as close as it is shaping up to be, I see Obama taking all the Gore states plus New Hampshire and thereby winning the election.
The best bet is to use averages of several recent polls. Recent is good, but many of these polls have small numbers (500-600), so a margin of error of plus or minus 5% or so. The best polls have about 1200 respondents. Since things are a function of the square root of the sample size, you reach a point of diminishing returns around there.
Also, A single poll, even if very large and recent, can be effected by a simultaneous event, e.g. the sharp sudden bankruptcy of several high profile financial institutions, which a month later may not have the same impact on the poll. So a little variation in timing is also good.
We don't get that snap verification of up to the minute data that we might like, but it is important not to trust a single result too much.
But I agree with you about the outcome; or Obama may do even slightly better than that.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
You would have thought the Republican's support would have been effected by the economic snafu ...
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
Also, if I recall correctly, if the election is decided by the House, there are not 435 votes, but 50. Each state has one vote. So, Montana's sole Congressman who is a Republican would debate with himself for whom to vote. California's Congressional delegation would have a mini-convention and vote among themselves for whom their state should vote. Rather dramatic in all. Would it all be televised?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
basso
Ship’s Crypt Keeper
# 4228
|
Posted
It'd better be televised if it comes to that.
If it's looking close in EVs, do you think we'd see each of those on television?
If memory serves, the electoral votes are cast about two weeks before they're opened in Washington. Could we all stand that much suspense, let alone the blathering from the talking heads?
Posts: 4358 | From: Bay Area, Calif | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
The House selects the president but the Senate selects the VP. It is also possible that the House fails to come to a decision because of having too many divided states which are then unable to cast ballots, leaving the VP to become President. In theory.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
How? You have to walk through one lobby or the other.
.
It is possible and permitted to walk through both lobbies in a figure of eight pattern within the time allotted. It is thus a means of registering an active abstention.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
If the House members were to vote stricltly along party lines, and if my calculations are correct, Sen. Obama would win 26 states, McCain 23, with two states "tied". It would be a rather peculiar red/blue map with such oddities as Delaware going to McCain and Obama taking Indiana, Tennessee, and the Dakotas.
If Sen. Obama were to be thus selected, I cannot imagine that the Senate would be so cruel (let alone foolhardy) as to burden him, the Senate itself, the country, and the rest of the world with a Vice-President Palin.
Greta
Greta
[ 20. September 2008, 07:52: Message edited by: CorgiGreta ]
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
Upon rechecking, I now think the numbers are 27-23 with one tie (Arizona!).
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
Would one of the first problems be whether or not the District of Columbia will be counted? DC does have a Representative.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Atheist
Arrogant Bastard
# 12067
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
A couple of interesting things here:
Sarah Palin's approval drops
and actually gives her the lowest approval rating of the four candidates.
Looks like some of 'em are getting past the veneer. Good show.
Posts: 2044 | From: Auckland | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
Palin's witchhunter linked to her successful gubernatorial race.
I heard the author interviewed a couple of days ago, and in between being gobsmacked by the whole witch thing, found myself wondering why I was hearing about this from a British reporter on a Canadian network. To paraphrase another Shipmate's question, what's with the fourth estate in the US? OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
DC is not a state. It has no vote. (This is a whole nother issue!) It has a non-voting delegate to Congress who can vote in committee, if I recall correctly.
As for televising the electoral votes, I don't think they did that even in 2000 did they? They did telecast the Congressional vote as Al Gore certified W as president.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
If the House members were to vote stricltly along party lines, and if my calculations are correct, Sen. Obama would win 26 states, McCain 23, with two states "tied".
It is the new House that selects the President, so we will have to see.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
To paraphrase another Shipmate's question, what's with the fourth estate in the US?
It no longer investigates, gathers, or reports news. I read the BBC website for international news, and often for US news any more. The New York Times used to be a wonderful source of world-wide news stories, but that has not been true for well ovewr a decade. We never had any other paper that actually covered news other than local events with some geezer manning the "Washington bureau" if the paper had pretensions for national stature. Since newspapers have become so unprofitable, they don't even do that anymore.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The news outlets in the US are owned by an ever-shrinking group of very large businesses. If it is not in their best interest to publish something, they don't.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Rather dramatic in all. Would it all be televised?
(Quoting someone) The revolution will not be televised.
Have some faith, people. I know it's hard, especially after the last eight years, but Obama wins.
The only question is how we get there. But I'm becoming increasingly sure that it'll all be on the up and up.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
DC is not a state. It has no vote. (This is a whole nother issue!) It has a non-voting delegate to Congress who can vote in committee, if I recall correctly.
As for televising the electoral votes, I don't think they did that even in 2000 did they? They did telecast the Congressional vote as Al Gore certified W as president.
Although it has no voting representation in Congress, DC residents can vote for president. Wikipedia sez:
Since 1801, District residents have not had full representation in either House of the Congress. They have voted in Presidential elections since the adoption of the Twenty third Amendment in 1961 (which first applied in the election of 1964). District residents are represented in the House of Representatives by a non-voting delegate who may vote in committee and participate in debate, but cannot vote for final passage of a bill in the House.
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Which is a travesty of our "democracy."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Which is a travesty of our "democracy."
What? That DC cannot vote? I agree. I think we should give it back to Maryland like we gave the Virginia half back to Virginia. Or, if Maryland doesn't want it, which I strongly suspect, then at least let it be deemed part of Maryland for election purposes. Voila. Problem solved.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Works for me. Or if they want to be a separate state, let them do that. If that would imbalance the red/blue state, let the eastern half of Washington state, which would assuredly be red, split off like they would like. That would add a red state to balance the blue state, at least in the senate.
But if that's not acceptable (it doesn't add equal numbers in the House, eastern Washington being pretty paltry population-wise compared to DC), your proposal is better than the way things are now.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
