# A few questions about the mechanics of the US election from a limey (not political) **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 15, 2004, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-questions-about-the-mechanics-of-the-us-election-from-a-limey-not-political/269364 "2004-10-15T13:06:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![dqa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dqa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dqa)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2004, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-questions-about-the-mechanics-of-the-us-election-from-a-limey-not-political/269364/61 "2004-10-16T16:13:22Z")
> [@Dr. Lao](#): > > This is a point I don’t think anyone stressed. The key word here is “pledged.” As far as I know, there is no requirement in most states for the Electors to vote for who they’re “supposed” to vote for. They can vote for Mickey Mouse for president and Donald Duck for VP if they wanted to, regardless of what their state’s population wanted. This is exploited by the occasional protest vote. In 1976 an elector voted for Ronald Reagan instead of Ford, and in 1988 an elector voted Bentsen for pres, Dukakis for VP, instead of the opposite. And in 2000, one Gore elector abstained. In first day or two after the election in 2000, one possible combination of the very close states where the election was still in doubt led to a one electoral vote margin of victory. There was speculation that enormous pressure would be brought to bear to convince one or another elector to break from their party. Had that happened, the groundswell of discontent that **owlstretchingtime** suggested would likely have materialized. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2004, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-questions-about-the-mechanics-of-the-us-election-from-a-limey-not-political/269364/62 "2004-10-16T20:52:09Z")
> [@](#): > > If you read this thread does it not occur to you that your system is ridiculously complex? I understand that it comes about for a variety of historical factors - but surely if you were starting again you wouldn’t do it like this. Complexity is in the eyes of the beholder. Rest assured we look at your government and wonder why you don’t abandon such a complicated system for a simpler one like ours. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2004, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-questions-about-the-mechanics-of-the-us-election-from-a-limey-not-political/269364/63 "2004-10-17T01:38:31Z")
Just a little more detail on felons and voting. I saw this on MSNBC last night. Two states (both in the Northeast) forbid convcted felons from voting only while the felon is actually in prison. 14 states forbid convicted felons from voting under any circumstances (excepting of course, a full pardon) However, the remaining 34 states forbid convicted felons from voting while they are on probation or parole. Once they have satisfied the terms of their probation/parole, the right to vote is restored. In other words “convicted felons can’t vote” is true only about 1/4 of the states. In the rest of the U.S., it’s more like “convicted felons who are still under the supervision of the criminal justice system can’t vote.” ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2004, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-questions-about-the-mechanics-of-the-us-election-from-a-limey-not-political/269364/64 "2004-10-17T19:22:21Z")
> [@](#): > > In presidential elections, the electoral college limits the damage that can be caused by fraud or corruption to the state level. If there is massive fraud in Butte, Montana, it can only change the result in Montana. It doesn’t affect the selection of electors in other states. If the president was selected by national popular vote, a disputed election would make Florida in 2000 look like the good old days. Every disputed ballot in every state would be important. Lawyers would roam the land like swarms of locusts. But on the other hand, without the Electoral College, such a situation would be far rarer. The election in Florida in 2000 was a statistical tie (that is to say, one cannot be statistically confident that either candidate won), but large sample sizes tend to make things much easier in statistics. So unlikely as it is in a single state, it’s much less likely in the nation as a whole. ---
**Author:** ![yabob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yabob/32/2821_2.png) [@yabob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yabob)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2004, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-questions-about-the-mechanics-of-the-us-election-from-a-limey-not-political/269364/65 "2004-10-17T19:49:10Z")
Regarding disputations and the electoral college: Another odd case was 1876, which had its parallels to the 2000 situation. Four states, including Florida, ironically enough, had disputed results, with conflicting boards of electors claiming to represent the states, certified as “official” by different factions of government. It was actually a bigger mess than 2000, which, as observed was simply too close for a statistically valid result in Florida: > **[1876 United States presidential election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1876)** > > Ulysses S. Grant > Republican > Rutherford B. Hayes > Republican via Electoral Commission > The 1876 United States presidential election was the 23rd quadrennial presidential election, held on Tuesday, November 7, 1876, in which Republican nominee Rutherford B. Hayes faced Democrat Samuel J. Tilden. It was one of the most contentious presidential elections in American history and its resolution involved negotiations and compromise between the Republicans and Democrats. On one hand, the system survived that mess, so that says something about its robustness. On the other hand, it also points out how entrenched it is - even a crisis of that magnitude didn’t cause it to be overhauled. ---
**Author:** ![owlstretchingtime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/958977/32.png) [@owlstretchingtime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/owlstretchingtime)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-questions-about-the-mechanics-of-the-us-election-from-a-limey-not-political/269364/66 "2004-10-18T11:37:02Z")
Having criticised the US process a bit I think it’s only fair to tell you what we do when the result is tied in a constituency - we toss a coin. This actually happened in my home town - Winchester (that’s Old winchester in Old Hampshire in Old England). So there’s quirks in all systems. ---
**Author:** ![OxyMoron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e9a140/32.png) [@OxyMoron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OxyMoron)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-questions-about-the-mechanics-of-the-us-election-from-a-limey-not-political/269364/67 "2004-10-18T14:55:28Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > I, for one, have always believed that the electoral college system is scandalously undemocratic. I also believe that the Constitution has calcified ideas about the “separateness” of the states that don’t have any basis in modern reality – we really are one country, not 50 separate ones, and I believe we ought to change our political system to reflect that. And I believe it is scandalously _democratic_, particularly our western states’ reliance on referenda, and that we abandon our states only at our enormous peril. States are decidedly inconvenient, particularly since many metropolitan areas cross state boundaries, but at least they provide some basis of legitimacy for an upper house that protects minority interests. I believe Britain has had some difficulty figuring out just how to reform the House of Lords in a way that makes sense, and Japan has been diddling with its House of Councillors for decades. And I also am _emphatically_ of the belief that we shouldn’t be encouraging voting any more than we already are. Voting requires sacrifice, and if you can’t will your arse to get yourself registered (which is quite easy in most places) and into a polling station at some point during the 14+ hours that they’re typically open, then you shouldn’t be voting at all. No whining, if you’re not willing to take even these basic steps as a citizen then you don’t deserve to be treated as a citizen. Oh, and in a nation that’s as diverse as the U.S., the last thing we need is proportional representation - that would be a guarantee of regional disintigration. Bad enough that our two parties are increasingly geographically isolated - but enabling third parties to gain traction would accelerate the trend. Plus, our system has the salutary effect of forcing people to make unpleasant choices - generally, the two-party system produces compromise candidates that not many people actually _like_. But _life_ is mostly unpleasant choices, and it’s utterly adolescent to presume that one should be able to choose a candidate whose positions match one’s own peculiar beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-questions-about-the-mechanics-of-the-us-election-from-a-limey-not-political/269364/68 "2004-10-18T15:17:10Z")
> [@OxyMoron](#): > > And I believe it is scandalously _democratic_ You believe the electoral college is scandalously democratic or that the entire political system is scandalously democratic? In reference to the electoral college, I wouldn’t be so bothered if it was undemocratic and **fair** , but it is, in fact, undemocratic and **unfair** , and it leaves more than half the population disenfranchised. > [@](#): > > particularly our western states’ reliance on referenda I also agree that, while perhaps more democratic, the referendum system is inefficient and leads to nonsensical results based on decisions by insufficiently informed voters. Yeah, vote for the legislators and let them work out legislation. > [@](#): > > and that we abandon our states only at our enormous peril. _Enormous_ peril? Bit of hyperbole. Anyway, I don’t argue that we should _abandon_ the states. We should only rid ourselves of the silly notion that the states should be treated as sovereign entities and that the states have rights against the federal government. Principally, I believe we should rid ourselves of the notion that the states choose our president rather than the people as a whole. > [@](#): > > States are decidedly inconvenient, particularly since many metropolitan areas cross state boundaries, but at least they provide some basis of legitimacy for an upper house that protects minority interests. I have no problem with this. > [@](#): > > I believe Britain has had some difficulty figuring out just how to reform the House of Lords in a way that makes sense, and Japan has been diddling with its House of Councillors for decades. What role an upper house should have is a problem in any parliamentary democracy, because essentially all governmental powers reside in the lower house. I’m not suggesting we switch to a parliamentary system; I like separation of powers. > [@](#): > > And I also am _emphatically_ of the belief that we shouldn’t be encouraging voting any more than we already are. Voting requires sacrifice, and if you can’t will your arse to get yourself registered (which is quite easy in most places) and into a polling station at some point during the 14+ hours that they’re typically open, then you shouldn’t be voting at all. No whining, if you’re not willing to take even these basic steps as a citizen then you don’t deserve to be treated as a citizen. I would argue that the following steps would be beneficial: 1. Federalize election regulation and make the rules uniform for _all_ voting, while leaving the actual administration of the rules to locally elected officials. 2. Eliminate the requirement for registration in advance. 3. Either: (a) Make election day a mandated paid holiday, or (b) Hold the election over a period of several days (say a week) that includes a Saturday and a Sunday. > [@](#): > > Oh, and in a nation that’s as diverse as the U.S., the last thing we need is proportional representation - that would be a guarantee of regional disintigration. Bad enough that our two parties are increasingly geographically isolated - but enabling third parties to gain traction would accelerate the trend. I agree it would have the opposite effect. Yes, we have a polarized electorate, but it is polarized on geographical lines only under a winner-take-all system. Proportional representation would empower people across the political spectrum no matter where they lived and cause them to create nation-wide constituencies. However, I’m not really a proportional representation advocate when it comes to U.S. senators and representatives. I would like to see some sort of neutral commission drawing district lines to make them fair, however. > [@](#): > > Plus, our system has the salutary effect of forcing people to make unpleasant choices - generally, the two-party system produces compromise candidates that not many people actually _like_. But _life_ is mostly unpleasant choices, and it’s utterly adolescent to presume that one should be able to choose a candidate whose positions match one’s own peculiar beliefs. Coalition-building also requires compromise. ---
**Author:** ![OxyMoron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e9a140/32.png) [@OxyMoron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OxyMoron)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-questions-about-the-mechanics-of-the-us-election-from-a-limey-not-political/269364/69 "2004-10-18T19:14:16Z")
My post was dangerously close to GD territory, and I apologize; I’ll try to keep my answers more factual. **Ascenray** makes some excellent points. > [@acsenray](#): > > You believe the electoral college is scandalously democratic or that the entire political system is scandalously democratic? In reference to the electoral college, I wouldn’t be so bothered if it was undemocratic and **fair** , but it is, in fact, undemocratic and **unfair** , and it leaves more than half the population disenfranchised. Well, that’s rather question-begging, isn’t it - since you seem to believe that what makes it unfair is that it’s undemocratic! 😃 Seriously, the fact that only some states are competitive at any given moment doesn’t seem to be that problematic, because it tends to change over time. Right now, New York and California are considered Democratic gimmes - but that wasn’t true as recently as 1988, and it may not be true in the future. > [@](#): > > I don’t argue that we should _abandon_ the states. We should only rid ourselves of the silly notion that the states should be treated as sovereign entities and that the states have rights against the federal government. Principally, I believe we should rid ourselves of the notion that the states choose our president rather than the people as a whole. Well, the fact that states are sovereign is part of the original Constitutional bargain, and the Electoral College is merely an example of that dual sovereignty. But the deeper point is that like the Senate, the Electoral College is designed to ensure that the least-populated states don’t get screwed. Right now, that aspect makes life a little easier for the Republicans because they have a lock on much of rural America - you can add up a lot of over-weighted Wyomings and New Hampshires to help balance the big states. But the basic principal - that we don’t let the big population centers control the country - is just as valid now as it was 217 years ago. > [@](#): > > I would argue that the following steps would be beneficial: > > 1. Federalize election regulation and make the rules uniform for _all_ voting, while leaving the actual administration of the rules to locally elected officials. > 2. Eliminate the requirement for registration in advance. > 3. Either: > (a) Make election day a mandated paid holiday, or > (b) Hold the election over a period of several days (say a week) that includes a Saturday and a Sunday. These all sound sensible, provided they’re paired with a national ID card that one would have to show in order to vote. ID requirements for registration are often very low, and if we’re to get rid of registration, we must care about ID. > [@](#): > > I agree \*[believe?]\*it would have the opposite effect. Yes, we have a polarized electorate, but it is polarized on geographical lines only under a winner-take-all system. Proportional representation would empower people across the political spectrum no matter where they lived and cause them to create nation-wide constituencies. Mmmm, not convinced. What you’re assuming is that a single ideology might be thinly represented around the nation, and for most ideologies I don’t think that’s correct - even now, people of like minds tend to congregate together. Sure, there are fundamentalist Christians in Seattle and environmentalists in Alabama, but they’re tiny minorities in those places. I don’t think that having either a Green party or a Christian party would exactly benefit the republic on a national scale. > [@](#): > > However, I’m not really a proportional representation advocate when it comes to U.S. senators and representatives. I would like to see some sort of neutral commission drawing district lines to make them fair, however. Agreed. But to some degree, current gerrymandering is just payback for forty years of House control by democrats. There are exceptions - Iowa uses independent, nonpartisan redistricting commissions, and consequently their House races are more competitive than almost anyplace else. > [@](#): > > Coalition-building also requires compromise. Not of the voters, it doesn’t. It only requires compromise by the politicians themselves, which effectively lets voters off the hook from having to make adult, unpleasant choices. ---
**Author:** ![owlstretchingtime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/958977/32.png) [@owlstretchingtime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/owlstretchingtime)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2004, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-questions-about-the-mechanics-of-the-us-election-from-a-limey-not-political/269364/70 "2004-10-19T09:28:03Z")
> [@OxyMoron](#): > > I believe Britain has had some difficulty figuring out just how to reform the House of Lords in a way that makes sense, . This is a salutary lesson. The House of Lords was completely indefensible at every level - the idea that you should be governed by accident of birth doesn’t really work anymore (apart from the Queen - but she’s different). However the old HOL actually worked very well, as the Lords were there by genetic accident they represented a fairly wide spectrum of opinion, also they had no party allegiance (although some chose to align with a party). The new and improved HOL is a right bugger’s muddle. This is being shown up by the foxhunting farrago. In the past the commons could over-rule the Lords with some legitimacy, now that the Lords is more representative it is more troublesome to cavalierly over rule (especially over some thing as trivial as fox-bothering). Sometimes leaving well alone is the best policy. ---
**Author:** ![owlstretchingtime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/958977/32.png) [@owlstretchingtime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/owlstretchingtime)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2004, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-questions-about-the-mechanics-of-the-us-election-from-a-limey-not-political/269364/71 "2004-10-27T13:52:34Z")
One last thing. When will the result be known (assuming no more chad stuff)? ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2004, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-questions-about-the-mechanics-of-the-us-election-from-a-limey-not-political/269364/72 "2004-10-27T14:19:20Z")
> [@owlstretchingtime](#): > > One last thing. When will the result be known (assuming no more chad stuff)? Assuming no more chad stuff, you’ll have the results the next day. Unfortunately, given the fact that everybody’s already primed to sue over fraud, there will be more “chad stuff.” So who knows. Incidentally, when I was working in Parliament, I worked for the rep from Winchester. Even lived there for a couple months. Nice town. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2004, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-questions-about-the-mechanics-of-the-us-election-from-a-limey-not-political/269364/73 "2004-10-27T14:23:18Z")
> [@owlstretchingtime](#): > > One last thing. When will the result be known (assuming no more chad stuff)? If _you_ have any good idea, I encourage you to [enter the poll!](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=283119) In most elections, it’s abundantly clear by the next morning who’s won and who’s lost, and the losing candidate has publicly conceded defeat. The 2000 election was, we thought, unusual, but this year could turn out to be just as much of a muddle. ---
**Author:** ![owlstretchingtime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/958977/32.png) [@owlstretchingtime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/owlstretchingtime)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2004, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-questions-about-the-mechanics-of-the-us-election-from-a-limey-not-political/269364/74 "2004-10-27T14:42:49Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > Assuming no more chad stuff, you’ll have the results the next day. > > Unfortunately, given the fact that everybody’s already primed to sue over fraud, there will be more “chad stuff.” So who knows. > > Incidentally, when I was working in Parliament, I worked for the rep from Winchester. Even lived there for a couple months. Nice town. What sort of time wil the results be known? Also do you mean Mark Oaten? Seems to be making a fair fist of hanging onto a natural Tory town. The rotter. It is a nice town though - nice pubs and such a lot of them. The two tories before him (Malone and Brown) have a LOT to answer for. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2004, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-questions-about-the-mechanics-of-the-us-election-from-a-limey-not-political/269364/75 "2004-10-27T15:00:39Z")
> [@owlstretchingtime](#): > > Also do you mean Mark Oaten? Seems to be making a fair fist of hanging onto a natural Tory town. The rotter. It is a nice town though - nice pubs and such a lot of them. I do mean for Oaten. Nice guy, I like him a lot. He’s doing a pretty good job of holding on, but really, it’s only because the Tories have been running complete chumps against him. If they managed to get someone competent in there, he’d be in trouble - and he knows it. He works ridiculously hard on “pothole politics” to try and keep himself established since being an incumbent is really his only advantage. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2004, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-questions-about-the-mechanics-of-the-us-election-from-a-limey-not-political/269364/76 "2004-10-27T15:02:24Z")
> [@owlstretchingtime](#): > > What sort of time wil the results be known? You should know the results by the next morning (US time). Again, assuming no chad problems. Which there will be. Assume Election 2000 ugliness. ---
**Author:** ![owlstretchingtime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/958977/32.png) [@owlstretchingtime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/owlstretchingtime)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2004, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-questions-about-the-mechanics-of-the-us-election-from-a-limey-not-political/269364/77 "2004-10-27T15:11:02Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > You should know the results by the next morning (US time). > > Again, assuming no chad problems. Which there will be. Assume Election 2000 ugliness. Why are people so sure that there will be problems? ---
**Author:** ![owlstretchingtime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/958977/32.png) [@owlstretchingtime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/owlstretchingtime)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2004, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-questions-about-the-mechanics-of-the-us-election-from-a-limey-not-political/269364/78 "2004-10-27T15:17:32Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > I do mean for Oaten. Nice guy, I like him a lot. > > He’s doing a pretty good job of holding on, but really, it’s only because the Tories have been running complete chumps against him. If they managed to get someone competent in there, he’d be in trouble - and he knows it. He works ridiculously hard on “pothole politics” to try and keep himself established since being an incumbent is really his only advantage. Who are the Tories putting up against him this time? I really don’t like gettingg involved in MP selection as the last one I helped choose was found dead on a table; wearing ladies underwear; with a dog collar round his neck; a plastic bag on his head and a tangerine soaked in amyl nitrate in his mouth. Believe me he didn’t mention _that_ in his presentation under hobbies! That let the Liberals into Eastleigh. They’re still there. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2004, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-questions-about-the-mechanics-of-the-us-election-from-a-limey-not-political/269364/79 "2004-10-27T15:20:35Z")
> [@robby](#): > > 1. Each state decides its own method for apportioning its electoral votes. Every state except two have a “winner take all” setup, no matter how close the results are. However, Colorado votes this November 2 on an initiative to change their system to a proportional distribution of electoral votes, and if the initiative passes, it takes effect immediately. However, it will certainly get challenged in court (especially if it tips the outcome of the election), on the question of whether the referendum is legal (the US Constitution explicitly assigns the state legislature the power to determine how a state’s electors shall be chosen – in theory, a state doesn’t have to hold a popular vote for President at all, and most of them in the early years of the Republic didn’t). There is some case law supporting the proposition that a referendum carried out under a general referendum law set up by the state legislature would qualify. IANAL, so I can’t say how convincing it is. ---
**Author:** ![aahala](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a88e4f/32.png) [@aahala](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aahala)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2004, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-questions-about-the-mechanics-of-the-us-election-from-a-limey-not-political/269364/80 "2004-10-27T15:26:51Z")
The news organizations will be gun shy in projecting the winner of any extremely close state. Despite that, assuming the vote will be nearly as close as 2000, we are likely to know with some degree of certainty the overall winner by midnight or before Central Time. We are unlikely to see in our lifetimes another election quite like 2000. In included several uncommon or extremely uncommon elements all at once. The relatively large number states electorally won or lost by tiny percentages combined with this:the margin Bush had electorally in the clear winner states was almost exactly mirrored by the margin Gore won in the really close states. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-questions-about-the-mechanics-of-the-us-election-from-a-limey-not-political/269364.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-questions-about-the-mechanics-of-the-us-election-from-a-limey-not-political/269364.md?page=5)