I don’t think it could but this piqued my curiosity and I took a quick trip to wikipedia and and did some math to discover that with 100% voter turnout, the President of the United States could be put in office by winning half the population of eleven states at ~79,850,000 people or 27% of the population.
When less than half the population turns out to vote, that falls to an even lower ~39,925,000 or 14% and when you factor out the people that cannot or do not vote due to age, criminal record, or national identity, it falls to an even lower number and percentage although, obviously, that number’s not known.
Yeah, I know. Your post just made me curious though and when I discovered the results of my little experiment, I just had to share. It’s astonishing that only 14% of the population could put the President in office.
Do you think Bush has done a good job? Do you think he is best suited for the job? If not, then vote for a new guy. Please! You may have reservations about Kerry but at this point they are only speculative. He hasn’t had the chance to perform as CiC. Bush, on the other hand, has had the opportunity to the show the world what he can do. And the world is vastly unimpressed.
People, please do not waive your right to vote. Just think about all those people who have died to attain suffrage in this country! Even if you live in a state that wouldn’t swing if a tornado blew on it, you should still vote. No one knows what kind of shadiness will go down on Nov 2, and it would be truly unfortunate if Bush “stole” a state simply because people assumed incorrectly.
If someone really doesn’t have a strong preference, I don’t fault her or him for not voting. And that person retains the right to criticize just as much as those who thought that George W. would be more like his father and have lived to regret voting for him in 2000.
But I am puzzled why anyone would want a continuation of the way things are.
I haven’t actually worked the numbers but it sounds like it isn’t possible but I don’t like using absolutes so I answered your response, which was:
I think the point continuity was trying to make is a simple one and attempting to confuse it this way is unnecessary. Until we do away with the electoral college a third party candidate stands a snowballs chance in hell of making any serious run for the presidency. Forget about the specifics regarding the example he gave. It is absolutely possible for someone to win the election with a very small percentage of the popular vote. That is completely unacceptable IMHO. Once upon a time the electoral college served a function…today, I don’t think so. It’s all a big show. Just like the national conventions, they are a disgrace to the political process.
I actually agree. But I can’t for the life of me understand why my sweetie’s voting Libertarian. He doesn’t like Bush much more, if any more, than I do. The only way to get him out, as far as I can tell, is to vote for Kerry.
At least he isn’t voting for Bush…unless that’s why he brought me roses tonight, to soften me up prior to telling me! g
Yeah, I really don’t like that part of their platform. Overall I like the concept of personal responsibility and government being “out of my face”, but I don’t care for their ideas on national lands. I don’t even really see the logic of privatizing land to make it more well cared-for.
But, I challenge any voter to tell me they agree with every single point of the platform held by the party they’re voting for.
Hey, maybe everyone here at the SDMB should get together and form their own political party! Just one word of advice though - the “Doper Party” probably isn’t very good marketing…
Wait, what? That’s not mathematically possible. Not in any way. One cannot have an aggregate sum of 50% of the popular vote without carrying at least 50% in at least one state. And you can’t be ‘second’ if you get over 50% of the vote.
As for third parties being meaningful- sure, that’s possible, even in winner-take-all. Take the 2000 election- even though Nader didn’t get enough votes to beat out “margin of error” in most polls, he still took enough from Gore to hand the election to Bush. This led to much discussion as to whether the Democrats should lean leftwards in 2004 to recapture that vote.
If third parties aren’t being effective, it’s because the tow major parties do a very good job of covering all issues, and most Americans are satisfied with voting for someone who kinda supports their position, as opposed to consantly searching for someone who exactly matches their position.
You make the mistake of assuming these people have half a brain.
As to the people old enough to remember the 2000 election and stupid enough to still believe your vote doesn’t count, I have some beach front property in Iowa that I’d like to sell you.
Captain amazing, as a gay man you have a duty to vote, so get your ass to your local precint. I really have no time for this defeatist attitude I see. All it takes to turn the tide is to get 220, 201 people to vote for Kerry. That’s far from impossible, but if people just say, “ah, screw it, we can’t win,” then you only guarantee victory for the homophobes and the bigots through self-fulfilling prophecy.
For people who live in swing states…since the Florida example, I think third party candidates actually hurt the process. But in states like mine that are solid in one party or the other. Third party candidates are an opportunuity for us to at least speak out some. If I voted for either major party…it’s like a drop in an ocean. But WE could all go to the polls and endirse a candidate other than the two pitiful choices that we have.
If enough people raised hell about the electoral college…a third candidate might actually have a chance in a popular vote.
I believe that under Cheney’s classification system, that should actually read: more than 101,252 coalition deaths. Remember, Iraq is part of the coalition.
