# No more drugs for the editors of The Economist **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 26, 2008, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339 "2008-09-26T15:03:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![First\_Amongst\_Daves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@First\_Amongst\_Daves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/First_Amongst_Daves)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/1 "2008-09-26T15:03:20Z")
Although it does appear they’re willing to share them. [http://www.economist.com/vote2008/index.cfm?source=most\_commented](http://www.economist.com/vote2008/index.cfm?source=most_commented) > [@](#): > > America’s electoral college > All democratic systems have their quirks, and America’s is no exception. The electoral college is a 200-year-old institution. According to its rules, Americans do not vote directly for their presidents. Instead they cast a ballot to decide who wins their state’s electoral-college votes. The number of these votes is fixed by the number of people the state sends to Congress, which in turn is based on its population. All states have a minimum of three votes and there are 538 electoral-college votes up for grabs in total. The presidential candidate who secures the most electoral-college votes ends up in the White House. The loser invariably ends up on day-time television shows. > > Critics of the electoral-college system say it can produce a president who has lost the popular vote, as happened in 2000. They also complain that the winner-takes-all system employed by most states leads candidates to focus on a small number of “swing states” and ignore more reliably partisan ones. There have consequently been many attempts to reform the electoral-college system—over 700 so far—though until now nobody has suggested that the entire world be included. > > The Global Electoral College > The Economist has redrawn the electoral map to give all 195 of the world’s countries (including the United States) a say in the election’s outcome. As in America, each country has been allocated a minimum of three electoral-college votes with extra votes allocated in proportion to population size. With over 6.5 billion people enfranchised, the result is a much larger electoral college of 9,875 votes. But rally your countrymen—a nation must have at least ten individual votes in order to have its electoral-college votes counted. > > There are few countries whose votes in the Global Electoral College are a foregone conclusion. So the winner is unlikely to be decided by a small number of “swing countries”. Rather, they will have to cobble together a coalition of small, medium and large nations. (A campaign stop in Beijing is recommended, as well as a tour of Africa.) Voting in the Global Electoral College will close at midnight London time on November 1st, when the candidate with most electoral-college votes will be declared the winner. Click on the key to see the breakdown by colour scheme. Fairly certain outcome, but then The Economist has a left-leaning readership. As a magazine which has previously described itself as socially liberal, what was the point of this? Proving that its readership shares its views? Breaking down the votes country by country, its little surprise that 100% of Indonesians involved in the poll have voted for Obama. But the high number of Chinese and Indian votes are extremely suspect. Its a popular UK magazine where, the editor once disclosed, a big chunk of its readership is in the US. Yet somehow almost 2000 people in both China (where the magazine is frequently banned for criticising the government) and India have voted, far, far more than either the UK or the US. Of course China and India are countries with extremely large populations, but to have grossly disproprortionate numbers of voters in this poll in each country suggests that the voting for each country is seriously flawed. It is easy enough to mess up. What is the point of doing something which is so easily distorted and so forseeably distorted, for a magazine which otherwise has an impeccable reputation for credibility? As a gag which will raise eyebrows amongst The Economist’s readership and prove the point, we should all vote for McCain and say we are from Oman. With only 4 votes so far, we can make this little patch of the Middle East bright GOP red, the only country which would be red so far. (Incidentally, if I was an American, I would vote for Obama: that’s not the point.) ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/2 "2008-09-26T15:21:29Z")
I hadn’t realized the rest of the world had joined the US! That’s interesting news. And the fact that they are overwhelmingly Democrats and want Obama is…well, shocking! I’m shocked…SHOCKED…that McCain isn’t doing better world wide. Looks like it’s going to be an Obama landslide! Look at some of those numbers…and in really high population places like China and India. I think McCain should just concede now… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/3 "2008-09-26T16:00:57Z")
When do I get to vote in the Chinese election? ---
**Author:** ![Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Throatwarbler_Mangrove)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/4 "2008-09-26T16:24:38Z")
Maybe they’re just trying to have a bit of fun? Also: > [@](#): > > The Economist has a left-leaning readership If by “left leaning” you mean “Somewhere to the left of Benito Mussolini”. ---
**Author:** ![Lionne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Lionne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lionne)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/5 "2008-09-26T16:28:20Z")
I added my vote a couple of days ago, when I got the “What’s New” email from [economist.com](http://economist.com). I was surprised by his popularity, but I shouldn’t have been…the article linking to the vote [states](http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12285939&fsrc=nwl): “So cast your vote and then keep an eye on the results to test the theory that, if the world could choose, Barack Obama would stroll into the White House.” Not like a die-hard McCain fan would be rushing to join after that lead-in. ---
**Author:** ![Discordia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Discordia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Discordia)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/6 "2008-09-26T16:31:02Z")
> [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](#): > > Maybe they’re just trying to have a bit of fun? > > Also: > > If by “left leaning” you mean “Somewhere to the left of Benito Mussolini”. They, and probably most of their readership, are liberals. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/7 "2008-09-26T16:33:15Z")
> [@Discordia](#): > > They, and probably most of their readership, are liberals. I would say they most echo libertarianism, if one must pin a single political category on them. ---
**Author:** ![vetbridge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b5e925/32.png) [@vetbridge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vetbridge)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/8 "2008-09-26T16:34:54Z")
McCain is kickin ass in El Salvadore! Huh? ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/9 "2008-09-26T16:36:42Z")
_The Economist_ does not have a left-leaning readership or an impeccable reputation for credibility. > [@](#): > > What is the point of doing something which is so easily distorted and so forseeably distorted, 1. To make precisely that point about the electoral college (imagining that it is a surprising or interesting one). 2. To generate comment. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/10 "2008-09-26T16:39:07Z")
> [@Discordia](#): > > They, and probably most of their readership, are liberals. But liberal in the European sense. Americans would probably call them libertarian. The editors are strongly for free markets and minimal governmental interference in social issues. ---
**Author:** ![Discordia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Discordia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Discordia)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/11 "2008-09-26T16:39:36Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > I would say they most echo libertarianism, if one must pin a single political category on them. Yes, I was using the original definition. AFAIK they’re still called “liberal” in Europe. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/12 "2008-09-26T17:33:05Z")
> [@Discordia](#): > > Yes, I was using the original definition. AFAIK they’re still called “liberal” in Europe. That makes sense. On a board based in the US in a thread about the US election to use the “original definition”. One that has absolutely no resemblence to the modern American use of the term Liberal. There is another guy around here who does that, we laugh at him too. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/13 "2008-09-26T17:37:57Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > That makes sense. On a board based in the US in a thread about the US election to use the “original definition”. About the US election as perceived by the world and as reported by a British source. Not unreasonable, then, but certainly requiring clarification. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/14 "2008-09-26T17:38:34Z")
> [@vetbridge](#): > > McCain is kickin ass in El Salvadore! Huh? Yeah, but Obama’s got Sierra Leone locked up.\* Seriously, I didn’t think anyone could top PETA’s breast milk ice cream proposal for stupidity, but this pretty well qualifies. On the flip side, here’s an opportunity for Americans to vote in Tony Blair to be Poodle For Life! \*If you read this as “knocked up”, you are a pervert. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/15 "2008-09-26T17:46:04Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > That makes sense. On a board based in the US in a thread about the US election to use the “original definition”. One that has absolutely no resemblence to the modern American use of the term Liberal. There is another guy around here who does that, we laugh at him too. …discussing a story in a _British_ periodical about the _global_ ramifications of the US Presidential election. ETA: Damn you, **Pleonast**! ---
**Author:** ![Discordia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Discordia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Discordia)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/16 "2008-09-26T17:48:54Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > That makes sense. On a board based in the US in a thread about the US election to use the “original definition”. One that has absolutely no resemblence to the modern American use of the term Liberal. There is another guy around here who does that, we laugh at him too. I’m not American, I used the term as I know it. Should I write aluminum instead of aluminium too? And frankly, the American definition of liberal is an incoherent scare word, so I wouldn’t use it even if I gave a shit about adjusting my language to help poor Americans. ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/17 "2008-09-26T18:21:01Z")
Kind of off topic but The Economist wasn’t the first to think of that, I’ve seen it at least once in a Sci-Fi story I’ve read. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/18 "2008-09-26T18:42:50Z")
> [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](#): > > Maybe they’re just trying to have a bit of fun? Quite. They’re trying to build up their online community; it’s just something to get people talking. Yeah, the result is a foregone conclusion, but so what? Honestly, some of youse take stuff far, far too seriously. And your definition of “liberal” is stupid. And you’re poopyheads. ---
**Author:** ![vetbridge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b5e925/32.png) [@vetbridge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vetbridge)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/19 "2008-09-26T22:25:05Z")
> [@vetbridge](#): > > McCain is kickin ass in El Salvadore! Huh? > [@Jackmannii](#): > > Yeah, but Obama’s got Sierra Leone locked up. It’s a tight race, indeed. Per Wikipedia, the populations: El Salvador = 5.8 million The Republic of Sierra Leone = 6.3 million ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339/20 "2008-09-26T22:34:17Z")
[QUOTE=First Amongst Daves] Breaking down the votes country by country, its little surprise that 100% of Indonesians involved in the poll have voted for Obama. But the high number of Chinese and Indian votes are extremely suspect. Its a popular UK magazine where, the editor once disclosed, a big chunk of its readership is in the US. Yet somehow almost 2000 people in both China (where the magazine is frequently banned for criticising the government) and India have voted, far, far more than either the UK or the US. Of course China and India are countries with extremely large populations, but to have grossly disproprortionate numbers of voters in this poll in each country suggests that the voting for each country is seriously flawed. It is easy enough to mess up. [/quote] The 1900 votes refers to the number of electoral college votes assigned to China based on the size of its population, surely? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-more-drugs-for-the-editors-of-the-economist/465339.md?page=2)