PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID

In article . net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Thanks for the list. You won't hear much about this factoid on the
mainstream media, however, given that the last president to get a
popular majority was Ronald Reagan--twice.


Didn't Bush win a majority of the popular vote in 1988?

The numbers are sometimes skewed a bit by third party candidates.
Especially true in 1968 when the Wallace vote took lots of the vote
which might have gone to Humphrey and, no doubt, a few which would have
gone to Nixon, too.

Subject: PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID
From: Ian MacLure
Date: 9/15/2004 9:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
link.net:

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

What's a neocon? Why won't you answer that question?


It's because he doesn't know. He is uneducated and unintelligent.

You forgot incompetent, insufferable and incontinent.

IBM



Intelligent enough to get into air cadets,graduate and make air crew as a
bombardier which is more than can be said for either of you

"Raoul" wrote in message
...

Didn't Bush win a majority of the popular vote in 1988?


The numbers are sometimes skewed a bit by third party candidates.
Especially true in 1968 when the Wallace vote took lots of the vote
which might have gone to Humphrey and, no doubt, a few which would have
gone to Nixon, too.


But there was no "third party" candidate in 1988. Bush won 53.4% of the
national popular vote.

"Lisakbernacchia" wrote in message
...

Intelligent enough to get into air cadets,graduate and make air crew as a
bombardier which is more than can be said for either of you


How do you know that?

In article odY1d.299698$Oi.13601@fed1read04,
"Leadfoot" writes:

We now have a system where the candidates only care about votes in 14 of 50
states. IS THIS A GOOD IDEA????

Yes.

If we went to a strict popularity contest (Popular vote only) we'd have
a system where only 6 or 7 out of 50 States count - (And not even all
ovf those - The areas that would dominate are a few cities and their
suburbs) IS THAT A GOOD IDEA? Hell, no! Especially when one considers
that these urban areas are net resource sinks - they don't produce
enough of anything to survive, and are dependant an the rest of the
Nation. Giving them unconstrained power to do as they will is a Really
Bad Idea. Think of the conditions that led to the downfall of Rome.
It wouldn't be much different at all.

The Electoral College is a very clever scheme to weight things such
that the rest of teh country gets a voice. It's still largely
weighted by population, but the poetion of the Electoral votes that
are tied to a States existance ('bout 19%) provide a damper on the
dangers of Tyrrany of the Majority. The balance is such that the
Electoral Vote follows the Popular Vote in the main - until the race
is too close to reliably call. It then applies just enough feedback
to prevent the possibility of someone seizing power by only influencing
a few Political Machines (As, indeed existed back in the days of the
Articles of Confederation) to swing his way.

The good news is there is an advantage for some of us as we don't get
inundated with crap campaign commercials on TV

The even better news is that my vote counts more than yours. That's
not a slap at you, personally. It means that we end up with a nation
of equal Citizens - not denizens of a few over-populated conurbations
milking the productive parts of the Nation.

The Founding Fathers wer clever folks.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Then stop labeling your table "popular vote" and likewise stop claiming that
Gore received more votes than Bush. Both are misleading and simply not
true.

If you want to claim that our current vote counting system is unable to
determine who actually got more votes, but the FEC system has "certified"
the "counted votes" [not votes cast, many of which are never counted] to be
so and so, fine.

Of course, stating the truth plainly makes your whole point even more
irrelevant.

Steve Swartz

"Jack G" wrote in message
news:KN02d.6096$MS1.3634@trnddc02...
I have no visibility of other posts that included the table I originally
posted - so yes I did ignore what I can not see.

The numbers that count are the official vote counts. The statistical
analysis is an interesting study - but does not change the official count.

Jack


"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
Jack:

I suspect that you are the same guy who kept ignoring all the
explanations
before, and kept posting and reposting that table. If so, then the
following is a waste of bandwidth; if not, you might find the following
addition (your omission) illuminating:

Mechanical Tally Error:
Bush: 47.87 +/- 3.23 % (95% two-tailed confidence interval)
Go 48.38 +- 3.23 % (95% two tailed confidence interval)

Ballot Undercount Error, 2% - 7% local 3% estimated average (absentee
etc.
ballots "not counted because they have no material effect on outcome")

So conservatively, the 0.51% difference between the two vote count totals
represents about a standard deviation's worth of difference.

So in other words, we are 80% confident that the true vote count could
have
gone either way; and only 20% confident that Gore's total was actually
higher than Bush's.

Not counting, of course, fraud and/or uncounted ballots. This is just
the
mechanical error of the vote counting machines.

Steve


"Jack G" wrote in message
news:h302d.8184$5t4.4608@trnddc01...
From http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Popular Vote:

Bush: 50,456,002 47.87%
Go 50,999,897 48.38%

Looks like more to me!

Jack G.

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
Do your homework.


"Jack G" wrote in message
news:FVO1d.3647$g9.70@trnddc06...
Art, can you name the other presidents who were elected with less
than
a
majority of the popular vote? Or have you forgotten them?

Jack G.

And it is recognized as such- the nationwide popular vote is never actually
counted.

Steve Swartz


"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Jack G" wrote in message
news:dA02d.6092$MS1.2252@trnddc02...
I never mentioned Electoral votes in my post. The topic of Art's post
was
the popular vote.

Then you are wasting your breath--the nationwide popular vote does not
mean
squat.

Brooks


Jack G.
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Jack G" wrote in message
news:h302d.8184$5t4.4608@trnddc01...
From http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Popular Vote:

Bush: 50,456,002 47.87%
Go 50,999,897 48.38%

Looks like more to me!

Uhmmm...I believe his point is in regards to the votes that actually
count--the Electoral College ones. ISTR Bush got more of those?

Brooks


Jack G.

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
Do your homework.


"Jack G" wrote in message
news:FVO1d.3647$g9.70@trnddc06...
Art, can you name the other presidents who were elected with less
than
a
majority of the popular vote? Or have you forgotten them?

Jack G.

HOWEVER

You continue to represent a certain table as "The nationwide Popular Vote"
when the nationwide popular vote isn't even counted.

That's a lie; or at least misrepresenting "X" as "Y."

Steve Swartz


"Jack G" wrote in message
news:fG22d.10285$iS2.5488@trnddc09...
Which was exactly the point I tried to make to ART. Believe me, I know
how
the President is elected.

Jack G.
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Jack G" wrote in message
news:dA02d.6092$MS1.2252@trnddc02...
I never mentioned Electoral votes in my post. The topic of Art's post
was
the popular vote.

Then you are wasting your breath--the nationwide popular vote does not
mean
squat.

Brooks


Jack G.
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Jack G" wrote in message
news:h302d.8184$5t4.4608@trnddc01...
From http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Popular Vote:

Bush: 50,456,002 47.87%
Go 50,999,897 48.38%

Looks like more to me!

Uhmmm...I believe his point is in regards to the votes that actually
count--the Electoral College ones. ISTR Bush got more of those?

Brooks


Jack G.

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
Do your homework.


"Jack G" wrote in message
news:FVO1d.3647$g9.70@trnddc06...
Art, can you name the other presidents who were elected with
less
than
a
majority of the popular vote? Or have you forgotten them?

Jack G.

You may or may not consider this a minor point- but please don't forget that
the "nationwide popular vote" (aside from being irrelevant) is never
actually counted.

The FEC doesn't even have standards or a process for counting the "popular
vote."

This is in addition to the margins of errors for balloting. Ballots are not
counted- that's right, thrown away- if the tally from those ballots won't
affect the electoral votes in play.

This undercount (generally assumed to be proportianally representative of
the counted ballots; a major flaw in the theory ref absentee ballots which
are generally the ones tossed) is in addition to the undercount referred to
in the literature as "residual ballots" which are cast, but unscored, votes.

Overall what most people (yourselves included) refer to as the "Popular
Vote" [sic] is only a very rough, and not even representative, estimate of
only those votes actually tallied- which are themselves subject to error.

There is no such thing as the "national popular vote" except in a
theoretical sense.

Being a polisci guy Ed Rasimus knows more about this than I do, but for
starters check out a good summary report National Buerea of Standards report
500-158 "Accuracy, Integrity, and Security in Computerized Vote-Tallying"
compiled by Roy G. Saltman http://www.itl.nist.gov/lab/specpubs/500-158 and
then track back to the CalTech/MIT studies etc. Also check out the FEC
standards for vote tally accuracy (standards have been "proposed" but are
not yet in force) and machine testing for a discussion of the mechanical
error issues involved at http://www.fec.gov/pages/vssfinal/vss.html for a
good "Apologia" from the government side.

I found it particularly hilarious to read about how "these results should be
treated carefully lest the public lose confidence in their government!"
Yeah, right.

Steve Swartz


Steve Swartz



"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Raoul" wrote in message
...

Didn't Bush win a majority of the popular vote in 1988?


The numbers are sometimes skewed a bit by third party candidates.
Especially true in 1968 when the Wallace vote took lots of the vote
which might have gone to Humphrey and, no doubt, a few which would have
gone to Nixon, too.


But there was no "third party" candidate in 1988. Bush won 53.4% of the
national popular vote.

You may consider this a minor point - but general election ballots almost
always have more than just the Presidential issue - and even thought the
Presidential race may have been determined, the other issues require a vote
count to be determined. Machine and computerized voting count all of the
issues on a ballot. The number of uncounted ballots is therefore quite
small in most states.

Jack G.


"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
You may or may not consider this a minor point- but please don't forget
that
the "nationwide popular vote" (aside from being irrelevant) is never
actually counted.

The FEC doesn't even have standards or a process for counting the "popular
vote."

This is in addition to the margins of errors for balloting. Ballots are
not
counted- that's right, thrown away- if the tally from those ballots won't
affect the electoral votes in play.

This undercount (generally assumed to be proportianally representative of
the counted ballots; a major flaw in the theory ref absentee ballots which
are generally the ones tossed) is in addition to the undercount referred
to
in the literature as "residual ballots" which are cast, but unscored,
votes.

Overall what most people (yourselves included) refer to as the "Popular
Vote" [sic] is only a very rough, and not even representative, estimate of
only those votes actually tallied- which are themselves subject to error.

There is no such thing as the "national popular vote" except in a
theoretical sense.

Being a polisci guy Ed Rasimus knows more about this than I do, but for
starters check out a good summary report National Buerea of Standards
report
500-158 "Accuracy, Integrity, and Security in Computerized Vote-Tallying"
compiled by Roy G. Saltman http://www.itl.nist.gov/lab/specpubs/500-158
and
then track back to the CalTech/MIT studies etc. Also check out the FEC
standards for vote tally accuracy (standards have been "proposed" but are
not yet in force) and machine testing for a discussion of the mechanical
error issues involved at http://www.fec.gov/pages/vssfinal/vss.html for a
good "Apologia" from the government side.

I found it particularly hilarious to read about how "these results should
be
treated carefully lest the public lose confidence in their government!"
Yeah, right.

Steve Swartz


Steve Swartz



"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Raoul" wrote in message
...

Didn't Bush win a majority of the popular vote in 1988?


The numbers are sometimes skewed a bit by third party candidates.
Especially true in 1968 when the Wallace vote took lots of the vote
which might have gone to Humphrey and, no doubt, a few which would have
gone to Nixon, too.


But there was no "third party" candidate in 1988. Bush won 53.4% of the
national popular vote.