Predictions!
ROB32905
Bush wins a close one over Gore. Buchanan gets less than 5% of the vote,
more or less ending the Reform Party, since it will no longer qualify for
matching funds and has no real platform, just personalities. I also think
Buchanan will slink back to the GOP after the election (if they allow him
back, which is unlikely). Nader will take about the same amount as Buchanan,
and will be largely blamed for Gore's loss since his support is largely
derived from would-be Gore voters.
Lazio loses a close one to Hillary (but even if she loses, I'll bet Bill
appoints her to something so she will remain in gov't for a long time to
come). She immediately becomes the media's front runner in 2004. I urge
everyone to donate money to the Lazio campaign, and fast! Even a low-income
person like myself found ten bucks to give to the guy.
GOP maintains a slight majority in the House, and slight majority in the
Senate. Connie Mack loses his seat in Florida, but the New Jersey Republican
candidate beats the rich-boy Dem.
VP's :
Gore : The Senator from Indiana (Evan Baugh or something).
Bush : Tom Ridge, governor of Pennsylvania. He is pro-choice, and this leads
some on the right to vote for Buchanan, but not enough to effect the result.
Buchanan : Dunno. But maybe Dr. Laura.
Nader : Dunno. But maybe Jerry Brown, which helps him get over 10% in
California.
Rob
E-mail me with your icq number or aol instant messenger name for real-time
debate!
Andrew J. Brehm
> 2000 election results :
>
> Bush wins a close one over Gore. Buchanan gets less than 5% of the vote,
> more or less ending the Reform Party, since it will no longer qualify for
> matching funds and has no real platform, just personalities. I also think
> Buchanan will slink back to the GOP after the election (if they allow him
> back, which is unlikely). Nader will take about the same amount as Buchanan,
> and will be largely blamed for Gore's loss since his support is largely
> derived from would-be Gore voters.
I don't understand. Wouldn't Nader's electors have the chance to vote
for Gore?
--
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
James DiBenedetto
"Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
No, because Nader wouldn't have any electors. Electors go winner-take-all to the
winner of the popular vote in each state. Nader will (hopefully) take some of the
popular vote away from Gore, that's all.
Not to mention how much of the labor vote Gore would lose if Pat Buchanan actually
somehow manages to convince Jimmy Hoffa Jr. to join his ticket as VP candidate...
--
"Sheriff John Burton was prepared for a confrontation
with DEA agents, he was prepared for a high-speed
escape, he was even prepared for a shoot-out with Mexican
drug dealers, if it came to that. He was, however, not
prepared to see a Mercedes cruise by with a Labrador
retriever at the wheel."
Steven D. Litvintchouk
> > Nader will take about the same amount as Buchanan,
> > and will be largely blamed for Gore's loss since his support is largely
> > derived from would-be Gore voters.
>
> I don't understand. Wouldn't Nader's electors have the chance to vote
> for Gore?
in our system, each state's electors are "winner take all". Thus Nader
can only win electors if he wins a plurality of the vote in at least one
state. And I strongly doubt that Nader can win a plurality in any
state.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: s...@mitre.org
Disclaimer: As far as I am aware, the opinions expressed
herein
are not those of my employer.
Andrew J. Brehm
> "Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
> >
> > ROB32905 <ROB3...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 2000 election results :
> > >
> > > Bush wins a close one over Gore. . . .
> > > Nader will take about the same amount as Buchanan,
> > > and will be largely blamed for Gore's loss since his support is largely
> > > derived from would-be Gore voters.
> >
> > I don't understand. Wouldn't Nader's electors have the chance to vote
> > for Gore?
>
> in our system, each state's electors are "winner take all". Thus Nader
> can only win electors if he wins a plurality of the vote in at least one
> state. And I strongly doubt that Nader can win a plurality in any
> state.
I thought it was winner take all in some states, and more democratic in
others.
Anyway, there is a flaw in your system.
If you are interested in other ways to elect a president (head of
state), read on. If you are not, ignore the rest.
Presedential elections in Germany:
Period: 5 years.
Max. periods: 2.
The German president is elected by an electoral college consisting of
all the members of the federal parliament, and a corresponding number of
representatives from the state governments.
There are three elections. To win a candidate must gain more than 50% in
either the first or the second, or most of the votes in the third.
Presidential elections are thus not a mirror of a very current situation
(like the majority's opinion at some specific day in november), but a
mirror of all the elections in the last five years.
There never was a president in Germany who was not respected and liked
by a very large majority of the people, even in times when the president
was still elected directly by the people (Hitler does not count, as he
was not elected president).
Maybe this idea might help?
Norman G. Purves
Andrew J. Brehm <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote in article
<1ecitph.x07xtm1rhd25tN@[192.168.0.144]>...
>
> I thought it was winner take all in some states, and more democratic in
> others.
>
No. Theoretically, an elector is able to cast his vote for anyone, but this
rarely happens. (I beleive the last time it happened was in 1960, when a
Kennedy elector actually voted for a senator named John Sparkman).
> Anyway, there is a flaw in your system.
"A" flaw? Only *one*? Most of us in the USA can recite a *long list* of
flaws in our system! But we love it nonetheless...
>
> If you are interested in other ways to elect a president (head of
> state), read on. If you are not, ignore the rest.
>
>
> Presedential elections in Germany:
>
> Period: 5 years.
> Max. periods: 2.
>
> The German president is elected by an electoral college consisting of
> all the members of the federal parliament, and a corresponding number of
> representatives from the state governments.
>
> There are three elections. To win a candidate must gain more than 50% in
> either the first or the second, or most of the votes in the third.
Only three? In America, we have *dozens* of presidential elections! Most of
them, of course, are "primaries", in which voters in individual states
choose candidates for nomination by the various political parties.
>
> Presidential elections are thus not a mirror of a very current situation
> (like the majority's opinion at some specific day in november), but a
> mirror of all the elections in the last five years.
This would not work well in America, for reasons explained below. I have
seen Germany (my wife is German, and I have numerous reletives there). The
two countries are different in many ways, so their governments are
different.
>
> There never was a president in Germany who was not respected and liked
> by a very large majority of the people, even in times when the president
> was still elected directly by the people (Hitler does not count, as he
> was not elected president).
The office of President in the USA is quite different from the office in
the BRD. Your president is Head Of State, but your Chancellor is head of
Government as well as leader of the legislative branch. In the US, the
President is head of State *and* head of government, but *not* the leader
of the legislature. The Presidency of the United States is a much more
powerful office than that of the BRD. Too powerful, many Americans
beleive...
The USA is much different from the BRD in many ways: larger, more people,
more diverse geographically, ethnically, culturally, and in other ways. It
is often difficult for Europeans to understand America- indeed, it is often
difficult for *Americans* to understand their own country. Although the USA
is older, as a unified political entity, than Germany, our culture is much
younger. :"Dynamic" is a word which does not adequately describe it- it's
more like a permanent state of near-chaos. We thrive on this, we always
have. In such a country, however, it is impossible to establish anything
like the sort of consensus that is acheived in Germany. We are accustomed
to reaching decisions, even vitally important ones, in the constant
presence of significant dissent. Politics in America is a continuous
campaign, one that never really ends. As soon as one election is concluded,
the campaign for the next begins. This system was deliberately set up this
way- it was recognized, more than 200 years ago, that America would
continue to change and evolve, often with stupefying speed, and in
unpredictable ways. Our political system was engineered to accomodate this.
>
> Maybe this idea might help?
Sorry. It may not appear to be true from across the Atlantic, but our
method of choosing our leaders is dear to our hearts. It is the thing about
our democracy that we love the most. It's a good bet that we will never
deliberately change it, except in minor, superficial ways. Changes in our
society will produce changes in this system, but these changes will be
evolutionary in nature. The forms of our election system are the same as
200 years ago, even as the actual process has changed, in many ways beyond
recognition. They are not conscious changes. Our political system changes
along with us, automatically. If there is one fundamental strength in our
system this is it: it is perfectly adapted to us, and we to it.
>
> --
> Fan of Woody Allen
> PowerPC User
> Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
>
Anyone who supports pepperoni pizza is a true champion of freedom and
democracy. Note that pepperoni pizza is unknown in North Korea... ;o)
Aloha
Norman
Andrew J. Brehm
> > The German president is elected by an electoral college consisting of
> > all the members of the federal parliament, and a corresponding number of
> > representatives from the state governments.
> >
> > There are three elections. To win a candidate must gain more than 50% in
> > either the first or the second, or most of the votes in the third.
>
> Only three? In America, we have *dozens* of presidential elections! Most of
> them, of course, are "primaries", in which voters in individual states
> choose candidates for nomination by the various political parties.
That's three elections until the winner is set. I understand the college
only votes once and the candidate with the most votes is the winner,
making it virtually impossible for third-party candidates to win, even
if they have electors.
We have primaries too (but they are limited to party members).
> > There never was a president in Germany who was not respected and liked
> > by a very large majority of the people, even in times when the president
> > was still elected directly by the people (Hitler does not count, as he
> > was not elected president).
>
> The office of President in the USA is quite different from the office in
> the BRD. Your president is Head Of State, but your Chancellor is head of
> Government as well as leader of the legislative branch.
The chancellor is _not_ the leader of the legislative branch, he depends
on the legislative though.
The difference is that we have a three people for the job one person
does in your country. We have a president (as head of state and for
representing the state), a chancellor (for domestic affairs), and a
vice-chancellor (for foreign affairs). Their power is also limited by
the existence of individual state governments, which seem to have more
power than American state governors. The German states have different
school systems, different election systems, and some have their own flag
REPLACING the German flag.
> In the US, the
> President is head of State *and* head of government, but *not* the leader
> of the legislature.
There is no central leader of the legislative branch in Germany. The
best I can offer is the majority leader in the parliament.
> The Presidency of the United States is a much more
> powerful office than that of the BRD. Too powerful, many Americans
> beleive...
That's my point.
> The USA is much different from the BRD in many ways: larger, more people,
Germany is only one part of the European Union. And the European Union
is about the size of the US, and has about the same population, I
believe.
> more diverse geographically, ethnically, culturally, and in other ways. It
> is often difficult for Europeans to understand America- indeed, it is often
> difficult for *Americans* to understand their own country. Although the USA
> is older, as a unified political entity, than Germany,
The individual German states are much older than the individual American
states. The current union is younger. The city of Bremen for example has
been a republic for hundreds of years (with interruptions).
> our culture is much
> younger. :"Dynamic" is a word which does not adequately describe it- it's
> more like a permanent state of near-chaos. We thrive on this, we always
> have. In such a country, however, it is impossible to establish anything
> like the sort of consensus that is acheived in Germany. We are accustomed
> to reaching decisions, even vitally important ones, in the constant
> presence of significant dissent.
I am not really up-to-date in American politics, but from what I have
seen on CNN and NBC (debates in parliament), your politicians seem to
represent a much smaller political landscape than ours.
> > Fan of Woody Allen
> > PowerPC User
> > Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
> >
>
> Anyone who supports pepperoni pizza is a true champion of freedom and
> democracy. Note that pepperoni pizza is unknown in North Korea... ;o)
So it was in Dublin until some time ago. :-)
It is still impossible to order a decent something even a continental
citizen would call a "pizza" in Ireland. Don't know about Britain.