Oh, and Nick's wife was still standing in line at close to 9:00.
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Nov 2, 2004, at 8:14 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 11/2/2004 8:50:07 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Holy cow - 75 mins? I walked in, waited for the lady in
front of me to get her ballot from the people checking
addresses, got my b
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 11/2/2004 8:50:07 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> Holy cow - 75 mins? I walked in, waited for the lady in
> front of me to get her ballot from the people checking
> addresses, got my ballot, voted, turned it in and
I went to vote at around 5:15pm and was home by 5:45. Most of that time was
taken up by driving to, from, and around the voting site (@20min) and the
store to pick up dinners (gnoccis...).
Here in my county we still use voting machines. They're avocado green (or
alternatively, they resemble tha
In a message dated 11/2/2004 8:50:07 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Holy cow - 75 mins? I walked in, waited for the lady in
front of me to get her ballot from the people checking
addresses, got my ballot, voted, turned it in and left. Total
time: ~7 mins including
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 14:53:23 -0800 (PST), Deborah Harrell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:
> who apologizes if somebody already said this, and felt
> a teeny bit smug about avoiding the long lines to vote
> today (although a wait of 1.25 hours last Fri, in
> Early Voting, was hardly better!) :)
Holy c
I am committing the 'evil' of not reading all posts in
this thread before replying (else I'd be responding
sometime next week, I fear!)...
...Not to mention top-posting! ;)
> "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 03:49 AM 10/11/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
> >You say "electoral sui
> Bryon Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So it wouldn't be as worthwhile for the candidates
> to focus on CO
> because there's less return for their effort? You
> mean something
> like the 33 or so other states that the candidates
> don't need to
> bother with because they're virtually wrapp
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 00:25:44 -0400, Bryon Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (See spreadsheet at: http://users.rcn.com/daly5/EVbalance.xls)
Doh! It's:
http://users.rcn.com/daly5/ECbalance.xls
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 22:53:31 -0400, John D. Giorgis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 03:53 AM 10/24/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
> >> 2) It forces attention on small States. For example, a lot of attention
> >> is being given to Iowa and New Mexico in this election cycle. Under a
> >> proportion
- Original Message -
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: The Electoral College (Was: Re: 2004 Presidential Race
Analysis)
>
> Byron, I hones
At 03:53 AM 10/24/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
>> 2) It forces attention on small States. For example, a lot of attention
>> is being given to Iowa and New Mexico in this election cycle. Under a
>> proportional system, it would take a shift of 10-20% to shift even one EV
>> in those States. O
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:50:11 -0500, Robert Seeberger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The problem with the electoral college is not in the electoral
> college, but in the way populations are represented in Congress. I
> would think that this lack of representation on an everyday basis
> would be of m
Bryon Daly wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:13:55 -0400, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> At 11:55 AM 10/11/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
>>> I agree that there's a lot of good though behind it, but I think
>>> that times have changed and the system doesn't serve us that well
>>> any longer, as it s
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:13:55 -0400, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 11:55 AM 10/11/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
> >I agree that there's a lot of good though behind it, but I think that
> >times have changed and the system doesn't serve us that well any
> >longer, as it stands. But really my ma
At 11:55 AM 10/11/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
>I agree that there's a lot of good though behind it, but I think that
>times have changed and the system doesn't serve us that well any
>longer, as it stands. But really my main argument was the need to fix
>the "winner takes the state" system rather
At 01:55 PM 10/20/2004 -0500 Gary Denton wrote:
>If you believe in democracy shouldn't you favor abolishing the
>Electoral College?
But I don't believe in democracy. I believe in republicanism.
JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:06:29 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In a message dated 10/12/2004 8:10:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> Byron, I'd like you to perform a simple thought experiment. Imagine that
> your proposed proportional system were
In a message dated 10/12/2004 8:10:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Byron, I'd like you to perform a simple thought experiment. Imagine that
your proposed proportional system were in place this year, and that you are
an advisor to the Kerry (or Bush) campaigns, advis
In a message dated 10/11/2004 8:11:38 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, it would disproportionately benefit the largest States.For example,
1/52nd of the vote in California would move one Electoral Vote - or about
2%.You would need to move 1/9th of the vote, ab
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 08:07:25AM -0400, JDG wrote:
> It should be self-evident that your advice would be to concentrate on
> the largest States.
Not at all. Perhaps if you think overly-simplistically like the Bush
administration...
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
At 02:39 AM 10/12/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
>> >And of course if all the states did this, then it wouldn't be a
>> >disadvantage to anyone.
>>
>> No, it would disproportionately benefit the largest States.For example,
>> 1/52nd of the vote in California would move one Electoral Vote - or ab
> From: Warren Ockrassa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I'd agree with EC concerns. There are better systems in place now in
> other countries that we'd do well to consider. I'm fond of runoff
> elections. Had they been in place in 2000, Gore would have taken the
> house. (Since most dual votes
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:07:15 -0400, John D. Giorgis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> At 06:48 PM 10/11/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
> >And of course if all the states did this, then it wouldn't be a
> >disadvantage to anyone.
>
> No, it would disproportionately benefit the largest States.For
I lost a chunk of my email over the weekend, so please forgive me if someone's
posted this article before in this thread. This is a mathematical argument
about why we should keep the electoral college that I stumbled across quite by
accident the other day:
http://www.discover.com/web-exclusives/mat
> But doesn't near universal literacy, mass-media and
> particularly
> television change all that?
> It seems to me that, whether they use it wisely or
> not, all Americans
> now have the ability to make an informed decision
> about their leaders,
> which certainly wasn't the case 200 years ag
Bryon Daly wrote:
Translation: states where your vote doesn't mean squat, especially if
you're in the minority party there. Both parties know who will win so
neither will expend much effort (if any) in these places.
and to add a quote from Dr Brin...
"If you find it persuasive, please share it wit
Damon Agretto wrote:
The Electorial College is in place so that the
American People will be prevented from electing a
Hamster as president, and have the results validated,
something that happened at my University for Student
Body President.
Although the system can nerf election results
occasionall
At 06:48 PM 10/11/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
>And of course if all the states did this, then it wouldn't be a
>disadvantage to anyone.
No, it would disproportionately benefit the largest States.For example,
1/52nd of the vote in California would move one Electoral Vote - or about
2%.You
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:37:15 -0400, John D. Giorgis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 03:49 AM 10/11/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
> >> Bush States Never in Doubt:
> >> AK, UT, ID, MT, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, MS, AL, GA, SC, KY, IN
> >> Kerry States Never in Doubt:
> >> HI, CA, IL, DC, MD, NY, VT, MA, CT,
On Oct 11, 2004, at 1:27 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no way that the electoral college can function in the manner
that you suggest and even if it could it has surely failed to prevent
the election of a hamster.
Hey now. Hamsters are reasonably intelligent. Just because they, like
Bush,
In a message dated 10/11/2004 8:47:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Damon Agretto <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> writes:
>The Electorial College is in place so that the
>American People will be prevented from electing a
>Hamster as president, and have the results validated,
>something that happened at my Univer
>Translation: states where your vote doesn't mean squat, especially if
>you're in the minority party there. Both parties know who will win so
>neither will expend much effort (if any) in these places.
>
>Even though I'm planning to vote for the guy who will win my state, I
>resent the fact that my
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:01:16 -0400, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 11:55:05AM -0400, Bryon Daly wrote:
>
> > I agree that there's a lot of good though behind it, but I think that
> > times have changed and the system doesn't serve us that well any
> > longer, as i
At 03:49 AM 10/11/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote:
>> Bush States Never in Doubt:
>> AK, UT, ID, MT, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, MS, AL, GA, SC, KY, IN
>> Kerry States Never in Doubt:
>> HI, CA, IL, DC, MD, NY, VT, MA, CT, RI
>
>Translation: states where your vote doesn't mean squat, especially if
> you're i
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 11:55:05AM -0400, Bryon Daly wrote:
> I agree that there's a lot of good though behind it, but I think that
> times have changed and the system doesn't serve us that well any
> longer, as it stands. But really my main argument was the need to fix
> the "winner takes the st
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 05:47:26 -0700 (PDT), Damon Agretto
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Electorial College is in place so that the
> American People will be prevented from electing a
> Hamster as president, and have the results validated,
> something that happened at my University for Student
> Bo
The Electorial College is in place so that the
American People will be prevented from electing a
Hamster as president, and have the results validated,
something that happened at my University for Student
Body President. Also, by having that disconnect from
the will of the majority of Americans, the
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 01:16:31 -0400, John D. Giorgis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm sure that other people here are following the election very closely, so
> I wanted to post some thoughts about where things stand, 3 weeks and 1
> debate before the election.
>
Interesting analysis, John. Thanks
39 matches
Mail list logo
