ELECTION RESULTS

eedioteediot Join Date: 2003-02-24 Member: 13903Members
in Off-Topic
<div class="IPBDescription">For that big voting thing the americans are having</div>AS OF

November 5, 2008 -- Updated 0215 GMT (1015 HKT)
(^ Whatever that means)

THE RESULTS ARE:

(ELECTORAL)
174 OBAMA
64 MCCAIN
3432 EEDIOT
13% precincts reporting

(SENATE)
52 DEM
35 REP

(HOUSE)
78 DEM
48 REP

(POPULAR VOTE)
50% OBAMA
49% MCCAIN
Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
«1345

Comments

  • eedioteediot Join Date: 2003-02-24 Member: 13903Members
    edited September 2015
    e: deleted
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • TyrainTyrain Join Date: 2003-01-03 Member: 11746Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1692434:date=Nov 5 2008, 03:07 AM:name=eediot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eediot @ Nov 5 2008, 03:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692434"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->CURRENT AS OF.. uh... this post. I have nfi what american time is, probably 13 oclock in stupid timezoneoland<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    13 am or pm? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/nerd-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::nerdy::" border="0" alt="nerd-fix.gif" />
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • X_StickmanX_Stickman Not good enough for a custom title. Join Date: 2003-04-15 Member: 15533Members, Constellation
    I don't understand the american voting system properly. When is the next president formally announced?

    Doesn't that crazy electoral college have to do something first? When do they do whatever they do?
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • LikuLiku I, am the Somberlain. Join Date: 2003-01-10 Member: 12128Members
    I don't know how this election ###### works, but by the time it comes down to California, Obama will essentially win right? Aren't we 54 Electoral Votes?

    I don't know, inform me.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • eedioteediot Join Date: 2003-02-24 Member: 13903Members
    edited September 2015
    e: deleted
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • eedioteediot Join Date: 2003-02-24 Member: 13903Members
    edited September 2015
    e: deleted
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • douchebagatrondouchebagatron Custom member title Join Date: 2003-12-20 Member: 24581Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
    each state has an amount of electoral votes, based on population. when a person votes, they vote for electoral candidates, and then those electoral candidates vote for president. so in oklahoma where I am, people vote for a group of 7 people who are supposed to vote for either obama or mccain. to win the election they have to get 270 electoral votes, and first to do that wins.

    there is always the possibility that an electoral vote gets put towards someone i did not choose them to vote for, and that is the purpose of the electoral college.

    it was created so the public did not elect someone who was completely incapable of being president, and the electoral college could change the vote so someone else was elected instead of who the public voted for.

    but this was created long before television and internet, and now that the public can be much more easily informed of the candidates, the electoral college does not much more than completely destroy how important a single persons vote is for. I live in Oklahoma, which is a very conservative state, and any democrats here are so outnumbered that all their votes are thrown away because all 7 electoral votes in Ok are going to the republican candidate no matter what.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • X_StickmanX_Stickman Not good enough for a custom title. Join Date: 2003-04-15 Member: 15533Members, Constellation
    I've seen pictures of these touch screen voting machine things... and they clearly have "obama" and "mccain" on them....

    So if someone hits "McCain", say, what they're actually doing is voting for someone in the electoral thing who has said they'll vote for McCain?
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • douchebagatrondouchebagatron Custom member title Join Date: 2003-12-20 Member: 24581Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
    exactly. one major flaw is that if a state has 10 electoral votes, most states go all or nothing, meaning that if the popular vote in that state is 51% mccain and 49% obama, then mccain gets 10 electoral votes and obama gets 0.
    I think there are a couple states that will split the electoral votes according to the popular vote, and I believe there is one state that actually gives all its votes to the national popular vote, but probably 46 of the 50 states do all or nothing.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • eedioteediot Join Date: 2003-02-24 Member: 13903Members
    edited September 2015
    e: deleted
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • douchebagatrondouchebagatron Custom member title Join Date: 2003-12-20 Member: 24581Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
    currently these are all predicted, most states havent reported 50% of their votes yet.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • ThansalThansal The New Scum Join Date: 2002-08-22 Member: 1215Members, Constellation
    <!--quoteo(post=1692445:date=Nov 4 2008, 09:40 PM:name=eediot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eediot @ Nov 4 2008, 09:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692445"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->MSNBC says 200-124 but cnn says 206-84.. hmm..<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    These numbers are exit polls, aren't they?
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • douchebagatrondouchebagatron Custom member title Join Date: 2003-12-20 Member: 24581Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
    no, if you go <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/" target="_blank">here</a> then you can see the popular votes that have been reported in so far, and what percentage has been reported in each state. its based upon these popular votes that the electoral votes are predicted. msnbc has other predictions as well, and they do appear to differ in ways.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • eedioteediot Join Date: 2003-02-24 Member: 13903Members
    edited September 2015
    e: deleted
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • moultanomoultano Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
    GO OHIO!!!
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • locallyunscenelocallyunscene Feeder of Trolls Join Date: 2002-12-25 Member: 11528Members, Constellation
    It's pretty much certain Obama's won. Really it was over when they called Pennsylvania and Ohio. The senate and house races are interesting. Dems had 51(out of 100) before but they're all ready around 54 with 15 or so seats not called as of this post. Repubs will still be able to filibuster, 2/3rds majority was really a pipe dream since there are a lot of repub states.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • eedioteediot Join Date: 2003-02-24 Member: 13903Members
    edited September 2015
    e: deleted
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • TyrainTyrain Join Date: 2003-01-03 Member: 11746Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1692453:date=Nov 5 2008, 04:45 AM:name=eediot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eediot @ Nov 5 2008, 04:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692453"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->297 - 139

    cnn obama win<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Congratulatons to Space Emperor Obama!
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • X_StickmanX_Stickman Not good enough for a custom title. Join Date: 2003-04-15 Member: 15533Members, Constellation
    Wikipedia, the bastion of all reliable knowledge on the internet, is also calling an Obama win.

    I'm doing a little jig as I write this.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • NicksaerianNicksaerian Join Date: 2008-10-15 Member: 65207Members, Constellation
    <!--quoteo(post=1692441:date=Nov 4 2008, 07:27 PM:name=6john)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(6john @ Nov 4 2008, 07:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692441"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->each state has an amount of electoral votes, based on population. when a person votes, they vote for electoral candidates, and then those electoral candidates vote for president. so in oklahoma where I am, people vote for a group of 7 people who are supposed to vote for either obama or mccain. to win the election they have to get 270 electoral votes, and first to do that wins.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    No. When you vote, you vote for the president, not your electoral candidate. The electors are selected by the state government to cast the ballots at the national level. Anyone can be chosen to be an elector to cast the electoral ballot. Electoral votes are not based on population. Electoral votes per state = senate seats + house seats at the federal level.

    <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->there is always the possibility that an electoral vote gets put towards someone i did not choose them to vote for, and that is the purpose of the electoral college.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    If you happen to vote for the loser, yes. The United States uses a FPTP system of election. FPTP is an acronym for "First Passed The Post". Meaning that whoever wins the majority in a state, wins all the electoral votes for that state, regardless of how slim the majority is. Other countries use a Proportional Voting system which allocated votes according to what percentage of the state was won. If it was split half and half, each candidate would receive half the electoral votes for that state.

    <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->it was created so the public did not elect someone who was completely incapable of being president, and the electoral college could change the vote so someone else was elected instead of who the public voted for.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Essentially, yes.

    <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->but this was created long before television and internet, and now that the public can be much more easily informed of the candidates, the electoral college does not much more than completely destroy how important a single persons vote is for. I live in Oklahoma, which is a very conservative state, and any democrats here are so outnumbered that all their votes are thrown away because all 7 electoral votes in Ok are going to the republican candidate no matter what.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    It doesn't destroy their votes. The FPTP system the United States uses does. The advent of mass communication and a globally connected society does mean that the electoral college is a bit antiquated.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • NicksaerianNicksaerian Join Date: 2008-10-15 Member: 65207Members, Constellation
    Well, if you're looking for Obama to follow through on his "Change" platform... I wouldn't count on it. Not because I'm against Obama, but because everyone easily overlooks the most powerful arm of the government, the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy exists before each new president is elected and will exist long after each one is gone. This begs the question, "Why would we, the bureaucracy, change when we're just going to get someone new in 4-8 years?" The answer, they won't. Things on the surface may shift around a bit, but the machine that is the bureaucracy won't budge an inch. I do wish him the best in his presidency and that he makes all the best choices for our country. I just think he won't be able to change much at all.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • SentrySteveSentrySteve .txt Join Date: 2002-03-09 Member: 290Members, Constellation
    <!--quoteo(post=1692457:date=Nov 4 2008, 10:01 PM:name=Nicksaerian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nicksaerian @ Nov 4 2008, 10:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692457"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well, if you're looking for Obama to follow through on his "Change" platform... I wouldn't count on it. Not because I'm against Obama, but because everyone easily overlooks the most powerful arm of the government, the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy exists before each new president is elected and will exist long after each one is gone. This begs the question, "Why would we, the bureaucracy, change when we're just going to get someone new in 4-8 years?" The answer, they won't. Things on the surface may shift around a bit, but the machine that is the bureaucracy won't budge an inch. I do wish him the best in his presidency and that he makes all the best choices for our country. I just think he won't be able to change much at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Except for the part about the democrats also taking congress.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • NicksaerianNicksaerian Join Date: 2008-10-15 Member: 65207Members, Constellation
    Lol. Just because they are controlled by the same party doesn't mean they will stroll merrily down the boardwalk of sunshine village showered in magic dust and unicorn farts. Congress won't give up power just because they are of the same party. It will make things slightly easier though, but not to the degree you seem to be implying.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • X_StickmanX_Stickman Not good enough for a custom title. Join Date: 2003-04-15 Member: 15533Members, Constellation
    I don't know many people who considered Obama to be a "great" or "good" candidate. However, I know many, many people (myself included) who consider Obama to be "significantly better than McCain".


    So my victory jig remains.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • NicksaerianNicksaerian Join Date: 2008-10-15 Member: 65207Members, Constellation
    I agree, the vast majority of elections are always a choice between the lesser of two evils.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • douchebagatrondouchebagatron Custom member title Join Date: 2003-12-20 Member: 24581Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
    <!--quoteo(post=1692456:date=Nov 4 2008, 09:56 PM:name=Nicksaerian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nicksaerian @ Nov 4 2008, 09:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692456"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No. When you vote, you vote for the president, not your electoral candidate.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    look at the ballot next time, it will say something like

    Obama
    (jim, joe, jose, john, tim, jeff)

    where those names below obama are the electoral candidates to be voted on. I voted today, it is exactly what I saw.

    <!--quoteo(post=1692456:date=Nov 4 2008, 09:56 PM:name=Nicksaerian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nicksaerian @ Nov 4 2008, 09:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692456"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Electoral votes per state = senate seats + house seats at the federal level.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    house seats based on population, so yes electoral votes based on population.


    and electoral votes can go for someone other than who the public voted on. in the 2004 election, one vote went towards edwards, in the 2000 election one vote did not go towards anyone.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • NicksaerianNicksaerian Join Date: 2008-10-15 Member: 65207Members, Constellation
    You voted for Obama, the ballot was simply telling you who was chosen beforehand who would be casting the electoral ballots.

    House seats are based on population. Electoral votes are house seats + senate seats. It is not based on population, but on a variable which is based on population.

    Yes, the electoral votes can go against the popular vote. I never said they couldn't. The occurrence is insanely rare in the history of elections.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • LikuLiku I, am the Somberlain. Join Date: 2003-01-10 Member: 12128Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1692461:date=Nov 4 2008, 09:18 PM:name=Nicksaerian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nicksaerian @ Nov 4 2008, 09:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692461"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree, the vast majority of elections are always a choice between the lesser of two evils.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Oh god.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • X_StickmanX_Stickman Not good enough for a custom title. Join Date: 2003-04-15 Member: 15533Members, Constellation
    edited November 2008
    On another note, it looks like Prop 8 passed in california. Which is disappointing (to say the *least*, I would also use "terrible" and "absolutely ######ing stupid") and puts a dampner on the awesomeness of an Obama win.

    Screw you, California.

    *quick edit*

    For those who don't know, Prop 8 basically makes ###### (homosexual in case the word filter pwns me) marriage illegal again in California.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • eedioteediot Join Date: 2003-02-24 Member: 13903Members
    edited September 2015
    e: deleted
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
Sign In or Register to comment.