Interesting insight
Here's one that will probably piss you off. Me, I just find it interesting.
Did you know that, if not for the most recent census (and the resulting shift in the number of electoral votes that comes out of the census), the electoral count would be far different?
The 2000 census shifted several states that were steady from 2000 to now as Bush supporters upwards in the Electors column (the net gain for the GOP over last election was 7 electoral votes in states that did not change "allegiance", and a loss of 7 votes from 2000 for the Dems). In fact, the only state that came out differently from 2000 is New Hampshire (Iowa and New Mexico still don't have their counts in, but those were both "Blue" states in 2000).
Now, here's the part that will probably freak you out/piss you off/etc... Me, I just find the entire proccess fascinating. Fascinating isn't quite the right word... how about infuriating...
According to CNN, the electoral count is 274 to 252 in favor of Bush. Now, take those 7 votes from Bush that are derived from the census and give them to Kerry. What's your total?
267 to 259... good. *pats on the head*
Iowa and New Mexico are still theoretically being counted (the vote counts were within 15,000, so it's still "too close to call". Whatever). They have 12 electors between them.
But those 12 electoral votes still left over sound far more significant now, don't they? Especially since all 12 went to Gore in 2000.
You want someone to 'blame' for all of this? Blame the people in states with poor census response. If you didn't respond to the census yourself, blame yourself. Or, if you're like me, keep blaming the system, because the system keeps forcing us to fill out stupid pieces of paper to make sure our fucking vote matters.
I apologize for my behavior. I called out of work today so I could actually get some sleep. It's the first time I've had 8 hours in weeks.
Don't mistake this for me caring - any comments indicating such will promptly be mocked. I just dropped into math mode while objectively examining the results.
Did you know that, if not for the most recent census (and the resulting shift in the number of electoral votes that comes out of the census), the electoral count would be far different?
The 2000 census shifted several states that were steady from 2000 to now as Bush supporters upwards in the Electors column (the net gain for the GOP over last election was 7 electoral votes in states that did not change "allegiance", and a loss of 7 votes from 2000 for the Dems). In fact, the only state that came out differently from 2000 is New Hampshire (Iowa and New Mexico still don't have their counts in, but those were both "Blue" states in 2000).
Now, here's the part that will probably freak you out/piss you off/etc... Me, I just find the entire proccess fascinating. Fascinating isn't quite the right word... how about infuriating...
According to CNN, the electoral count is 274 to 252 in favor of Bush. Now, take those 7 votes from Bush that are derived from the census and give them to Kerry. What's your total?
267 to 259... good. *pats on the head*
Iowa and New Mexico are still theoretically being counted (the vote counts were within 15,000, so it's still "too close to call". Whatever). They have 12 electors between them.
But those 12 electoral votes still left over sound far more significant now, don't they? Especially since all 12 went to Gore in 2000.
You want someone to 'blame' for all of this? Blame the people in states with poor census response. If you didn't respond to the census yourself, blame yourself. Or, if you're like me, keep blaming the system, because the system keeps forcing us to fill out stupid pieces of paper to make sure our fucking vote matters.
I apologize for my behavior. I called out of work today so I could actually get some sleep. It's the first time I've had 8 hours in weeks.
Don't mistake this for me caring - any comments indicating such will promptly be mocked. I just dropped into math mode while objectively examining the results.