Page 2 of 3
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:02 pm
by TPRJones
Not according to CNN:
No High School - Bush 49%, Kerry 50%, Nader 0%
H.S. Graduate - Bush 52%, Kerry 47%, Nader 0%
Some College - Bush 54%, Kerry 46%, Nader 0%
College Graduate - Bush 52%, Kerry 46%, Nader 1%
Postgrad Study - Bush 44%, Kerry 55%, Nader 1%
Besides, in most cases it's the pHds that will be too stupid to figure out a complex ballot, IMO.
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:14 pm
by thibodeaux
Hey, goddamit!
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:27 pm
by TPRJones
Well, not all cases, obviosly. You might get lucky. 
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:21 am
by TheCatt
TPRJones wrote:Not according to CNN:
No High School - Bush 49%, Kerry 50%, Nader 0%
H.S. Graduate - Bush 52%, Kerry 47%, Nader 0%
Some College - Bush 54%, Kerry 46%, Nader 0%
College Graduate - Bush 52%, Kerry 46%, Nader 1%
Postgrad Study - Bush 44%, Kerry 55%, Nader 1%
Besides, in most cases it's the pHds that will be too stupid to figure out a complex ballot, IMO.
Re-read my post.
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:40 pm
by TPRJones
Okay. And?
Still looks like the figures you posted disagree with CNNs figures to me. And it looks like uneducated peeps favored Kerry slightly, with regularly educated peeps favoring Bush and overeduated peeps favoring Kerry.
Am I missing something?
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:01 pm
by TheCatt
Now re-read the CNN site. That's where my figures came from.
They are listed below your figures, I believe.
Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:44 pm
by TPRJones
Ah, I see now.
It's those darn college dropouts that are messing up the figures.
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:29 pm
by GORDON
I have taxied to victory!
Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 8:17 pm
by TPRJones
So, I was thinking: how about in America II in order for a politician to win office he must win the votes of at least 50% of the eligible voters.
Not 50% of the voters, 50% of the eligible voters. Not voting counts as a vote to leave the office empty. In the case that more than 50% of eligible voters turn up but no one wins, the top two candidates get one shot at a run-off election. If there is still no winner, then the office goes empty until the next election cycle. (or maybe always have a run-off, but count "null vote" as a candidate that can win the election, so that most run-offs would have one guy trying to get over 50% of people to show up and vote for him as the only choice)
Maybe even go a step further, and say any position unfilled for two election cycles is declared unneccessary and written out of the government processes. I figure any job that at least half the people can't agree on who should do it, or even IF it should be done, maybe it's not all that important that position even exist.
EDIT - It would also help curtail all this "calling it early" crap, since it's much harder to track how many people are even going to show up when that's a factor in who might win.
Edited By TPRJones on 1154564583
Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 8:41 pm
by TheCatt
Government destroyed by general apathy and distate for candidates.
I like it.
We would have lost the President a while ago.
Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 8:54 pm
by TPRJones
Yup, and I for one fail to see the problem with that.
Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 9:07 pm
by GORDON
Interesting... voter turnout declined during the Gilded Age of 1900 to the 1920's, and then climbed at the Great Depression.
People are more likely to care about their government when they're hungry? Metaphorically.
Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 9:18 pm
by TheCatt
Seems to be some sort of weak correlation there.
1872 - good times
1876 - recession (two decades long)
1929 - Great Depression
1970s'-early 80's - multiple recessions
1992 - recession
Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 9:24 pm
by Malcolm
I think a lot of uptight fuckers had problems w\ how the '20s went & decided to be bastards.
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:28 am
by DoctorChaos
The executive branch already has a lot of things in place to continue running without the figurehead of president. What's even more interesting is the amount of apathy (IMHO) concerning congressional elections. We could just remove the legislative branch of government. As far as I'm concerned we all win. The judicial branch could rule all the stupid laws unconstitutional and we have a simpler set of laws.
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:32 am
by GORDON
Until some wacky President attempts to pack the court, again.
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:38 am
by DoctorChaos
Until some wacky President attempts to pack the court, again.
Constitutional amendment to allow voters to select judges?
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:39 am
by GORDON
Nah, FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court with ringers when they kept declaring his New Deal ideas unconstitutional. Which in itself was an attempted subversion of the government.
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:42 am
by TheCatt
Nah, FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court with ringers when they kept declaring his New Deal ideas unconstitutional. Which in itself was an attempted subversion of the government.
I would say more than tried.
Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:50 pm
by DictionaryDave
We don't need to vote. Some corporation will come up with a formula to tell how we would have voted anyway.
No muss, no fuss. The candidates are picked by the parties and then the numbers are run and Viola. We don't have to be hassled with making any decisions they will be made for us.
Aahh! Peaceful apathy.