Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

IMPORTANT Electoral vote question! Adding votes so Bush can win???

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
gatorboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:48 PM
Original message
IMPORTANT Electoral vote question! Adding votes so Bush can win???
At this link:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040724/D841CACO0.html

There was a segemtn that caught my eye and actually scared the crap out of me:

<snip>
Four years ago, Bush won 30 states and their 271 electoral votes - one more than needed. Gore, who won the popular vote, claimed 20 states plus the District of Columbia for 267 electoral votes.

Since then, reapportionment added electoral votes to states with population gains and took them from states losing people. The result: Bush's states are now worth 278 electoral votes and Gore's are worth just 260.
<snip>

What the hell???

I was wondering if anyone knew exactly which states they had to change the votes for. I find it odd that conservative states got a boost, while the liberal states lost votes.

Could they screw with the voting for each state this year for an easier Bush win?

LIke I said, this makes me extremely uncomfortable and would like to dig more into the process of adding and taking votes and from what states this took place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
blackcat77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. Nothing devious here....
Sunbelt states had their populations increase and rust belt states did not, so they lost votes to places like Texas and Florida.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. How could they do that?
I would think it would be based on the census which was taken in the year 2000 and not due to be taken again until 2010.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Yeah.
I think the 2000 election still used the 1990 census, and this one is the first to use the 2000 census.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
against all enemies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 12:10 AM
Response to Original message
4. Based on the census, Connecticut lost 1 Representative thus
1 electoral vote. AND there was something devious done to make sure bush got more votes. Census numbers always under count poor people, seeing that many don't have permanent addresses. This undercount can be corrected using a statistical program, in order to more accurately reflect the country's population. The Congress, (Republicans) refused to allow the statistical correction thereby guaranteeing that the rich would get more representation and Bush more electoral votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rowdyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
5. There's no conspiracy here that I can see....Mississippi lost an
electoral vote that would have definitely goe to Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flordehinojos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 12:39 AM
Response to Original message
6. Like the prissy cheerleader that he is Bush has been saying all over the
country that he is not planning on losing the elections.

Maybe that is the answer to his apparently DIVINELY INSPIRED KNOWLEDGE THAT HE IS NOT GOING TO LOSE THE ELECTIONS.

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gatorboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 12:45 AM
Response to Original message
7. From what it looks like on the census
New York's population grew, yet they lost 2 votes. Why is that? Even if it grew at a very small pace, it still seems like the votes should have at least stayed the same. I admit I'm still trying to get a fix on the electoral vote thing so sorry if I sound like a moran. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. Some western state (Montana?) went from 4 to 3 EC votes. Gotta suck
New York only lost two of 30 votes. That's like a 7% reduction. Montana lost 25% of its EC votes.

The reason NY lost two seats in the Census is because it's growing at a slower rate than the rest of the country. The math they use is pretty straight forward. No hanky panky going on, just incontravertable algebra.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasBushwhacker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 12:59 AM
Response to Original message
8. This is the innate problem with the Electoral College
The EC was created to take power away from the individual voter. It's based on census population, not on the number of people that show up to the polls. There could be an early blizzard in the northeast, but no matter how many New Yorkers make it to the polls that day, all 33 electoral votes will go to the candidate who got the highest popular vote in that state, and absentee ballots tend to favor the GOP.

It would all be based on population changes that have taken place between 1990 and 2000. The biggest states are the ones most likely to have been gainers, but that means Texas and Florida for Bush and New York and California for Gore. Even so, as we learned in 2000, Florida is was too close to call then and likely will be again. Florida's EV's stayed the same at 27. Texas went from 32 EV to 33, mostly because of population growth in the Hispanic community. Arizona gained 2 as well (8 to 10). New Mexico gained 1 (4 to 5) but was a very close win for Gore in 2000. California stayed the same at 54. New York lost 2 (33 to 31). Mississippi lost 1 (7 to 6).

Even with the shifting numbers of electoral votes, assuming that Bush will win every state he won last time is just not realistic. There are the swing state issues, and then there are states that went to Bush last time, that may not be a slam dunk this time. Louisiana, for example, elected the first Democratic Governor they've had in a while. Many states in the South that have been going GOP for a while suddenly have hundreds of their kids stationed in Iraq and aren't to happy about it. I think the military families could have a noticeable impact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nodehopper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 01:14 AM
Response to Original message
9. I noticed these descrptenciues during the 2000 election
Some Republican states lost electoral votes, but mostly it was Democratic. Some of it was due to population change, and some was classic gerrymandering. It's not exactly conspiracy theory material, but there's dirty crap in there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. How can Mississippi possibly be a Repuke state?
I know it is, but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

It's one of the poorest states in the nation, or maybe it IS the poorest.

Like chickens voting for Cournel Sanders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 22nd 2014, 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC