November 3, 2000

10:00 AM

Most of the map is redbut the candidates are still neck-and-neck. Bush has the lead in a whole lot of huge states with small populations. But Gore has CA, NY, NJ and IL. Thus it is with the electoral college.

If they were electing by square mile, Bush would have it sewn up.
posted by Steven Den Beste (18 comments total)

More interesting is that at least three of the "too close to call" yellow states have substantial populations: Washington state, Florida and Pennsylvania.

4 days to go and no-one knows what will happen. I wonder what Gore's blood level of adrenaline is?
posted by Steven Den Beste at 10:04 AM on November 3, 2000

I'm hoping that the collective fear of living under a Bush presidency will prove to be a greater motivator on election day than the collective anger towards Clinton/Gore. It seems like there's much more fear than anger, but I'll guess we'll have to wait and see.

With luck, all the people stupid enough to prefer Bush will be too lazy/ignorant to drive to the polls.
posted by waxpancake at 10:15 AM on November 3, 2000

"If they were electing by square mile, Bush would have it sewn up."

It would certainly be more fair. We Americans are so anthropocentrist.
posted by EngineBeak at 10:31 AM on November 3, 2000

The only legitimate way to elect someone is on the basis of cloud-cover. Every day that a city is under cloudy weather counts as one vote in the Electoral College for that city.

...."cloudy" being defined as a day in which there are no breaks in the cloud cover.... and by "city" I really mean Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area...

The best part of this scheme is that the total number of electoral votes, along with their dispersal, would change yearly. The fact that this scheme would discriminate against certain states is merely an added benefit. I say: go for the gusto! The more completely irrational the scheme, the better!
posted by aramaic at 10:45 AM on November 3, 2000

Can't we have a political discussion without calling people names? I believe I heard California was within 3 points yesterday according to MSNBC and Illinois is supposed to also be close... Stupid election laws means that I'll have to cast a meaningless vote in Massachusetts instead of Illinois...
posted by gyc at 10:51 AM on November 3, 2000

Well, this isn't exactly a new scheme, but it certainly is irrational. Not appreciably worse than other professional "projections" of either candidate scoring 400+ electoral votes, though.
posted by youhas at 11:09 AM on November 3, 2000

EngineBeak, but then we'd have to let each square mile vote. And lots of the fed-owned land out west might just stick with Gore.

It's funny to see Oregon in the Bush category. Go Nader! I thought Wisconsin and Michigan were on the line, too, though. I guess it depends on your poll.

Arkansas will be the pivotal state this year, I predict.
posted by daveadams at 11:21 AM on November 3, 2000

The thought that is freaking me out is, with Oregon Washington and California having so many mail-in votes, if the election is close enough we might not know who won for at least a few days after the 7th.
posted by donkeymon at 11:54 AM on November 3, 2000

Do the members of the Electoral College get Secret Service protection from Wednesday until their vote? Perhaps they should. Shame if anything should, um, happen to them.
posted by holgate at 11:58 AM on November 3, 2000

I'll take 5:24pm in the pool labeled "What time does the FBI visit holgate."

What's your pick ; )
posted by Mick at 12:08 PM on November 3, 2000

Not even close, Mick. I see Holgate as "Fall Guy" - unless you mean 5:24pm next Tuesday...
posted by CrazyUncleJoe at 12:54 PM on November 3, 2000

Hey, holgate, wanna try for a few more Eschelon buzzwords?
posted by Optamystic at 1:27 PM on November 3, 2000

Bush supporters aren’t necessarily stupid. Some hold a tax cut and gun rights over other issues.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 2:05 PM on November 3, 2000

Truth is that some people see his mediocre intelligence as a plus. They think they've had eight years of a smart guy pulling one over on them, and boy are they pissed.
posted by dhartung at 2:56 PM on November 3, 2000

As my dad puts it, he respects Bush for not claiming to have all the answers, and being willing to ask his advisers for their opinions when he doesn't understand something. It's possible that what many of us see as stupidity just looks like humility to Bush supporters.

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 3:45 PM on November 3, 2000

Holgate's in a foreign country so they'll send cruise missiles instead of the FBI.

But is the electoral college system the best that can be done? Does no one want to elect the president based on the popular vote? It would do away with all this pandering to the swing-states, for starters.
posted by cardboard at 5:43 PM on November 3, 2000

Bush supporters aren’t necessarily stupid. Some hold a tax cut and gun rights over other issues.

Um...doesn't this seem a bit of a contradiction?
posted by rushmc at 8:31 PM on November 3, 2000

To someone who was concerned about mailin votes on the West Coast: The votes don't count unless they are *in the county office* by *8pm on Tuesday*. It's not like they have to be postmarked by Tuesday, they have to be in by Tuesday. So we'll definitely know on Tuesday Night who won nationwide.

If only Colin Powell would run for President...

Kevs
posted by Kevs at 9:23 PM on November 4, 2000