h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm sorry that I haven't been able to find that exact article from USA Today. My theory is that I found it on their website, and that was the only place it was published...and subsequently it didn't make it to the archives. I honestly don't remember where I found it -- the majority of the article was written a year ago.

Regardless, as many people have pointed out, there have been studies which show that Gore should have won, as well as studies showing Bush as the winner. I do think that I would've been more fair if I had mentioned that different studies have shown Gore and Bush as winners. However, I don't believe I was being terribly biased, since it is obvious that Bush *did* win, which means that his victory can be backed up.

Incidently, I wouldn't support and amendment to switch to a national popular election. I'm not saying the electoral college is perfect -- it obviously isn't -- but without it candidates would be able to safely ignore many issues that they are forced to confront under the current system. (I'm not sure if that made sense, but I just woke up.) What I would support is a change that binds members of the electoral college to their state's vote.

Oh, and one last thing: Thanks for all of the feedback everyone! I didn't realize other people cared about this election as much as I did.

-badtz_maru007

()

It's been a long time since I've written/looked at this article. It was fun to read through the responses to it, but this one in particular caught my eye, because it references the University of Chicago. I find it amusing that the university I attend is attached to a study which claims that Bush should have won the election. *shakes fist at university* Ah well, such is life.

-nevermindtheend (formerly badtz_maru007)

there's little that's actually "absurd" about the title of the article.

it's basic and straight forward and explains the researcher's feelings.

in the United States there's a great deal of turgid activity to undermine through sneaky tactic and dirty politic the Democratic ideal. a recent trick is for people entirely hostile to any sort of Democratic work or progressive activism to join the Democratic party, register as Democrats and then do their best to serve Republican ideas by sowing misunderstandings and undermining desires whenever they can, and when pressed, showing a "who me?" innocent false face. There's definitely nothing ABSURD, like wearing underwear on one's head or performing Mass in Nazi regalia and that is why I call offense...to say so strong a word as "ABSURD" about this smacks of what American media call 'spin control' -- if people are close to seeing through criminal activity, spin controllers move in and cast damaging aspersions to help said alleged conspirators, and keep everyone decieved. Absurd is a strong word, and it calls to mind the extreme, the bizzare and the truly weird. As such "The 2000 Election - A Democrat's Perspective" -- there's nothing objectively 'absurd' about the language of the sentence...HOWEVER anyone who KNEW there was conspiracy as has been alleged to foul the 2000 election -- and had chosen to take the side of the people who came out with the office (i didn't say 'the winners') -- well naturally they would fling the most disparaging arguments they could. It's not thought out, that method of arguing here.

The tool of reductio-ad-absurdem is practically an ancient tool of debate, it was used by the Roman peasant philosopher Xeno of Elea. It was one of the ways he became famous to antiquity. If one uses it incorrectly it can backfire.

I think i said something, this time. Let's see...the Florida primary, caucus or whatever for the 2008 election is ending this very night, by incidence of coincidence...