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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A662258

I think that this is a well written, well researched entry, and although it's a bit late (it's been almost a year since the 2000 election) it deserves to be added to the collective knowledge of the guide. I might also like it because I wrote it, but that's beside the point.

You might want to add a comment about the system which allowed a minority to elect the President. The electoral college was set up to limit the influence of democracy, and in fact there is no obligation on the members of the college to endorse the candidate who wins the vote in the state.

Yes, that may be a good idea, although I do still think there's merit to the electoral college. (Don't let that make you think I like the outcome it caused). I think that some reform to the college may be neccessary, but it wouldn't be prudent to completely get rid of something that has worked for so long. Maybe making the electors vote the way the state voted would be a good start. Thanks for the suggestion.

Right, I've added a nice little section and 2 links about the electoral college. Now what do you think of the article?

I've a couple of comments to make, that I hope you will not take amiss, given that I have only a little knowledge of the American system.

Firstly, I think the title needs amending, at least to 'US Presidential Election 2000', but probably better to 'US Presidential Election 200 and the role of the media'. I realise that not all the entry is devoted to that, but the majority of it is.

There is probably a wider point here, that the media tells people what to think and that the media, generally, are unelected, largely unaccountable, and controlled by a few powerful people. It's the same here in the UK and I'm sure it's the same in other countries.

There is a tone, early on that smacks of bitterness. Now I'm not saying that it's not justified, but the entry would read better if it sounded a little more impartial. That doen't mean to say it shouldn't come to the same conclusion. In the later parts, this does not seem to be so much of an issue.

The entry is in the fourth person a lot - 'our' this and 'our' that. I can't relate to that. It needs to be in the third person.

I hope you find these comments constructive.

Thanks...I didn't even catch the "our"s that were in it. I wrote it for a class last year, so they were appropriate for that...but when I revised it to go into the guide I completely forgot they were there.

Yes, well, the introduction *may* be a bit bitter...it was meant to be amusing though. I don't know what to do with that, but I am going to fix the title and take out "our."

Hey, wait a second...I only wrote "our" once in that entire entry! Did you even read the whole thing?

Yes, from start to finish. It just goes to show how powerful that word 'our' was. I genuinely thought you had used it several times ! Oops! Well I did write it late at night.

I know what you mean...after you mentioned it I thought I'd used it a bunch too. Oh well...

I know what you mean...after you mentioned it I thought I'd used it a bunch too. Oh well...

Wow! I love it. Very informative, clearly written and structured piece on a subject that has caused me no end of confusion. Thanks. I am an Englishman living in France and between my ignorance of the way elections take place in the US and trying to sift through the 'French' reaction to the whole thing (very into their democratic debates, the French. Especially over a few 'demis' in the local bistro!), I really didn't manage to work out what went wrong. No-one could fail to notice that *something* went wrong, though, and this is an interesting account of some of those things.

I do have some feedback for you. I hope you won't take anything I say badly.


Intro - "if he won it at all" - Well, I know what you mean, but in my view if he ends up President then he *did* win. I would prefer 'was not elected'. This is a small point but you say something similar in your conclusion, "while we may never know for sure who won". I know you make it clear there that nothing can be done about it. Just think 'not elected' is the essential thing here. ie it is a victorious presidential campaign for Bush but a defeat of democracy and possibly of the American people.

>>First Amendment - could we have a footnote giving (perhaps in simplified form) the text of 1st Am?

>>Butterfly ballots - likewise, footnote?


The Electoral College section - I did follow the links but they don't take you *straight* to a simple explanation of how the EC system works (I can already hear you thinking, 'Lazy b*****d!'). If you could provide one in 250 words or less, I think it treble the value of your EC section. Sorry to suggest more work on what is already a fairly hefty article.

Conclusion section - I guess I'm a pessimist, but I would prefer 'Perhaps when' to your 'Only when...'

Sorry about all the glum faces. Especially when I enjoyed reading your piece so much!

Visually, I wondered if you could break up the 'Press' section; six paras covering related but separable subjects. It occurred to me that since you mentioned wanting a humourous aspect to the intro, a couple of subheaders might be a chance to give a little light relief to your subject. Or not! (Something about swingers?)

And a personal view - You say in your conclusion, "most news and media organizations are still acting irresponsibly," and I can accept that as your view. I tend to feel that although the media certainly do affect peoples voting and politics generally, they are all in it for a maximum of *CASH*! They will (often 'irresponsibly') print/broadcast/etc whatever they believe will attract the public to their particular outlet. This may include political considerations as well as 'scandal-monger' type sensationalism (charmingly known in the UK as the 'gutter' press). I believe there is a danger when 'blaming' the media for political events and 'accusing' the media of 'political manipulation', that we forget that the media want to 'manipulate' people into one thing, first and foremost - remaining loyal to their paper/channel/etc. Just a view.

Finally, on Zarquon's comments:

>>Firstly, I think the title needs amending, at least to 'US Presidential Election 2000', but probably better to 'US Presidential Election 200 and the role of the media'. I realise that not all the >>entry is devoted to that, but the majority of it is.

yes, I agree. However, for my money the title should reflect the 'accusatory' nature of this commentary. It is one aspect of a broader debate in which some politicians and their supporters would no doubt make contrary claims to those made here. How about "US Presidential Election 2000 - What went wrong?" Hmm. Doesn't sound that great, but I was thinking that something to indicate the general direction...

>>There is probably a wider point here, that the media tells people what to think and that the media, generally, are unelected, largely unaccountable, and controlled by a few powerful people. It's the same >>here in the UK and I'm sure it's the same in other countries.

I think this relates to my PC above.

>>There is a tone, early on that smacks of bitterness. Now I'm not saying that it's not justified, but the entry would read better if it sounded a little more impartial. That doen't mean to say it shouldn't come to the same conclusion. In the later >>parts, this does not seem to be so much of an issue.

I too sense from the text that you disagree with many of Bush's policies and probably did not vote for him (I don't think it's ESP!). Nothing wrong with that, of course , I am just saying that it comes across that way. ie *not* impartial.
Alternatively, you could push it the other way and make it a 'one side of the argument' piece.

>>The entry is in the fourth person a lot - 'our' this and 'our' >>that. I can't relate to that. It needs to be in the third person.

Sorry Zarquon, can't resist this - where did you come across the fourth person? It's a new one on me!


Spiff

I have to agree with you about breaking up the press section...I just don't know how to do it in GuideML. I wanted to have subheaders in there though. Also, I don't know how to do footnotes...if you could tell me how/point me to the appropriate link that'd be great. Maybe I will change the intro a bit.

Thanks for the comments though, they were very helpful!

Ah well, I've discovered the wonders of subheaders and footnotes, so disregard my previous post. I've also slightly revised my introduction and mucked about with the conclusion a bit.

I'd like to thank everyone who's commented on the entry so far. I think it's much better and more complete than the original.

I am no expert, but subheaders are not too bad actually:

Your subheader text

I put this up recently, for a laugh really, but it's bloody handy if you see something in article (the structure, for isntance, quotes, tables, etc.) that you want to use in your stuff.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A662384


More conventionally, there is a full official guide to GML here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A187229

You'll find a list of tags on the first page (you have to scroll down a bit) and links to some more or less useful related pages. I am no pro and I found it all a bit off-putting.

That's why I recommend that you take advantage of the 'copy-and-paste' method. It's not stealing and it needn't prevent you from being original. In fact, I'm going to add a couple of subheaders in there, just so that if need be (it probably won't!) you can copy/paste them from there.

I kind of started off looking at other people's stuff, using stuff I liked and then working out afterwards how it worked (most of the time!

Hope this helps.

Spiff

An afterthought - bear in mind that not everything that *can* be done with these tags will be allowed in edited guide entries. Headers and s/headers are fine, but some more 'personal' touches (like pretty much any pics, as far as I can see) won't be allowed.

As I said, I'm no expert, so don't take my word for it!

Oops! Bit behind the game there. Catching up, though.

I was way behind the play, there! Sorry.

of course, the main problem with the election (except for who bought the job) is that the actual result was decided on 2 votes, his brothers, and the woman that his brother appointed as head of the legal bit (who was also in his party).

And before the other countries get cocky, on a bbc program, various international journalists pointed out that their system was just as much at risk of having a leader who did not win the popular vote, only the various local ones.

the uk, france, germany and italy all have this problem.

Yes, that adds value. It's a curious system but not, as you say, without merit. Of course, if the electoral colleges in the states had voted proportionally instead of all voting for the candidate with the state majority, the outcome would have been different.

This applies to any system based on first past the post, though, and has led to majority governments with a minority of the popular vote in the UK as well.

More importantly, what happened AFTER the election (the appeals, the rulings, etc.). I think that would make it better.

Just my 2¢, errr, 2p, errr, 2¢, oh whatever.

!