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

When one candidate "concedes", does everything stop, or does the counting process continue with the possibility of the person running it shouting "SURPRISE !" if it turned out that the "defeated" contender threw in the towel too soon and erroneously?

If you see what I mean.

I think it would all stop if one or the other conceded.

Two Bit, congratulations on the vote for Harry Brown. That I respect! Abolish the IRS!

As for the House and Senate being involved, I heard more than one person say, during the campaign, that the ideal ticket would have been Cheney-Lieberman. Or, giving in to my Democratic affiliation, Lieberman-Cheney.

Dave Barry thinks Gore and Bush should take turns every other day to be president.

Only a few years back this was actually done in Israel, if I remember right: One party led the country for the first half of the election period whereupon the opponents took over.

Seen from Europe this could be a good idea for the US. Why split the entire nation in two when it is impossible from over here to see differences between the politics of Gore and Bush?

Just a thought (and one that would make little differance to the current situation) - Why do States have to cast the Electrol College votes as a block? eg why couldn't Florida cast 12 for Gore 12 for Bush and 1 for the Greens ?

Exactly my point earlier on. If 4,999,999 Floridians vote Bore and 5,000,001 vote Gush, then casting all 25 college votes for Gush is a poor reflection of the will of the people of Florida.

Electors don't have to be elected as a block. Some states give them out proportionate to the vote. State law determines how it goes.

I don't support Browne's positions 100%. Taxe law is not my deciding issue. I would prefer to replace most federal taxes with a national sales tax. That would still require a taxing agency.

My main reason for supporting the libertarians is because they want to have a federal government restricted by the Constitution. I'm a big supporter of the the Tenth Amendment. I think our national government has gone far beyond its legal authority in matters such as welfare, intrastate commerce, gun control (not necesarily because of the 2nd Amendment, but because guns don't affect interstate commerce), abortion legislation, social security, medical benefits, and so forth. I believe in the law, and the government is violating the Constitution.

I read about an interesting method of having a national popular election with an instant runoff. You pick a first and second pick. If no one gets 50% of the vote, and you vote for number three on down, then your vote is changed to your second choice. The article said that some European nations use something like this now. Any insights?

The local boards seem to be acting very responsibly. A republican judge has saying that there should be a recount in Palm Beach. A democratic board in another district is denying a recount. I think it shows that there are people who can make honest decisions regardless of their party affiliation. Good for them.

The news is making it sound like the election is going to be rapped up this afternoon. I'd be glad to have it over when I wake up this afternoon.

The system you refer to is known in European elections as the "single transferable vote".
What happens (simplistic overview as I'm not 100% sure of the details) is that you rank the candidates in order of preference. If there is a tie (give or take) then the votes for candidates who are out of the running are transfered to the second choice and so on until a clear majority enuses.
This is good at dealing with situations (such as the Gore/Hayder) where two candidates are spliiting the same broad section of the population.
It is, however, a nightmare to administer.

I guess you have a point. It'd be really horrible if you have all the different votes on the same ballot like we have.

I would like to have a national popular vote, but based on the last few days, I think we still don't have the technology to handle it. We may have to stick with electoral process just because of the technological aspects. Can you imagine doing a natiowide recount?

I think we need a radical change as far as vote counting goes...this race is so very close in most precincts. And it makes me wonder, as stacks of ballots are 'found' and mistakes are only noticed after a second or third counting, what the heck went on in other elections? I don't remember anyone ever waiting around for absentee ballots to return and be counted. No wonder our system is plagued with apathy.

The single transferable vote system was used to good effect in the election for the mayor and assembly for London. As for complicating things it's not very complicated at all. The times it gets complex are when you're trying to vote for a situation where you have two or more winners (things/people for a particular situation).

Something I've asked elsewhere (and had no replies to) is who picks the electoral college?

This post has been removed.

Yes, it's generally partisan party flaks that pick their electors, but there have been instances of electors bucking the system and casting their vote for a candidate of another party, or another name on their own party's ballot.

Some states allow electors to vote their conscience when it comes down to the wire, and others (such as New Mexico) actually have fines and imprisonment for electors that stray from their respective parties.

Oregon had a good idea with mail-in ballots. Mail out ballots a month before the election and allow people to research candidates, constitutional amendments, and various local issues. Then establish a mail-by deadline, just as in filing your federal income taxes. With this system Oregon has had record participation, but for whatever reason (and it still seems fuzzy at this point) this year the count was abnormally slow.

One final note on the issue of establishing voting credentials: Does anyone find it ironic that some of the Libertarian-leaning supporters of diploma/testing idea are actually supporting government interference and regulation? (That's sarcasm for you.)

Just caught up on the days postings - Two points
1: Single Transferable Vote this is one metherd of Proportanal Repesentation, there are many other systems all with there own merits and defects, just stay clear of the systems used by the Italians and the Israiles.

2: The ability of the US to hold a national election based on the popular vote; If India can manage it I am damm sure that the great Republic of the USA can.

Item 1- I'm sorry to say I still don't know enough about, but on Item 2- I agree, HappyDude. There are too many people on the tax-payer's collective back already. And when it comes down to it, all that the electors have done is add more confusion to the mess. At any rate, the media must be severely curbed.

I don't know about curbing the media - the big differance between the US and the UK coverage was that the US stations anounsed the results of there opion polls as fact, where as the UK it is made clear that these are just opion polls and any predictions made from them are just that predictions - I spent most of the election night channel hopping between CNN & MSNBC (both US news channels) and SKY News & BBC News (UK news channels) with a fair bit of FOX and CBS being shown on Sky. so I was in a good position to see the differnt approaches.

I switched channels often on that night, too. I was actually screaming at the television for a while and had to turn it off. That was crap. One station said one thing, another had a different count, they all knew they weren't accurate but put it out there anyway. But I have a horrid opinion of most of the television programming. Pig swill pumped out for idiots, is about the sweetest way to describe how I feel about most broadcasting.

This post has been removed.

Interesting observation I unfortunately missed. I like your comment on the little freshly composed musical themes; I noticed that as the coverage would go back to local stations the musical themes underlying the local poll results were no more than cheesy cheap keyboard sounds looped together and played over and over and over...

Steve Bell of the Gaurdian seems to have an interesting view of the US election

www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/US_election_race/graphic/0,5543,397276,00.html

I've had to leave the http:// off the front of that link as h2g2 doesn't like the comma's in the address
you can also get to it via http://www.guardian.co.uk/

I believe in limited Constitutional government, particularlly at the federal level. That doesn't mean I don't support effective rational government.

In this nation, anyone can easily get both identification and an education needed to meet my meager standards to exercise their privilege to vote.

I want an election that is a real election, not a bunch of morons voting for whoever they think will give them the most goodies or an election stolen by dead people.

Sarcasm was noted, but I thought it deserved a serious response.