|By Anatomist1 on Thursday, November 09, 2000 - 08:33 am: Edit|
I talked to a guy here whose polisci professor was hired by the ABC news during the election. This prof was on the third/top level of analysts that were supposed to make the final decision about when to call a state and the whole election. Apparrently, the network execs never stopped impatiently screaming, bitching and demanding premature answers from him. When he and his collegues refused, they simply ignored them and made announcements anyway. In one case, to cover their ass, the networks 'uncalled' a prior announcement claiming there were data errors, which this prof says was an absolute lie, as he was sitting on top of the data himself...
|By Don_walsh on Thursday, November 09, 2000 - 06:14 am: Edit|
A Zoroastrian on Xanex? (Or is it Zanex?)
An Episcopalian on ephedrine?
A Sufi on Sudafed?
A Dervish on Darvon?
But I think benzedrine = bennies not benzies. At least that's how I remember it. Aka white crosses. As opposed to black mollies.
And pls find a better compliment for me than Gonzo Journalist Dr.T., beloved of Jimmy the carter. I liked the Owsley bit better.
|By Marc on Thursday, November 09, 2000 - 01:31 am: Edit|
"like a mantra mouthed by a Hindu on dexies."
Don, you're the Hunter Thompson of the forum. That's a great line. How about
" a Buddhist on benzies"
|By Don_walsh on Thursday, November 09, 2000 - 01:19 am: Edit|
The situation Marc described has been all too common in the past, usually in elections where the effect wasn't decisive -- but even so, to have people not vote in the West because the networks have already 'called' things based on the results in the East, is not a Good Thing -- as a matter of public policy.
Unfortunately I can't think of any way to stagger the voting hours so that the polls open and close nationwide at the same 'real' time (as opposed to clock time.) How about Alaska and Hawaii? That would significantly shorten the voting day.
I doubt anyone would want a news blackout (for election coverage) during voting hours. The networks would scream 'censor!'. Yet you can be your ass that the media won't self-censor (i.e., act responsibly. It's a cutthroat business and plays by its own crappy rules. Tell them that their actions are distorting the election and they'll beg off as impartial (and we know that's a lie.) Suggest remedies and they'll wrap themselves in the flag and chant the First Amendment like a mantra mouthed by a Hindu on dexies.
|By Marc on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 11:20 pm: Edit|
The networks mistakenly announced that Gore had won Florida 1 hour before the polls in the Florida panhandle had closed. The panhandle is in the central time zone. The rest of Florida is in the eastern time zone. Many voters in the Panhandle didn't bother to vote as a result. This is a case of the tail (television) wagging the dog (the election results).
|By Don_walsh on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 10:53 pm: Edit|
As annoying as the present election debacle is, I'd need some serious convincing before I'd favor tossing out the present electoral system.
What I would like to see is a lot less gun-jumping by the television networks. Bearing in mind that the 'TV news' is about drama rather than information, they must live a cliffhanger. However, it is obvious that any responsible polimetrist would have said 'too close to call' rather than 'Bush wins', or worse, the long night of endless seesawing. Fact is, up till now the political statisticians have had an easy time of predicting things. But the networks aren't kingmakers or at least they aren't supposed to be. Why be so competitive about being the first network to call the election, if that is going to mean calling it WRONG? A lot of people in all camps are very upset. I can tell you that, from my vantage in a distant land, it's a national embarassment. I betcha the dollar will take a little pounding (in the money markets) in the next week or so, till a clear winner emerges.
Let's all be thankful that this hairsplityting sort of outcome happens so rarely.
|By Perruche_verte on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 06:35 pm: Edit|
How sad that the "Democrats" seem to be the ones thundering the hardest against democracy. I'm hearing over and over again on National Puppet Radio how Nader may have cost Gore the White House thanks to his votes in Florida. Apparently this is based on exit polls indicating that most Nader voters were liberals who probably would have voted anyway, and would have voted for Gore if Nader wasn't running.
I find this insulting and patronizing. These people voted for Nader because they liked Nader, not a pro-death penalty, pro-WTO, formerly pro-life middle-of-the-roader whose main benefits over George W. are his fondness for national parks, buses and rail systems.
If Bush has in fact won, a few liberals are just going to have to put away the wine and Brie, turn off the TV, start making picket signs and reflect that "democracies" rarely give people anything that they're not willing to take to the streets over.
|By Bob_chong on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 10:36 am: Edit|
Regarding the Bush supporters whining, you are right. We heard their squeals beginning weeks ago, and they have now fallen silent.
|By _blackjack_ on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 10:26 am: Edit|
I'm aware of the advantages of the electoral college, but most of them are not relevent in a system with national candidates. The only real advantage it has today is in giving a little more power to less populous states. I think at least DISCUSSION of its removal will result from this, tho its a good chance less populous states wouldn't ratify it.
And, were things reversed, Bush supporters would be whining just as much--they were already preparing to petition gore electors to follow the popular mandate and switch their votes. Hell, at this point, two rogue electors could throw the thing.
I'm not an anything supporter. I'm wishing I had voted for Hagelin at this point, so I could be less of a hypocrite in condmening Nader voters in Florida for their spoilage...
|By Bob_chong on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 09:14 am: Edit|
You're wrong about the electoral college being removed. It has stood this long and for many good reasons. Check out the Federalist Papers and other such things and you'll be amazed by how relevant they are.
One thing the EC does is remove the possibility of someone being regionally popular and winning on that simple virtue. There are other reasons, too, and I'm probably not doing a good job at explaining it. Sorry. I just wanted to say that there have been literally hundreds of attempts to change the system. A Constutional amendment seems highly unlikely, no matter how much the Gore backers whine. (For the record, I'm calling you neither a Gore backer nor a whiner.)
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation