What I really like in this election is the fractal side.

If you have a look at the map on CNN for instance, you will see that the Rep. states form some kind of a bigger version of the Texas State.

Actually, the worst-case outcome would be far less than 50% if people split their votes almost-evenly between X number of candidates. If there were 10 candidates who all got nearly-equal numbers of votes (not probable, but possible), we could end up with a president who got only slightly over 10% of the vote.

Bush actually had the highest number of votes of any president in US history, and he was the first incumbent president to increase his party's majority in both the Senate and the House and to increase his own vote (by over 3.5 million) since Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936.

We haven't seen a president get elected with an actual statistical majority of the vote since 1988. I'd say that's a smashing success, not an ambiguous message.

The problem is that he might have used the cheatcodes for diebold to reach level 2.

Given that X = 2 in our case, I stand by what I said.

I don't understand the significance of Bush having "the highest number of votes" in history. The pie is bigger, the slice is half. More people voted against Bush as well.

Under "majority rules," Bush might be considered successful, but that's completely missing the point. 49% voted vehemently against Bush. In terms of a representative democracy, that's a miserable failure, not a smashing success.

John,
i have stolen your image and made it link to something real funny on my blog. I hope that's ok with you.

http://www.stefanseiz.com/archives/2004/11/so_you_just_voted.html

And we were worried about the electronic voting machines...

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1106-30.htm

"Bush actually had the highest number of votes of any president in US history".

Hey guess what, you know who had the second highest number of votes of any president in US history? Kerry.

Yes there is something called population growth. Stop repeating republican talking points.

Gabe: Kerry's not president. The point still remains that President Bush has had more people voting against him than any other president too ;)

And in 1992, only 43% voted for Clinton. 57% voted "vehementy against" him but were stuck with him too. Is that a miserable failure for democracy?

Its a single office, and your forced with a decision every four years, so when you have (essentially) only two candidates, majority has to rule.

No president has even won 2/3 of the popular vote, *ever*. So atleast 1/3 has always wanted "the other guy".

(Popular vote totals started in 1824)

From http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/shapiro/2004-11-09-hype_x.htm

"George W. Bush's 286-252 victory in the Electoral College was the third-narrowest finish in more than a century. For all the glib talk about Bush's mandate, the president's 51%-48% victory in the popular vote represented a smaller winning margin than in 23 of the 28 elections dating back to 1896."

All a bunch of Democrat rationalizing. Bush won, get over it.

Further, Bush increased the majority in the Senate and the House. Get over it.

Or, better yet, don't get over it, continue to rationalize and call the red states "stupid" and you can lose in 2008 as well.

American is ***NOT*** liberal. This was the most conservative/liberal choice we may have ever had. Clinton snuck into office as a conservative Democrat.

Please, keep running Massachisetts Democrats for President, we in the Red states applaud your efforts.

Yeah, its too bad we can't split our votes. I'd like .75 of my vote to go to independent and then .20 go to Bush and .5 to Kerry.

For Dale:

America is always, by definition, 50% conservative and 50% liberal. The only thing that changes is where that line is drawn in sand.
50 years ago, for example, conservative meant, among other things, that "coloreds" should have their own schools, water fountains, and bus seats in the back of the bus.

> American is ***NOT*** liberal.

And that my friends, is why I *still* don't have that flying car I was promised in the 1950s!

I have to quote Dale here; his post is too appropriate.

>All a bunch of Democrat rationalizing.
>Bush won, get over it.
>
>Further, Bush increased the majority in the
>Senate and the House. Get over it.
>
>Or, better yet, don't get over it, continue to
>rationalize and call the red states "stupid" and
>you can lose in 2008 as well.
>
>American is ***NOT*** liberal. This was the most
>conservative/liberal choice we may have ever had.
>Clinton snuck into office as a conservative
>Democrat.
>
>Please, keep running Massachisetts Democrats for
>President, we in the Red states applaud your
>efforts.

I find it amusing that you scorn calling the
so-called "red" states "stupid" in a post where
you misspell common words and use improper
grammar.

Fred:

> I find it amusing that you scorn calling the
> so-called "red" states "stupid" in a post where
> you misspell common words and use improper
> grammar.

Why you make such unfair remarks? Maybe you believe intelligense is connected to spelling or something. But then go somewhere else and not comment here!

Maybe if red staytes had beteter edjiumication i'd be able to post better intelligense comments

"Bush actually had the highest number of votes of any president in US history"

really? in a human population that is growing exponentially and doubling itself every so many years? does this make your stat seem irrelevant?