1122: "Electoral Precedent"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

jpers36
Posts: 224
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:47 pm UTC
Location: The 3-manifold described by Red and Blue

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby jpers36 » Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:22 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:Shrub


*rolls eyes*

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby J Thomas » Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:31 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:No President has been elected while being a woman.


And also no former woman.

And so far, no future woman.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

senor_cardgage
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:28 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby senor_cardgage » Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:35 pm UTC

JetstreamGW wrote:
Kryigerofe wrote:
AvatarIII wrote:I don't think "No challenger has beaten a incumbent", and "No incumbent has beaten a challenger" are contradictory, because they are both true at the relevant time.
The fact that some of them are redundant is part of the point of the comic, I think.

Also it's possible that "no one can win without the popular majority" and "no one can lose with the popular majority" are not equivalent, if there is no popular majority.


Is popular majority in the US system something other than "more than half of the ones who voted voted for candidate X"? Because if not, "no popular majority" is a rather unlikely event.

Edit: I just realized people voting for third parties could make it more likely.


It's not terribly unlikely thanks to the Electoral College. Each state has a number of Electoral Votes based upon its population. That makes some states more important than others.

ALSO, these things are determined by district, not by whole-state vote total (though most states are winner-take-all, so most districts won wins the whole state). Thus someone could have enough discrete votes to get themselves a popular majority of the vote, but NOT have enough ELECTORAL VOTES to get themselves elected. It's happened... three times as I recall. Bush (2000 or 2004, I forget which) was the most recent.


That is not correct. At least, not for most of the states that I'm aware of. Electoral votes are determined by whole-state total, not by district (except for the couple of states that don't have a winner-take-all system).

skullturf
Posts: 556
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:37 pm UTC
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby skullturf » Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:57 pm UTC

Every time the Giants defeat the Patriots in the Super Bowl, it's followed nine months later by Barack Obama being elected President.

Of course, that's only happened once so far. But people seem to think there's more than a 50% chance of that trend continuing.

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby AvatarIII » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:07 pm UTC

Well let me tell you this, no black president has ever been re-elected, and no white challenger to a black incumbent president has ever lost. :roll:

But then again, no black Democrat candidate has ever lost to a white Republican candidate either.

monkeyangst
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 12:48 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby monkeyangst » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:16 pm UTC

MindSpy wrote:Maybe Im just confused but aren't a couple of these redundant or contradictory? For example theres "No challenger has beaten a incumbent", and then immediately there's "No incumbent has beaten a challenger". And he has "No challenger can win without getting the popular majority" (or an equivalent phrase) for both 1824 and 1876. That kind of ruined it for me, especially cause that first mix up is right at the start.


No, that's actually correct. George Washington was elected the first President (of the United States under the Constitution, lest there are any pedants in this forum) in 1789.

The next election was 1792, and Washington ran unopposed.

The next election, between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, was in 1796. Adams won. So far, no elections had had an incumbent and a challenger.

The next election was in 1800. Jefferson again ran against Adams. Jefferson won. That was the first election featuring a challenger and an incumbent, and the challenger won.

In 1804, Jefferson beat challenger Charles Pinckney, and at that time it was true that no incumbent had ever beaten a challenger. In this case, the incumbent won.

DarkSmokePuncher
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 9:07 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby DarkSmokePuncher » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:22 pm UTC

1996 is False. Proper nouns are not allowed in Scrabble.

jpers36
Posts: 224
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:47 pm UTC
Location: The 3-manifold described by Red and Blue

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby jpers36 » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:24 pm UTC

DarkSmokePuncher wrote:1996 is False. Proper nouns are not allowed in Scrabble.


Last I checked, both bill and bob are acceptable in Scrabble.

User avatar
SSteve
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 5:52 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby SSteve » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:36 pm UTC

Didn't Obama have something else statistically against him other than not winning Missouri? I just can't put my finger on it.

User avatar
EpicanicusStrikes
Random Boners = True Attraction
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:36 am UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby EpicanicusStrikes » Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:14 pm UTC

jpers36 wrote:
DarkSmokePuncher wrote:1996 is False. Proper nouns are not allowed in Scrabble.


Last I checked, both bill and bob are acceptable in Scrabble.

A bill is something that gets passed. Either from a merchant to a client in response of services rendered... or from a client to a merchant in the form of legal tender... or as a piece of legislation which passes due to the machinations of either other form.

Bob is something that things do while floating in water. Like ducks, wood and witches.

tacosalad
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:33 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby tacosalad » Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:35 pm UTC

OP Tipping wrote:
Alliterative tickets are undefeated

A friend of mine who knows everything tells me that Stevenson/Sparkman were defeated in 1956.


If we're also considering third parties, the full list of alliterative tickets defeated since 1856 is:
1876: Cooper / Cary (Greenback Labor)
1904: Corregan / Cox (Socialist Labor)
1932: Foster / Ford (Communist)
1952: Stevenson / Sparkman (Democrat)
2000: Phillips / Frazier (Constitution)

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby Diadem » Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:50 pm UTC

EpicanicusStrikes wrote:
jpers36 wrote:
DarkSmokePuncher wrote:1996 is False. Proper nouns are not allowed in Scrabble.


Last I checked, both bill and bob are acceptable in Scrabble.

A bill is something that gets passed. Either from a merchant to a client in response of services rendered... or from a client to a merchant in the form of legal tender... or as a piece of legislation which passes due to the machinations of either other form.

Bob is something that things do while floating in water. Like ducks, wood and witches.

So people named Bob, assuming they are non-wooden, are either witches or ducks?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
paulrowe
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:31 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby paulrowe » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:15 pm UTC

EpicanicusStrikes wrote:A bill is something that gets passed. Either from a merchant to a client in response of services rendered... or from a client to a merchant in the form of legal tender... or as a piece of legislation which passes due to the machinations of either other form.

Bob is something that things do while floating in water. Like ducks, wood and witches.

Of course, you could have used a simpler explanation, since a duck has a bill and it will bob in rough water.

User avatar
paulrowe
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:31 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby paulrowe » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:17 pm UTC

SSteve wrote:Didn't Obama have something else statistically against him other than not winning Missouri? I just can't put my finger on it.

Perhaps RM thought it uncouth to mention the obvious. Had Hillary Clinton won in 2008, he would have probably done the same thing. After all, we're looking for rather ludicrous streaks to be broken this far into the "experiment", right?

User avatar
paulrowe
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:31 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby paulrowe » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:19 pm UTC

libra wrote:Just out of curiosity as a UK subject of the Queen ... that was a comprehensive list of US Presidents and their succession, wasn't it?

Probably about as useful as knowing all the Kings and Queens of England without any of the historical information to accompany it. It can make for a great mnemonic and might help in a trivia game, but it's too shallow a draught from the Pierian Spring.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby omgryebread » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:33 pm UTC

paulrowe wrote:
libra wrote:Just out of curiosity as a UK subject of the Queen ... that was a comprehensive list of US Presidents and their succession, wasn't it?

Probably about as useful as knowing all the Kings and Queens of England without any of the historical information to accompany it. It can make for a great mnemonic and might help in a trivia game, but it's too shallow a draught from the Pierian Spring.
You could be cool like me and try to memorize all the members of Congress, in order of seniority.

For certain definitions of cool, anyway.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1415
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby mathmannix » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:35 pm UTC

jpers36 wrote:
DarkSmokePuncher wrote:1996 is False. Proper nouns are not allowed in Scrabble.


Last I checked, both bill and bob are acceptable in Scrabble.


Of course, assuming you are looking at how much names would score if they were allowable words in Scrabble (which I assume is RM's intent) then it depends upon your definition of "First Name"...

Using their commonly used first names:
1888 GROVER (10 points) loses to BENJAMIN (19 points)? = true
1916 WOODROW (14 points) beats CHARLES (12 points)? = true
1996 BILL (6 points) loses to BOB (7 points)? = false, ending trend
2012 BARACK (14 points) should beat MITT (6 points)? = ?????

However, using their actual (legal) first names:
1888 STEPHEN (12 points) loses to BENJAMIN (19 points)? = true
1916 THOMAS (11 points) loses to CHARLES (12 points)? = False!
1996 WILLIAM (12 points) beats ROBERT (8 points)? = True!
2012 BARACK (14 points) should beat WILLARD (11 points)? = ?????

(mitt is allowable...)
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
tetsujin
Posts: 426
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby tetsujin » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:40 pm UTC

SSteve wrote:Didn't Obama have something else statistically against him other than not winning Missouri? I just can't put my finger on it.


Hmmm...

First major-party candidate to turn down public financing?
---GEC
I want to create a truly new command-line shell for Unix.
Anybody want to place bets on whether I ever get any code written?

User avatar
EpicanicusStrikes
Random Boners = True Attraction
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:36 am UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby EpicanicusStrikes » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:51 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:2012 BARACK (14 points) should beat MITT (6 points)? = ?????

Damn. That even beats his actual (legal) first name of Mittens.

However, using their actual (legal) first names:
2012 BARACK (14 points) should beat WILLARD (11 points)? = ?????

I don't know where you're getting Willard from, but he can still win if he lands on a double-word-score ballot.

Oktalist
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:13 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby Oktalist » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:55 pm UTC

Kryigerofe wrote:Is popular majority in the US system something other than "more than half of the ones who voted voted for candidate X"? Because if not, "no popular majority" is a rather unlikely event.

In the UK, thanks to our disproportionate voting system, no party has won a popular majority since the second world war, despite 16 of those 18 general elections resulting in either Labour or the Conservatives winning a majority of constituency seats. The implication, of course, is that throughout this time, the country has had a government which the majority of voters did not vote for! The reason is that the population is not evenly distributed between constituencies. Areas with a higher proportion of Conservative or Labour voters tend to be divided into a greater number of smaller constituencies, while Liberal areas tend to be divided into fewer, larger constituencies, and whoever wins the most constituencies wins the election. Of course, Conservatives and Labour always oppose changing this system, while Liberals, Greens and others want to change it.
philip1201 wrote:Not everything which maps countable infinities onto finite areas is a Lovecraft reference.

User avatar
Wnderer
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:10 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby Wnderer » Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:27 pm UTC

An important trend is that the New York Yankees have not won a World Series with a Republican in the White House since Eisenhower. They've won with Kennedy, Carter, Clinton and Obama but have not won with Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1 or Bush 2. The Johnson anomaly has been attributed to a Vietnam War curse. While the Republican trend is similar to the Boston Red Sox curse that after they traded Babe Ruth, the Boston Red Sox could only win the World Series if George W Bush is President of the United States.

Sir Dancelot
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby Sir Dancelot » Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:39 pm UTC

Alt Text:"No white guy who's been mentioned on Twitter has gone on to win."

Obama is as much a white guy as a black guy.

jpers36
Posts: 224
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:47 pm UTC
Location: The 3-manifold described by Red and Blue

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby jpers36 » Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:58 pm UTC

EpicanicusStrikes wrote:
mathmannix wrote:2012 BARACK (14 points) should beat MITT (6 points)? = ?????

Damn. That even beats his actual (legal) first name of Mittens.

However, using their actual (legal) first names:
2012 BARACK (14 points) should beat WILLARD (11 points)? = ?????

I don't know where you're getting Willard from, but he can still win if he lands on a double-word-score ballot.


I know EpicanusStrikes is a troll (or at least a semi-troll), but for those in the audience who may be confused, the full legal name of the Republican presidential candidate is Willard Mitt Romney.

MrT2
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:02 am UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby MrT2 » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:21 pm UTC

tacosalad wrote:If we're also considering third parties, the full list of alliterative tickets defeated since 1856 is:
1876: Cooper / Cary (Greenback Labor)
1904: Corregan / Cox (Socialist Labor)
1932: Foster / Ford (Communist)
1952: Stevenson / Sparkman (Democrat)
2000: Phillips / Frazier (Constitution)

2012: Romney/Ryan (Republican) - if you count the party as part of the alliteration, then the original statement works again.

LtNOWIS
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:21 pm UTC
Location: Fairfax County

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby LtNOWIS » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:25 pm UTC

This is useful, because sometimes people will use these historical parallels in punditry, and it's not really useful analysis. Like, during the 2008 primaries, Hillary Clinton's surrogates pointed out that no Democrat had won without West Virginia, and that state vastly preferred Clinton to Obama. But he really didn't need West Virginia to win, so it was a stupid argument.

libra wrote:Just out of curiosity as a UK subject of the Queen ... that was a comprehensive list of US Presidents and their succession, wasn't it?

That makes this issue particularly invaluable in committing the names of past (and present) US Presidents to memory, should the circumstance arise where that would become necessary.

XKCD. Fulfilling the educational component of "Educational and Informative."

It's a comprehensive list of presidential elections, not presidents. Sometimes he mentions people who lost, like Blaine and Hancock, rather than the actual presidents. You'd be better off just reading the list a bunch, or listening to this song a few times.

paulrowe wrote:
libra wrote:Just out of curiosity as a UK subject of the Queen ... that was a comprehensive list of US Presidents and their succession, wasn't it?

Probably about as useful as knowing all the Kings and Queens of England without any of the historical information to accompany it. It can make for a great mnemonic and might help in a trivia game, but it's too shallow a draught from the Pierian Spring.

I think it can be a useful framework to work other history into.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby Max™ » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:47 pm UTC

Uh, the first post mentions a black president born outside of hawaii?

Clinton was at least as black as Obama.
mu

mcandre
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:47 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby mcandre » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:51 pm UTC

How easily are these facts confirmed with dbpedia RDF queries?

How easily are such facts discovered with RDF?

TommyAtkins
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:47 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby TommyAtkins » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:52 pm UTC

sictransit wrote:President Reagan, as best I can tell, was not left-handed. Wikipedia lists him as ambidextrous, but the evidence for this is a little thin. I Googled images of Reagan signing bills, and in all the photos I could find, he was signing things right-handed. The evidence for Reagan being ambidextrous appears to be unsourced rumor and the fact that he slapped Angie Dickinson with his left hand in the movie The Killers (which, for all I know, he might have done because the director wanted to frame the scene a certain way).

The handedness of presidents before President Hoover, per Wikipedia, is difficult to ascertain because of the stigma surrounding left-handedness, so when a left-handed president was first re-elected may be lost to history. The first (and only) unambiguously and openly left-handed president to be re-elected was President Clinton in 1996; if President Obama wins next month's election, he'll be the second.

Even Hoover's left-handedness is disputed. In every image I could find (in an admittedly cursory Google Images search) of Hoover signing something or writing with a pen, he was doing so right-handed.

David McCullough's biography of President Truman asserts he was naturally left-handed, but instructed to use his right hand by teachers. So the first unambiguously, openly left-handed president, barring evidence to the contrary, was President Ford.


Bear in mind that until recently left-handed people were normally taught right-handed penmanship in school; this is not specific to Truman. Writing with the left hand can increase the risk of smudging the ink, particularly in days before the advent of the ballpoint pen, and interferes with following the standardized orthography, which was vastly more important in pre-computer classrooms. Reagan and Hoover were definitely in school long enough ago that this might have been a problem.

Davecom3
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 4:50 am UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby Davecom3 » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:57 pm UTC

tetsujin wrote:
SSteve wrote:Didn't Obama have something else statistically against him other than not winning Missouri? I just can't put my finger on it.


Hmmm...

First major-party candidate to turn down public financing?


Actually, I think it's "No president, who wasn't alive before the United States was founded, has been born outside the United States."

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1415
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby mathmannix » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:16 pm UTC

Davecom3 wrote:
tetsujin wrote:
SSteve wrote:Didn't Obama have something else statistically against him other than not winning Missouri? I just can't put my finger on it.


Hmmm...

First major-party candidate to turn down public financing?


Actually, I think it's "No president, who wasn't alive before the United States was founded, has been born outside the United States."


If you mean the continental United States, then that applied to both candidates in 2008. If you didn't mean that, then, well...

I prefer to find comparisons between the two candidates:
2008 - election between the first two candidates born outside the continental United States
2012 - election between the first two candidates with polygamous great-grandpas (for Obama, his father and grandfather were polygamous as well.)
or 2012 - first election between two candidates whose fathers were born in foreign countries (not the first two candidates, though; this applies to Andrew Jackson too, at least.)

Edit: I was wrong. Not only was Buchanan's father born in Ireland, but the father of his 1856 opponent (John C. Frémont) was born in France. Oh well.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 913
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby da Doctah » Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:13 pm UTC

I was so disappointed last time out that Obama picked Biden as his running mate instead of Richardson. We could have had a race where the main parties' candidates for both president and veep collectively came from the last four states to join the union.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby Max™ » Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:27 pm UTC

Davecom3 wrote:
tetsujin wrote:
SSteve wrote:Didn't Obama have something else statistically against him other than not winning Missouri? I just can't put my finger on it.


Hmmm...

First major-party candidate to turn down public financing?


Actually, I think it's "No president, who wasn't alive before the United States was founded, has been born outside the United States."

I'm curious what exactly would happen if someone who wasn't born here wound up being elected, would the founding fathers rise from their graves brandishing the pens they wrote the constitution with like swords, clad head to toe in shining armor made from eagles and patriotism, proclaim that we have been very naughty in ignoring that one unimportant bit of the constitution, and though there are many other parts being ignored/violated/unraveled which we should be far more concerned about, we are all getting a cosmic spanking for letting an outsider become the head puppet?
mu

User avatar
San Fran Sam
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:54 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby San Fran Sam » Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:05 am UTC

senor_cardgage wrote:
JetstreamGW wrote:
Kryigerofe wrote:
AvatarIII wrote:I don't think "No challenger has beaten a incumbent", and "No incumbent has beaten a challenger" are contradictory, because they are both true at the relevant time.
The fact that some of them are redundant is part of the point of the comic, I think.

Also it's possible that "no one can win without the popular majority" and "no one can lose with the popular majority" are not equivalent, if there is no popular majority.


Is popular majority in the US system something other than "more than half of the ones who voted voted for candidate X"? Because if not, "no popular majority" is a rather unlikely event.

Edit: I just realized people voting for third parties could make it more likely.


It's not terribly unlikely thanks to the Electoral College. Each state has a number of Electoral Votes based upon its population. That makes some states more important than others.

ALSO, these things are determined by district, not by whole-state vote total (though most states are winner-take-all, so most districts won wins the whole state). Thus someone could have enough discrete votes to get themselves a popular majority of the vote, but NOT have enough ELECTORAL VOTES to get themselves elected. It's happened... three times as I recall. Bush (2000 or 2004, I forget which) was the most recent.


That is not correct. At least, not for most of the states that I'm aware of. Electoral votes are determined by whole-state total, not by district (except for the couple of states that don't have a winner-take-all system).


And further, the number of electoral votes is based on the number of Representatives plus Senators in Congress. Not population. so the small red states like Wyoming carry a lot more weight than larger blue states like California.

There are two states which select Electors by Congressional district - Nebraska and Maine. However, until 2008, whoever won the state took all of the districts. So noone noticed.

Lastly, there is a movement a foot by some states to pool their electoral votes. The electors will vote for whoever wins the nationwide popular vote. It will be by contract. It will go into effect as soon as enough states sign on to total at lease 270 elelctoral votes. I don't know how many states have signed on to date or how many electoral votes they add up to.

this avoids another situation as in 2000 when George Bush won by one vote.

Zjoot
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:50 am UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby Zjoot » Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:54 am UTC

"Republicans without facial hair are unbeatable... Kennedy beat Nixon"

But I thought Nixon needed a shave. :wink:

arcyqwerty
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:11 am UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby arcyqwerty » Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:16 am UTC

Didn't Zachary Taylor (Whig) win PA in 1848? So the Democrats lost PA and the election....
http://www.archives.gov/federal-registe ... _1853.html

srwight
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:31 am UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby srwight » Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:34 am UTC

EpicanicusStrikes wrote:
jpers36 wrote:
DarkSmokePuncher wrote:1996 is False. Proper nouns are not allowed in Scrabble.


Last I checked, both bill and bob are acceptable in Scrabble.

A bill is something that gets passed. Either from a merchant to a client in response of services rendered... or from a client to a merchant in the form of legal tender... or as a piece of legislation which passes due to the machinations of either other form.

Bob is something that things do while floating in water. Like ducks, wood and witches.


+10 internets for the Quest for the Holy Grail reference! And I'm thoroughly baffled that nobody else seems to have picked up on it.

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby J Thomas » Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:43 am UTC

San Fran Sam wrote:Lastly, there is a movement a foot by some states to pool their electoral votes. The electors will vote for whoever wins the nationwide popular vote. It will be by contract. It will go into effect as soon as enough states sign on to total at lease 270 elelctoral votes. I don't know how many states have signed on to date or how many electoral votes they add up to.


The last I heard, 8 states +DC have signed and they have 132 electoral votes. New York considered it but did not sign again this year. It passed the NY Senate and a majority of the Assembly co-sponsored it, but it did not get voted on. I think four others started legislation this year which failed.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

mipper2
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:44 am UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby mipper2 » Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:52 am UTC

Quicksilver wrote:He's really grasping at straws come 1996, but it's a damn solid effort.


Nobody beat someone at least 23 years his elder... until Clinton beat Dole.

And for some of the other more awkward selections:

No one with a Ph.D. can get elected… until Wilson in 1912

No one who lost the popular vote, but won the election can get reelected … until Bush in 2004
Last edited by mipper2 on Thu Oct 18, 2012 3:13 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

mcandre
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:47 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby mcandre » Thu Oct 18, 2012 2:26 am UTC

Also, bear in mind that much video and photography is horizontally mirrored for various visual preferences. And it's also easy to photoshop-correct any oddities like backwards text in such cases; You have to provide evidence that any visual media was NOT mirrored in this way.

And yeah, a few poses of someone pretending to sign bills might just be posing them in a conventional right-handed pose. No way to tell the hand preference based on that.

ijuin
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby ijuin » Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:31 am UTC

mathmannix wrote:
Davecom3 wrote:
tetsujin wrote:
SSteve wrote:or 2012 - first election between two candidates whose fathers were born in foreign countries (not the first two candidates, though; this applies to Andrew Jackson too, at least.)

I presume that "foreign countries" in this context excludes those fathers who were born under pre-Revolution Britain? No president up at least till Lincoln had a father who was born after the Revolution (Thomas Lincoln was born in 1783).

Now, as for the insanity of the practice of having all Electors for one State being given over to the candidate who wins a majority in that State, consider the following. Let us say that this year's voter turnout for California is 16,000,000 (around 65% of those eligible to vote in the State). Let's say that 8,100,000 votes are for Obama and 7,900,000 are for Romney (for the sake of simplicity, I am deliberately assuming that 100% of the votes fall to one or the other of them). Obama has the majority, therefore he wins all of California's Electors. What this means is that the 7.9 million Californians who voted for Romney are completely disregarded at the national level, since the end result will be the same as if all sixteen million votes were unanimously for Obama. 7.9 million votes is about 3% of those who are eligible to vote nationwide, and some presidential elections are won by a margin smaller than that--and this is only counting ONE state--it multiplies when the same thing happens across all of the states. It is thus theoretically possible for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than thirty percent of the popular vote--i.e. with his opponent getting TWICE as many votes as him.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 44 guests