Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal bmetzler's Journal: 537. A Very Special Number 20

Journal by bmetzler

537. One random number out of many. But yet this number does have importance. Do you recognise what this number refers too?

I had forgotten. This journal entry is mostly for my benefit so that the number will remain someplace where I will remember it.

For those who don't know, or have forgotten, 537 is the number of certified votes that George W. Bush won by in Florida, thus electing him president.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

537. A Very Special Number More

537. A Very Special Number

Comments Filter:
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • What really erks me is how most states give ALL the electoral college votes to whom ever gets a popular majority in that state. So even if it's only a 0.5% victory in that state it might as well have been a 100% landslide.
    • The problem I have with the current election system is that the way the two big parties often square off is that they get (for this example) 49% each.

      That the statistical probability of 2 choices, yes.

      And so it may only take an extra 1% to win. Which means that the country is pretty much divided in two.

      The country is quite evenly divided. So? We get elections that bounce control back and forth from one party to the other. That's seems to be part of the political system in the US. It's a fact of

      • Easy.

        Rig it so you run against a homocidal dutch supremacist heroin addict.

        You should win by a landslide.

        Note, I have nothing against the Dutch. It just sounded good.
        --
        TAKE 2:

        All you need is a sweeping, well-thought nearly ironclad reform platform that promises to lower both spending and taxes while reducing the deficit, strengthening the military, improving welfare, cracking down on abuses of the system, revolutionizing education, and doing it all at 45MPG or better in under 10 years.

        • TAKE 2:

          All you need is a sweeping, well-thought nearly ironclad reform platform that promises to lower both spending and taxes while reducing the deficit, strengthening the military, improving welfare, cracking down on abuses of the system, revolutionizing education, and doing it all at 45MPG or better in under 10 years.

          That was awesome. :)
          I might have to put that up on my wall, or at least send it around to the self-named "Unofficial Political Mailing List" we have here at work.

        • All you need is a sweeping, well-thought nearly ironclad reform platform that promises to lower both spending and taxes while reducing the deficit, strengthening the military, improving welfare, cracking down on abuses of the system, revolutionizing education, and doing it all at 45MPG or better in under 10 years.

          Nice.

          Well, the problem is that although there is a good percentage of the population wants lower spending and lower taxes, another good percentage of the population wants to increase taxes and

          • But by the same token, only a small percentage of those who vote Republican (or Democrat for that matter) agree 100% with the platforms of that party.

          • You can't win on platform, because whatever position you pick, half of the voting public won't like it.

            Not always the case, but close, AFAICS; either you have to adapt your platform to take a few voters away from the other side (but without alienating your own) - like a Democrat talking about spending restraint or supporting defense, or a Republican who supports taking money from those who earn it to give to those who don't ;-)

            The other scenario is the public moving relative to the two parties - either

      • Ok, so with an evenly divided country, how do you propose a candidate win with %57 percent or so of the vote?

        Disenfranchise minorities because their name is similar to the name of a convicted felon? Redistrict the state to give one party or the other a false majority?

        Both parties are at fault, to be sure, but that doesn't excuse it.
      • if you have twenty kids in a class, and you use the US voting system... and 11 kids want to play jump rope while 9 want to play tag...

        it's unfair to the kids who want to play tag. THey will have to wait and wait and try to get one of the jump rope kids to have a sense of fairness to let them have a turn.

        In short, under-representation is a problem.

        And i urge ANYONE interested in this issue to go out and pick up a copy of The Universe and the Teacup, by K. C. Cole. The ideas in the voting chapter are the

        • Under-representation is not a problem. No one in your kiddy example was under-represented. They each had one vote and they used it.

          "it's unfair to the kids who want to play tag."

          Nonsense. It's not in the least unfair to anyone. They took a vote and lost. The kids who want to play tag will have to suck it up and show deference to the majority.

          There will always be a loser when a vote is taken. What would be the point of voting if you end up giving everybody what they want?

  • When an election in a country with a quarter billion people comes down to 500 or so votes... it seems like there should be a system of co-presidents. Or something.

    Obviously it'd be a pain in the ass, but it just seems bizzare that having a statistically exactly equally divided nation swings one way or the other.

  • Well (Score:2)

    by GMontag ( 42283 )
    The last president who won by the margins that you like defeated the Soviet Union without a war and is despised by academia. The last previous was threatened with impeachment after withdrawing from VietNam, initiating an all-voluntary military and ending the draft, initiating massive entitlement programs, wage and price controls, and is also despised by academia.
  • So I'm ultimately confused about whether you think that is a good number or a bad one. BTW, if people in the US voted their opinions, third parties might do well, but the political machine has done a good job convincing people not to "waste" their vote.

Slashdot Top Deals

Too much of everything is just enough. -- Bob Wier

Close