Why do people still believe Tax and Spend works?

Primarily because of the policies promoted by the theories of John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was a British economist/politically connected academic who gained popularity during the 1920s. Until Keynes, economists were primarily viewed as protectors of the nation's long term fiscal and monetary stability. Politicians turned to them when seeking advice on the long term implications of the policies they were considering. Keynes changed all of that by repackaging old ideas of Mercantilism into the "New Economics." For starters, he had a life long affinity for networking. His list of politically connected international acquaintances would make any modern politician jealous. Secondly, his ability to argue was unmatched. He could sell any idea, defend any premise, and embarrass any competitor who confronted him with witty, deliberate, and often factually incorrect statements that would go unevaluated until long after the discussion ended. Lastly, he was able to combine those talents in to a book called The General Theory in which he argued that all global economic downturns were the result of falling demand and falling prices. He gave politicians a mathematically justified, although falsely premised, strategy for managing economic booms to get them reelected. Through Keynes, politicians gained academic support for virtually any spending program that could be devised. All with the goal of ending the perpetual boom and bust roller coaster that the "free market" had wrought on the system for so many years. Among many other completely illogical premises, Keynes argued that interest rates were historically too low, savings had no economic benefit, government spending (preferably of newly printed money or through newly issued debt) was the same as private investment, and that the only way to save the price mechanism of the free market was to completely destroy it through fiscal and monetary policy. In the Keynesian system, politicians justify any spending they do as better than not spending because the results of not spending would be disastrous. They can't prove how the results of not spending would be disastrous, but they will insist on it until the day they die. In reality, "disastrous" to the politicians would be not having the ability to claim that they are doing everything they can to buy your vote. To them, it would be "disastrous" if they did not get re elected. Never mind that this ignores every logical premise ever devised from the beginning of time. Politicians have the primary goal of getting re elected. Until Keynes, they were restricted by centuries of sound economic logic. Keynes replaced that with numerous formulas all devised to justify his policy prescriptions. All the advanced mathematics in the world can't make up for false premises.

example of an election where the early announcement of state results lead to a decrease in voter turnout?

Florida in 2000 is the prime example, but Pickles has it exactly backwards. What happened is this: The Florida panhandle is in a different time zone than the rest of Florida -- it is one hour earlier in the panhandle than the rest of Florida. The panhandle is in the central time zone, while the rest of Florida is in the eastern time zone. The Florida panhandle is heavily Republican, and usually votes for Republican candidates for President. The polls in Florida close at 8:00 p.m. After 8:00 p.m. IN THE EASTERN TIME ZONE, the networks started reporting results from Florida, and two of the networks called the race for Gore -- even though the polls were still open in the panhandle, because it was only 7:00 p.m. there. (This appears to have been inadvertent. The reporters didn't know that the polls were still open in the panhandle.) Election officials in the panhandle said that the turnout during the last hour before the polls closed (i.e., after the networks had called Florida for Gore) was significantly lower than it normally was in presidential elections. This suggested that voters in this heavily Republican area did not go to the polls because they thought their votes wouldn't matter. In fact, Bush won Florida by only a few hundred votes -- he probably lost several thousand votes in the panhandle because the networks called the race before the polls closed. Had the networks not prematurely called the Florida results, there would have been no election controversy in 2000.

Why should I vote if an electoral college determies who wins?

"The Electoral College has performed its function for over 200 years (and in over 50 presidential elections) by ensuring that the President of the United States has both sufficient popular support to govern and that his popular support is sufficiently distributed throughout the country to enable him to govern effectively. Although there were a few anomalies in its early history, none have occurred in the past century. Proposals to abolish the Electoral College, though frequently put forward, have failed largely because the alternatives to it appear more problematic than is the College itself. The fact that the Electoral College was originally designed to solve one set of problems but today serves to solve an entirely different set of problems is a tribute to the genius of the Founding Fathers." by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC National Clearinghouse on Election Administration This conclusion was reached after reciting the pros and cons of the Electoral College found here: http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php To speak to the divided electorate and the trouble that can arise, one need not look beyond the election of 1860. http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/pe1860.html Essentially, a third party called the Constitutional Union Party and a fragmented Democratic Party (divided along geographic lines) split the vote sufficiently that a minority president was elected with only 39.82% of the popular vote, but from among the most populous states. That minority President was Abraham Lincoln who recieved 1,865,908 votes while all other candidates combined garnered 2,819,653 votes. By virtue of getting enough votes from the more populous states Lincoln had an Electoral College landslide with with over 59% (180). Had the Democrats not split and the Constitutional Union Party never existed, Lincoln would most likely have lost the election and 618,222 (estimated due to lost records) wouldn't have died in an unnecessary war. Interestingly, those total casualties is only slightly less than the total votes cast by one state; New York. Lincoln's election propelled by just a few populous states compelled a large portion of the Union to secede. Indeed Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in the states that seceded. Lincoln was viewed as an illegitimate president who did not have broad support and was determined to use the full force and power of the federal government to force its will on those who never had the opportunity to vote for him. His election was not the result of the Electoral College but was directly related to a divided electorate blinded by regional passions. It should be noted that Lincoln won the popular vote but in a majority of the country, he wasn't popular at all. Ironically, it was the South's passion for a Constitutional government that was its downfall. "All that the South has ever desired was that the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth." "We could have pursued no other course without dishonour. And as sad as the results have been, if it had all to be done over again, we should be compelled to act in precisely the same manner." General Robert E. Lee, C.S.A.

How do I get the process for having gastric bypass going?

Gastric bypass: Is this weight-loss surgery for you? Are you a candidate for gastric bypass surgery? Find out what to expect and the benefits and risks involved. It's always best to lose weight through a healthy diet and regular physical activity. But if you're among those who have tried and can't lose the excess weight that's causing your health problems, weight-loss (bariatric) surgery may be an option. Gastric bypass, which changes the anatomy of your digestive system to limit the amount of food you can eat and digest, is the favored bariatric surgery in the United States. Most surgeons prefer this procedure because it's safer and has fewer complications than other available weight-loss surgeries. It can provide long-term, consistent weight loss if accompanied with ongoing behavior changes. Gastric bypass isn't for everyone with obesity, however. It's a major procedure that poses significant risks and side effects and requires permanent changes in your lifestyle. Who is gastric bypass surgery for? Generally, gastric bypass surgery is reserved for people who are unable to achieve or maintain a healthy weight through diet and exercise, are severely overweight, and who have health problems as a result. Gastric bypass may be considered if: ·Your body mass index (BMI) is 40 or higher (extreme obesity). ·Your BMI is 35 to 39.9 (obesity), and you have a serious weight-related health problems such as diabetes or high blood pressure. Gastric bypass surgery doesn't replace the need for following a healthy diet and regular physical activity program. In fact, the success of the surgery depends in part on your commitment to following the guidelines given to you about diet and exercise. As you consider weight-loss surgery, make sure that you make every effort to exercise, change your eating habits and adjust any other lifestyle factors that have contributed to your excess weight http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/gastric-bypass/HQ01465 http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/gastric-bypass-diet/WT00007 http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/gastric-bypass-surgery/AN01378 I had gastric bypass surgery in April 2005. I started out at 268, now I’m 180 and holding, after 1 year and 7 months. These links will help you in many ways to make a decision if this is for you or not. I vote yes, because it made such a difference in my life. I was taking 8 pills a day, and after my surgery, I lost my diabetes. The way they do the surgery, takes your diabetes away. I no longer have to take glucophage, and I no longer have high Cholesterol or high blood pressure. I’m down to 2 pills a day. I went from a size 26-28 to a 16-18. Most people struggle with paying for the surgery. Go to this site, it is a great support system for you, because it’s only people who have had gastric bypass. Every insurance program has been rated, and you’ll get tips on how to deal with your insurance company, as well as, surgery tips, food tips, and just support. http://www.obesityhelp.com/ There is a very good web site by a guy named Basil White. He’s a govt. worker and a comedian. He walks you through everything. Very interesting. He had the surgery and did well. http://www.basilwhite.com/gastric/ Some other helpful links… http://dir.yahoo.com/Health/Diseases_and_Conditions/Obesity/Gastric_Bypass_Surgery/ http://www.stapleclub.com/general_info.htm http://www.locateadoc.com/articles.cfm/1454/1337 http://www.dhmc.org/webpage.cfm?site_id=2&org_id=28&morg_id=0&sec_id=0&gsec_id=35507&item_id=35508 http://www.mygastricbypass.com/ http://www.gwdocs.com/health/eHA-eHA_Content_C-Generic_Content_Page_Template_1131123706877.html Good luck with your surgery and new life!

What is your solution to problems with healthcare in the United States?

The first step in curing any disease is to diagnose what is wrong. No responsible doctor would just start treating symptoms with no clear idea of what is causing those symptoms. Much less would the doctor continue a treatment that has been shown to make the patient sicker. In this case, the health care portion of the economy is a text book, poster-child case of the bad things that happen when you eliminate market forces from a portion of the economy and substitute socialism and government intervention. Years ago, before all this began, like in the early 60’s, medical insurance was much less common, and not a necessity. Why? Because under the fee-for-service model, people could generally afford to pay their own doctor and hospital bills, because the prices had not yet gone into the stratosphere. Medical care also did not cost such a large portion of our GNP in those days. Why, just think, we actually had affordable healthcare! It wasn’t perfect, not everybody got the same care, but it also was not a national crisis threatening to bankrupt the country. The disease began, by some accounts, when employers were able to circumvent WW2 wage and price controls by providing employer paid medical insurance as part of their benefit package. Soon this became so widespread that it became an expected part of employment. But this, along with Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960’s, were big drivers of rising costs of medical care. Essentially, medical care became "free" to large numbers at the point of service, and as with most free goods, the demand grew rapidly. With either the USG or an insurance company picking up the tab, patients cared little what the price was. The USG, once having gotten involved in the medical care industry, tried various different interventions after WW2, becoming a largter and larger player in that market. Each time government intervened ostensibly to solve the problem, we have ended up with a larger and more intractable problem. Now the USG is on the threshhold of nationalizing the entire industry. It is clear that what is needed is a return to fee-for-service medical care. We need to unwind the skein of socialized medicine that we have been creating for so many decades. Perhaps the intentions were good, but the results have not been good. One recent step in that direction has been the rise of Health Savings Accounts (HSA), coupled with high deductible health insurance (HDHI). This allows a person to put tax free money into the account, and keep whatever is not spent on medical care. There is a real incentive NOT to buy marginal medical services and to shop for the best price, since the savings accrue to the individual or family. The patient is once again empowered as a customer. In addition, the premiums on the HDHI are lower, so less money flows into the insurance pool and more remains in the hands of the consumer. There is a pretty good discussion of the history of the subject at the linki provided.

In the '08 NH primary, why was the Republican winner announced so much earlier than the Democratic winner?

I don't know. I guess it is because people are so slow on counting and gathering votes.

How can they project the winner of states with such a small percentage in?

There are three key factors. First is exit polling. Exit polling gives them an approximate breakdown -- both demographically and overall -- of how the vote is going. If exit polling shows a rout, it is very easy to project a winner and you only need a small number of votes to show that the exit polling is accurate. Second is knowledge of historical voting patterns. In my state, the two major cities are likely to go 80% Democratic. The inner suburbs are about 60% Democratic The outer suburbs are about 43% Democratic and most of the rural counties are about 33% Democratic. While there are some exceptions, most precincts have a pretty consistent voting history. Knowing what precincts have done in the past allows you to compare the results in early precincts to past results and project similar changes across the board. While there will be minor variations across precincts, most precincts with similar compositions and historical voting patterns will move in similar ways. Third is which precincts come in early. You need a good cross-section to confirm exit polls and that the swing is consistent. If all of your early precincts are from tiny towns that tend to vote 75% Republican and 25% Democrat, the fact that turnout in those precincts is up 10% and the Republicans are getting 77% tells you nothing about what is happening in the urban districts. However, if you have some urban precincts (especially minority and union precincts) as well as suburban and rural precincts, you have a good sample to allow you to do statistical analysis. When you get an early call (10-15% in or less), you tend to have all three factors present. When the early vote totals resemble those in close elections and the exit polls show a close race, the calls tend to not come in until you have 60-70% of the vote in and it one party is running out of strong areas left in which to gain votes.

Why did Ohio's Governor cancel early voting rights for all Ohioans except Military personnel?

The Republicans have decided if they can't BUY this election they'll STEAL it. There is excellent evidence that GW Bush wasn't legitimately elected either time! The 2004 election actually hinged on Ohio, where many blacks and Democrats were disenfranchised, and where thousands of ballots were destroyed before they could be recounted. Ohio is one of the few 'battleground' swing states Romney will desperately need, and they already have a background of just this kind of electoral fraud. So the Republican governor of Ohio is being counted on by the party leadership to do all he can to skew the results in that state.

If both candidates in a presidential election have an equal number of votes, who breaks the tie?

Not sure if you mean on state or national level, but here is the answer to both. "What would happen if two candidates tied in a State's popular vote, or there was a dispute as to the winner? A tie is a statistically remote possibility even in smaller States. But if a State's popular vote were to come out as a tie between candidates, State law would govern as to what procedure would be followed in breaking the tie. A tie would not be known of until late November or early December, after a recount and after the Secretary of State had certified the election results. Federal law would allow a State to hold a run-off election. A very close finish could also result in a run-off election or legal action to decide the winner. Under Federal law (3 U.S.C. section 5), State law governs on this issue, and would be conclusive in determining the selection of Electors. The law provides that if States have laws to determine controversies or contests as to the selection of Electors, those determinations must be completed six days prior to the day the Electors meet." "What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 electoral votes? If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each State delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House."

What are some of the long lasting affects from immigration restriction from the past that we feel today?

I guess you could argue that numerical restrictions on certain groups had the effect of preventing them from gaining political power, kept them down, etc. on the other hand, the 'unwashed masses' were a source of great political power to the classic Tammany Hall political machines who essentially made coalitions with the various groups, meeting their immediate needs, providing patronage jobs. The Irish [and other english speaking immigrants] were able to dominate public sector jobs such as police and fire as a result of their control of the votes of other immigrant groups. Interestingly enough, hispanics are now moving into these types of jobs as the 2nd/3rd generation attains higher education. Just parrot back whatever your instructor's angle is.

How can you ever vote Republican again after they broke the world?

Let's consider Obama's "accomplishments": -- HIGHEST number of unemployed Americans IN HISTORY. -- HIGHEST number of poverty level Americans IN HISTORY. -- HIGHEST budget deficits IN HISTORY. -- HIGHEST national debt IN HISTORY. -- HIGHEST rate of increase of national debt IN HISTORY. -- WORST recession in 70 years. -- WORST housing market in 70 years. -- WORST job market for African Americans IN HISTORY. -- Most divisive political climate in 150 years. -- Unprecedented Chicago thug-like bullying and threats against the Judicial Branch. -- Most arrogant, snobbish Marie-Antoinette-style First Family IN HISTORY.. Congrats Mr. Obama... you really did "fundamentally transform" the U.S.... toward becoming one of those Third World cesspools that formed your character as you grew up.

How concerned are you about voting machine hacking and manipulation of the results? ?

It is a definite concern. The only problem is I am still trying to figure out whether the video on Youtube concerning the Diebold Company (maker of election tallying machines) is a fake or not.

Who pushed the presidential primary begun in the early 20th century?

"The series of presidential primary elections and caucuses held in each U.S. state and territory is part of the nominating process of United States presidential elections. This process was never included in the United States Constitution, and thus was created over time by the political parties. Some states only hold primary elections, some only hold caucuses, and others use a combination of both. These primaries and caucuses are staggered between January and June before the general election in November. The primary elections are run by state and local governments, while caucuses are private events that are directly run by the political parties themselves. A state's primary election or caucus usually is an indirect election: instead of voters directly selecting a particular person running for President, it determines how many delegates each party's national convention will receive from their respective state. These delegates then in turn select their party's presidential nominee. Each party determines how many delegates are allocated to each state. Along with those delegates chosen during the primaries and caucuses, state delegations to both the Democratic and Republican conventions also include "unpledged" delegates, usually current and former elected officeholders and party leaders, who can vote for whomever they want. This system of presidential primaries and caucuses is somewhat controversial because of its staggered nature. The major advantage is that candidates can concentrate their resources in each area of the country one at a time instead of campaigning in every state simultaneously. However, those states which traditionally hold their primaries and caucuses in the latter half of the primary season are normally at a tremendous disadvantage because the races are usually over by then. As a result, more states vie for earlier primaries to claim a greater influence in the process."

shall we ALLOW obama to HINDER the rights of our Military from voting?

votevets.org About | Our Candidate Absolutely unreal! As detailed today in a piece I wrote for ThinkProgress, Mitt Romney is trying to restrict voting rights for over 900,000 Ohio veterans (along with every other Ohioan). This includes military retirees with more than 20 years of service and multiple tours. We need to fight back, to protect our democracy against this horrific move. Late last week, the Romney campaign came out in defense of a new Ohio law, which would take away early voting rights for Ohio citizens – a law which President Obama is fighting against in court. That new law, passed by Ohio Republicans, would restrict the incredibly successful early-voting program in the state, and specifically do away with voting the weekend before election day, when many working Ohioans chose to vote early. In 2008, almost a third of Ohio voters used the early voting program, including veterans. CLICK HERE TO TELL MITT ROMNEY TO STOP TRYING TO TAKE AWAY VOTING RIGHTS FOR VETERANS We’ve already seen what a non-early-voting Ohio looks like. We saw it in 2004, when in many polling places had extremely long lines (especially in urban areas), and polling places were shut down before everyone in line had a chance to vote. Non-early voting, quite literally, resulted in the disenfranchisement of voters. That’s what Mitt Romney wants to go back to. That’s what he wants to subject nearly a million Ohio veterans to, after they wore the uniform, and swore their lives to uphold our Constitution, including the right to vote. It’s disgusting. It’s wrong. And it hurts veterans. Click here to tell Mitt Romney that we won’t stand for his brazen attempt to make it harder for veterans to vote. And tell all of your friends and family to do the same. Thanks for your support. Sincerely, Jon Soltz Iraq War Veteran Chairman, VoteVets.org @JonSoltz

Will Republicans vote for a Democrat in the primary to change results?

I won't. I would consider crossing the party line only to vote for a Democrat I wanted in office. Of the two Democrats left standing in the run for the presidency, I definitely like Obama better than Clinton, but would prefer to have neither of them in the White House. I will vote for McCain. He is not an ideal candidate but he is a great American and I believe he would make a good president. His principle disadvantage is his age, however I don't see this as an insurmountable problem. He appears healthy. There have been many people on both sides of the aisle who have criticized McCain for various reasons. I have been watching this man since before the 2000 elections and I believe he is presidential material. That doesn't mean he will win, but he can win and would be a good president if elected. There have been some allegations against McCain, particularly regarding his time as a POW, that I believe are unsubstantiated and likely false. Fellow ex-POWs have largely defended him. But back to the original question--I believe it is up to the Democrats to pick their candidate. And it is up to the Republicans to pick theirs. I will not be voting in any primary other than the Republican, and--since I will vote in Texas--that is coming up next week. (Early voting, thank you.)

Where can I see the Election results?

galluppoll.com. cnn.com, msnbc.com

How many of you are voting for Prince Poppycock?

I am the biggest America's got Talent fan and always will be. I've been following it since day one, but because of last night, I have to say season five is most sickening, and disgraceful thing. I usually love and respect Piers Morgan's comments and opinions but he has no right to buzz someone in the finals no matter how bad they were. They made it this far and they deserve an equal chance. Prince Poppycock is the reason that this season was so exciting. He's an inspiration to me, and one of my role models. I been his number one fan since day one, and I gave him all the votes I possibly could. His act from last night has been on my mind all day and to this very second my heart is pounding to figure out what happens! I would love nothing more tonight than for him to win the show. Believe me, I was more upset than he was when he got buzzed! Prince Poppycock is vegas, and he deserves to go all the way. Piers has given him two standing ovations in the past - which proves that there is a better side to him. Though I don't see how last night's performance failed (apart from the technical difficulties he admitted), I do agree it wasn't his best. I'm waiting for the results, and would be very surprised and excited if he does win. Here's my opinion on Jackie. I love her - she's adorable. But she's so young! It's obvious that her career and life will be spent singing, and filling stadiums around the world. Plus, taking away her normal childhood is almost like abuse. She should live her age - go to school, make friends, and everything. When she's older she will have a career in what she wishes and being a YouTube act, making it to the top four is a big accomplishment as it is. Also, if she becomes famous too early, who knows what kind of a person she'll turn out to be. A lot of people who start off famous at such a young age often forget the others things important in their lives. Michael Grimm and Fighting Gravity are two acts I've enjoyed all season and I love that they are in the top four. I am very happy with the top four this year and the level of talent from this season is amazing. My heart still says: I want Prince Poppycock to win, and it's been like this since day one!

What time will the presidential election results be determined? When do acceptance/concession speeches occur?

You could possibly miss it. After the 2000 election I doubt that any of the big networks are going to call it until they are absolutely sure, but typically exit polling data from the last states to vote will give an electoral count that is pretty clear cut. Unless the margin is razor thin, like in years past, they may be able to call it by 10. Of course, you might have internet access on your plane...or you could make a request to the crew that they announce it if a decision is made. Considering it's a bit of news that affect the whole country they may just do that (I'm sure they're be curious too), however for fear of rioting on the plane they may just keep that information to themselves.

How did voting trends drastically change in 2008 elections from previous years?

Like almost every election prior to 2008, the Democrats have continued to master the art of voter fraud, this time using the help of ACORN. Furthermore, the only clear trend from 2008 is RACISM - Africans (many of whom have never voted a day in their lives) now suddenly show up to vote just because of a black presidential candidate. These trends will definitely continue as this Obama regime will continue consolidate it power, primarily by manipulating the census to gain favorable results by redistricting. 2008 was then end of Democracy as we know it, as Obama and is band of thugs will do all it can to remain in power.

Where can I find out the early voting results so far?

They do not count them until election day.!!

How can Obama go to Florida & Michigan and ask for their Votes in the General Election?

It will be a hard sell. But take heart! Clinton is not out yet and she has been active in seeing those states represented. An action that I am sure will be remembered come November. The main reason Clinton stays in the race is because she still has a good shot at winning. All the ongoing issues with Rezko and Wright aside, there is still the issue of MI and FL with their 350 delegates. If they are seated in anything approaching the actual results, Obama’s lead shrinks to a handful. Second, there are still about 200 delegates to be selected in 6 races. Third, and most importantly, THE SUPERDELEGATE COUNTS FOR EACH CANDIDATE ARE IRRELEVANT!! Allow me to explain. Under democratic party rules, the superdelegates are not locked into their selection until the convention when they actually vote. They are free to change their vote however often they want. They can go to Clinton from Obama, to Obama from Clinton, or back and forth a dozen times, it does not matter. The only count that counts is the one in August at the convention. Therefore, all 795 superdelegates are “in play”. And just to make it more interesting, Obama leads Clinton by less then the number of currently undecided superdelegates. Until all the SDs make up their minds, they are not only in play, but ripe for Clinton to bribe, I mean, convince to vote for her. Thus, it is way too early for her to drop out.

As a Democrat voting in the upcoming Republican primaries will you choose Bachman or Romney?

Um - they don't allow Democrats to vote in Republican primaries...

Are Republicans hoping for a case of mass amnesia. Is it still to early to forget their catastrophic policies?

That's Republican's feeble hope. That they would be able to tank the economy and pin it on Obama. But now the economy is bouncing back people in America understand that President Obama is fighting to repair America after the shame of the Bush years with an unpaid for, pointless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, unregulated banks ruining the economy, and the people of New Orleans left to fend for themselves after the disaster of Hurricane Katrina. Republicans hope Americans will forget about the shameful disaster of the Bush years, but it's hard to forget when they make fools out of themselves and their presidential candidate says he doesn't care about poor people.

Are Republicans hoping for a case of mass amnesia. Is it still to early to forget their catastrophic policies?

Unfortunately Americans have an incredibly short memory and short attention spans and they are likely to forget the disaster that was the last Republican Congress. Unfortunately most get their news from television and their information on political matters from political ads of all things. Our collective failure to know more and think clearly often dooms us to elect charlatans and the Republican Party relies upon shallow understanding of what elections are really about. A few nifty sound bites and doublespeak is all they might need. Sad.

Is Steven Harper trying to force the opposition to call an early election?

Of course he is trying to force them to... but there is no way he will get it.

Can you explain how individual votes count in a Presidential Election?

I'll start with the last part of your question: Yes, the electoral college has actually voted against the popular vote; I believe it was in the 60's. Whoever ran against Kennedy actually had the popular vote, however, they did not have the majority of electoral votes to take them all, so Kennedy won the electoral college and the election. Now to the first part: Each state has "electorates" which are part of the electoral college (bogus from initial concept, I feel), and whichever candidate from that state receives the majority of the popular vote in that state, also receives all the electoral votes from that state. Each electorate has a vote and is supposed to cast their vote for the candidate that receives the majority of the popular vote in their particular area of representation in that state. Then, with each electorate's vote cast, supposedly "representing" a simplified picture of the vote counts for the whole state, they give all the electoral votes for that state to whichever candidate has the majority of them. After each state has "tallied" their votes and decided which candidate gets the electoral votes from their state, then the electoral college totals each state's votes and whoever wins the most electoral states, wins the election. Each state does not have the same number of electoral votes, though, and as such, certain winning combinations of states can lock out one of the candidates without even totalling the rest of the states. If you read what I have written about how the popular vote "translates" into the electoral vote, you will see that there is a double "rounding" process that takes place which dilutes the individual voter's power to elect. If this were not to happen, it would make more work for the vote counters and the candidates (boo-hoo) and each individual vote would actually count as one vote. If you don't understand what I mean, then consider this: If each electoral vote went to the candidate that it represented, based on the popular vote, then a candidate could conceivably win without having the majority of electoral votes from every state, possibly even from any state. But since the majority of the popular vote sets the individual electoral vote within a state's districts, and then the majority electoral vote in a state sets that state's electoral vote as a whole, the diluted results make it simpler just to count the electoral votes from 50 states, rather than from how many districts within 50 states. It also makes it very easy for a front-runner candidate to get all the marbles when they barely squeaked by in the popular vote. It's a "winner-take-all" system at each progressive level, thereby eliminating the weaker candidates early and then the individual voter's power at the end. Don't get me wrong, I still believe that everyone should vote, but don't be fooled into thinking that your vote is actually your vote and weighs the same as all other votes - that's only true if the majority of the people in your state vote the same way you do. If not, then your vote emerges on the other side of the dilution process as a discarded indication of what the minority in your particular state wanted, and is never actually counted when the "real" election happens at the electoral college level of 50 states.

Can anyone explain why the caucuses and primaries today had no delegates at stake?

That article is inaccurate. Only Missouri had no delegates at stake -currently-. Missouri will award its delegates later on in March, so the state wouldn't be penalized by the RNC and have it's delegate count lowered. Hope this helps!

How long will it take after the polls close for official results to be announced?

There will be projected results for most states within a few minutes after the polls close in that state. Official results won't occur until the early morning hours after all votes are counted.

When do we start voting for 2012 presidential election?

the election is in early November, individual states have different regulations for early voting anyone who makes a prediction this early is just engaging in wishful thinking

When do we vote for the 2008 presidential elections, and when does the president inagurate?

As of now, the Presidential Primaries and Caucuses begin in January of 2008 and run through early June of 2008. The actual conventions of the two parties are in late August and early September. The election is on November 4th. Each state sets the time that the polls in that state close. Based on an unofficial agreement between the major news organizations, no one releases any results until all polls close in a state. (Some states have two time zones which means that the polls close at different times in different parts of the state). Shortly after the polls close, results start coming in from the various precincts. It normally takes until the latter part of Wednesday to have unofficial returns from most precincts. However, most networks participate in some type of polling services. While no polling service is perfect, if the results of the poll are sufficiently clear cut, and the early precincts (based on the history in those precincts) seem to follow the polling results, the networks may project that a candidate will win the state when all of the votes are counted. While unofficial results are typically complete in most states by Wednesday evening, there are some exceptions. For example, Washington allows no excuse absentee voting by mail. While there is a deadline to mail in a ballot in Washington, this delays the process of getting a final count. Likewise, federal law requires states to count ballots from military stationed outside the U.S. if mailed before election day. Thus, a final official count from all of the states may not be completed until near Thanksgiving (excluding any recount ordered under state election laws). By the end of November, each state is required to certify its electors who meet (typically at the state capitol) to actually vote for President in early December. These ballots are sealed and sent to Congress and are not counted until early January. Since almost all electors vote as they are pledged, this actual counting in January is normally a mere formality. The persons elected as President and Vice President are inaugurated on January 20th 2009.

How do I find out if a politician voted in recent elections?

Actually, you can find out. Under the FOIL (Freedom of Information Law), you can go to your County Board of Elections, and request the voting record of anyone, not necessarily a politician. I was at my county board of elections today, as a matter of fact, and requested such a form. Just to give you an example of a 'politician's' voting record being researched was earlier this year, when Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg's voting record revealed that she had missed several New York City elections. Kennedy-Schlossberg was then being considered for appointment to Hillary Clinton's US Senate seat by the Governor. She, later, withdrew, her name from consideration. Finally, since you are from Georgia, here is a very interesting story for you. In 1962, when Jimmy Carter first ran for public office, he was declared the loser in the primary for the Georgia State Senate, but he challenged the decision, and it was discovered that the supporters of his opponent had copied down names off of local headstones and 'voted' fraudulently for these dead people. After he exposed this, the primary results were overturned, and Carter was subsequently elected to the Georgia State legislature. Not only can you find out about a person's voting record...etc...but you can find out about their campaign financial expenditures, and also review copies of their designating petitions. How do I know this? Because, I have successfully challenged several petitions over the years in my town, county and state, and I have managed to knock off a 40 year incumbent Town Superintendent of highways and a 16 year incumbent Town Justice from the ballot, all because I utilized the Freedom of Information Law. Go for it! So, when the earlier poster said that it 'wasn't any of your business,' he was wrong. It is a matter of public record.

Who is allowed to know the current results of early voting?

I just asked that a bit ago, and I got two answers.. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgvOWiQQpEkglfgWpm9uzfnsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20081022101538AA9KTt2

What is the argument over the Ohio Voting Law?

The Obama campaign is suing Ohio to stop implementing changes to the Ohio election law. If the suit is successful, everyone has a Monday COB deadline. If they lose, the military and overseas have a Monday COB deadline, everyone else has a Friday COB deadline. The suit is neither pro nor anti-military. The dispute arose from a mess in the OH election law changes from last year. The case itself is complex, but the short version is that Ohio passed a huge bill that (among other things) was supposed to end IN-PERSON early absentee voting on the Friday before election day. (NOT for regular mailed-in absentee ballots, but for early in-person absentee ballots.) Some voters submitted a resolution to rescind that bill/law. That's on the November ballot. Ohio law says that the bill is therefore suspended and not in effect until the results of that vote are tallied. Meanwhile, someone noticed a mistake in the original bill. Although the bill intended to end early in-person absentee balloting for everyone, the bill failed to redo the language Ohio Code for military and overseas voters. The legislature passed an emergency bill to correct it. A third bill rescinded the first bill but not the second. As a result of this, OH law had 2 different deadlines for Military and overseas voters, the Friday and Monday before election day. The Secretary of State said that that the later deadline should apply, so military and overseas voters have a Monday close of business deadline. The Obama campaign said that was a mess, and sued to stop the state from implementing any changes to the election laws. One of the reasons is that treating the 2 groups differently is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The Obama side says that there's no reason that the two groups should get different treatment. (1. military plus overseas, and 2. everyone else. Note that the 1st group of affected voters also includes people living overseas who aren't in the military. )AMVETS and other military groups don't want a precedent set that ever says that the military can't get different treatment.

Have the early votes been counted before all the polls nationwide close?

Early voting is treated the same as Absentee ballots are treated. The vote is recorded and stored securely until the polls close in the precinct where that vote was cast. At that time all votes cast for election are tallied. No results are released until the polls close on election day....

Does the Michigan and Florida EARLY VOTE rule breaking DISASTER make DEMOCRATS look like idoits?

It makes the democratic party and Howard Dean look like idiots but not the voters. The voters had no say in the crazy rules he made up.

When are the results of early voting going to be officially released?

they actual early voter numbers will be released after the election. after the polls close. absentee ballots are counted last.

McCain guarantees victory on Meet the Press. Is there something we don't know about?

This is known as the Diebold Virtual Voter methodology

Do we have to wait until California polls close to get election results?

Most of the news outlets agree not to project winners for individual states until the polls are closed in that state. Since a lot of places in the east close at 8pm, they can start predicting the winner before CA people are out of work.

How many votes have the various candidates recieved yet in the Texas primaries?

They can't publish early results until the polls close.

Are you Republicans practicing your Last Rites since Romney is going to lose?

Forty days to go. In the story of Noah and the Great Flood, it rains for "forty days and forty nights" (Gen 7:4, 12, 17; 8:6). It takes a full forty days to embalm the body of Jacob, according to Egyptian practice (Gen 50:3). Moses spends "forty days and forty nights" on Mount Sinai when receiving the Law from God (Exod 24:18; cf. Deut 9:9-25). Moses spends another "forty days and forty nights" on the mountain, encountering God a second time (Exod 34:28; cf. Deut 10:10) The Israelite spies scout out the Promised Land for forty days (Num 13:25, 34); but due to their lack of faith, God requires the Israelites to wander in the desert for forty years (see below). The Philistine Goliath taunts the Israelite army for forty days before David fights him (1 Sam 17:16). The prophet Elijah travels forty days and forty nights to Mount Horeb to encounter God (1 Kings 19:8). The prophet Ezekiel lies on his right side for forty days to symbolize the sins of the people of Judah (Ezek 4:6). The prophet Jonah preaches in the Assyrian capital, "Forty days more, and Ninevah shall be overthrown" (Jonah 3:4). After his resurrection, Jesus appears to his disciples for forty days, before ascending into heaven (Acts 1:3). Forty days signifies change according to the Bible. I can live with that.

Is it true that a Masterdebater always polls higher using old manual voting vs electronic voting?

Saw the same things, except that Hillary is actually more popular among the poor and less educated. Seems the media can't get it right. No surprise there. They'll be working on this and blowing it for months, just like they blew the analysis of the polls. Zogby was on the Daily Show last night and he claimed the polls showed that over 20% who selected a candidate also said they could still change their mind ("soft" support), and that the media knew this but didn't take it into account. Who knows?????????? Note to Rabblerouser: The N Hampshire electronic voting machines produce an auditable paper trail.

Have you heard that early voting results are in and Obama is claiming victory?


What are the expectations for the BA strike, should I change my plans?

The earliest strike action could start is March 1st. BA is likely to seek a court injunction to prevent the strike and or enter into negotiations with the union to prevent it. Even if it does go ahead many flights are expected to operate with management and pilots working as flight crew

How much do you think the fact that the Obama Staff is hiding the results and outcome of information on Libia?

Not as much as the dismal economy, but it will have an influence. It shows that Obama did not respond to repeated requests for security at the embassy; that he refused help during the 7-hour attack; and that he removed a general and an admiral who tried to help. After the disaster, he gave false information about the attack being a protest that got out of hand, caused by an internet video, and he sent out his subordinates to reinforce these lies. He went jetting off to political fundraisers rather than deal with the crisis, and he still has not come clean. His motive, apparently, has been to protect the narrative that he destroyed al Qaida and won us safety by befriending militant Islamists. As events dramatized, he has done neither. The whole situation illustrates his irresponsibility and dishonesty. Cheers, Bruce

What does Florida Governor Rick Scott have against early voting?

Are states going to be releasing running totals of pre-Election Day vote results?

Nowadays, there should be no one in position to hide anything the public should know. Like election results, it's open for public. An I think that would not happen in America as it's not the popularity that counts more but the electoral votes. And as we have observed, right from the start, the candidates are being followed by reporters as they are the hottest scopes. And with our advance technology, it's impossible to hide anything like this. In fact, there are a lot of companies doing surveys like Rasmussen which you can find here: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll The yahoo! election 2008 and other firms doing the daily surveys.

Does anybody know the results of the early votes in North Carolina and Indiana?

obama asked them to do what !! and why is the great Buddha not blessing me today is he in a bad mood

Virginia voted started September 19, where can the early voting results be found?

The early votes are not counted until election night.

How are you going to celebrate Obama's victory tomorrow?

Not to be contrary to your wishful thinking but the bad news for Obama is the huge momentum Romney has. Obama will loose tomorrow and it won't be close.

Are early voting results a good indication of how the election will turn out?

as with anything, I would rather be in the lead than behind... but it doesn't really matter that much... usually... but I will add one thing, more people are early voting this year than usual it seems due to new laws... so... who knows?