J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Re: Americans on the board...
Nice way to put it.
Nice way to put it.
Americans on the board...
- Thread starter TylerGred
- Start date
skippyfetus
Carbonite Member
Re: Americans on the board...
[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=255#267 date=07/07/04 at 13:43:02]
The electoral college is vital and fundamental to our form of government. We are not, after all, a democracy: we are a democratic republic. The US is structured under a republican form of government (note: that doesn't imply the "Republican" party!) and as such, rights and representation are given to the STATES as well as to the PEOPLE.
We don't have direct election of the President (the only national office) by popular vote. We have it by electors, which ensures that the smaller states GET A VOICE. Without the republic/states system, the presidential candidates would basically be free to ignore a large swath of the country. They could focus their attentions on the most populous states, and the interests of NY, CA, and TX do not necessarily intersect with those of New Mexico, Arkansas or Alaska.
If we had a direct popular vote, it's possible that a candidate could focus ALL their efforts on, say, the 10 most populous states, and utterly ignore the 40 least-populous, and still win enough votes to win the national election (I'm making those numbers up, but I'm sure they're not too far off). Whereas with the elector/winner-take-all system, that insures that the candidates have to pay attention to many more states, and give some lip service to all of them.
The interests of a farmer in Nebraska don't reflect the interests of a record producer in Los Angeles, but in the electoral system, the farmer gets his voice heard. Without the electoral system, the farmer would be ignored as candidates would focus their time, energy, and dollars on the few states that carry the most votes.
We are a republic, not a democracy. Nevada gets two senators, and California gets two senators. That gives Nevada and its citizens equal representation as compared to California and its citizens (representing the Republic). In the House, Nevada gets three representatives, and California gets (what is it, 53)? The rights of the individuals are represented, as befits a democratic society, but in the Senate the rights of the states as a republic are recognized.
If you abolish the electoral college and go with a strictly democratic vote, you might as well move to CA or NY or TX, because the rest of the country will be largely ignored. [/quote]
Barry, that's fine and I respect your opinion (especially since it doesn't seem politically tainted), but I'm sure that most Americans would rather see to it that every individual has an equal vote than every state. Isn't it a unfair that your vote could have more or less weight just depending on your geographical location? I don't think people really care as much about state borders as they used to... unless you're from California or Texas.
[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=255#267 date=07/07/04 at 13:43:02]
The electoral college is vital and fundamental to our form of government. We are not, after all, a democracy: we are a democratic republic. The US is structured under a republican form of government (note: that doesn't imply the "Republican" party!) and as such, rights and representation are given to the STATES as well as to the PEOPLE.
We don't have direct election of the President (the only national office) by popular vote. We have it by electors, which ensures that the smaller states GET A VOICE. Without the republic/states system, the presidential candidates would basically be free to ignore a large swath of the country. They could focus their attentions on the most populous states, and the interests of NY, CA, and TX do not necessarily intersect with those of New Mexico, Arkansas or Alaska.
If we had a direct popular vote, it's possible that a candidate could focus ALL their efforts on, say, the 10 most populous states, and utterly ignore the 40 least-populous, and still win enough votes to win the national election (I'm making those numbers up, but I'm sure they're not too far off). Whereas with the elector/winner-take-all system, that insures that the candidates have to pay attention to many more states, and give some lip service to all of them.
The interests of a farmer in Nebraska don't reflect the interests of a record producer in Los Angeles, but in the electoral system, the farmer gets his voice heard. Without the electoral system, the farmer would be ignored as candidates would focus their time, energy, and dollars on the few states that carry the most votes.
We are a republic, not a democracy. Nevada gets two senators, and California gets two senators. That gives Nevada and its citizens equal representation as compared to California and its citizens (representing the Republic). In the House, Nevada gets three representatives, and California gets (what is it, 53)? The rights of the individuals are represented, as befits a democratic society, but in the Senate the rights of the states as a republic are recognized.
If you abolish the electoral college and go with a strictly democratic vote, you might as well move to CA or NY or TX, because the rest of the country will be largely ignored. [/quote]
Barry, that's fine and I respect your opinion (especially since it doesn't seem politically tainted), but I'm sure that most Americans would rather see to it that every individual has an equal vote than every state. Isn't it a unfair that your vote could have more or less weight just depending on your geographical location? I don't think people really care as much about state borders as they used to... unless you're from California or Texas.
skippyfetus
Carbonite Member
Re: Americans on the board...
[quote author=John Hudson link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=270#272 date=07/07/04 at 14:04:41]What in gods name is going on here? Damn, I go out drinking for a night and come into my office and login and this thread is threatening to oust Matts insanely long thread.
20 Pages long and TH and RK still havent said anything of any substance.
No. No you havent. Sorry.
[/quote]What do you mean? I've said tons of stuff with substance. Go back and look at my posts, I don't beat around the bush. I haven't said anything conservative or patriotic if that's what you mean.
[quote author=John Hudson link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=270#272 date=07/07/04 at 14:04:41]What in gods name is going on here? Damn, I go out drinking for a night and come into my office and login and this thread is threatening to oust Matts insanely long thread.
20 Pages long and TH and RK still havent said anything of any substance.
No. No you havent. Sorry.
[/quote]What do you mean? I've said tons of stuff with substance. Go back and look at my posts, I don't beat around the bush. I haven't said anything conservative or patriotic if that's what you mean.
skippyfetus
Carbonite Member
Re: Americans on the board...
I found this at looksmart.com (hmm... is this dragon's website because that's what he's always trying to do?).
I found this at looksmart.com (hmm... is this dragon's website because that's what he's always trying to do?).
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Re: Americans on the board...
[quote author=Tony_H link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=270#282 date=07/07/04 at 17:47:32]
What do you mean? I've said tons of stuff with substance. Go back and look at my posts, I don't beat around the bush. I haven't said anything conservative or patriotic if that's what you mean.
[/quote]
No serious. You have'nt. Really. Truth hurts; I know.
[quote author=Tony_H link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=270#282 date=07/07/04 at 17:47:32]
What do you mean? I've said tons of stuff with substance. Go back and look at my posts, I don't beat around the bush. I haven't said anything conservative or patriotic if that's what you mean.
[/quote]
No serious. You have'nt. Really. Truth hurts; I know.
skippyfetus
Carbonite Member
Re: Americans on the board...
[quote author=John Hudson link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=270#284 date=07/07/04 at 18:07:17]
No serious. You have'nt. Really. Truth hurts; I know.
[/quote]Do you have anything to say other than a few ignorant fragment sentences?
[quote author=John Hudson link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=270#284 date=07/07/04 at 18:07:17]
No serious. You have'nt. Really. Truth hurts; I know.
[/quote]Do you have anything to say other than a few ignorant fragment sentences?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Americans on the board...
[quote author=Tony_H link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=270#281 date=07/07/04 at 17:45:19]
but I'm sure that most Americans would rather see to it that every individual has an equal vote than every state. [/quote]
I'm sure most would, until they had it explained to them. Re-read what I posted, and see if you don't agree.
This republic format of government stretches throughout every level of this country. States are divided into counties, counties into cities, cities into wards... it's how we work. And it works well. And it makes sure that some thought is given to our representation, rather than the cheapest pandering for the biggest block of votes, which is what would surely happen in a majority-vote situation.
[quote author=Tony_H link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=270#281 date=07/07/04 at 17:45:19]
but I'm sure that most Americans would rather see to it that every individual has an equal vote than every state. [/quote]
I'm sure most would, until they had it explained to them. Re-read what I posted, and see if you don't agree.
In theory, what you're saying makes sense. But in practice? you live in Ohio or somewhere, right? You could pretty much kiss your vote goodbye, because the vast majority of campaigning would be able to completely ignore you.
This republic format of government stretches throughout every level of this country. States are divided into counties, counties into cities, cities into wards... it's how we work. And it works well. And it makes sure that some thought is given to our representation, rather than the cheapest pandering for the biggest block of votes, which is what would surely happen in a majority-vote situation.
I agree. And I think that is one of the biggest tragedies befalling our country. The concept of 50 unique states, each able to govern itself and establish its own priorities and the way its citizens want to live, is/was one of our greatest strengths. Losing that would mean losing a large portion of what it means to be an American.
Re: Americans on the board...
Yeah, I can't imagine why a poll taken less than a week after the 2000 election might show a result like that. No skewing pressures there.
If you were to actually do some research (instead of stopping at the first one which pleases you), you'll find spikes toward wanting to abolish it to correspond with every close election. '60. '68. '76. '00.
Polls within the last year (like C-SPAN's) show a fairly even split, as with just about every single other political topic there is.
One thinks, however, that if the opposite had happened, and Bush had taken the popular vote and Gore had won the electoral college, your opposition to it would be muted in the extreme. (This could have happened with a swing of only a few thousand votes in the right counties, and some analysts were actually predicting it.) Just speculation, of course.
Yeah, I can't imagine why a poll taken less than a week after the 2000 election might show a result like that. No skewing pressures there.
If you were to actually do some research (instead of stopping at the first one which pleases you), you'll find spikes toward wanting to abolish it to correspond with every close election. '60. '68. '76. '00.
Polls within the last year (like C-SPAN's) show a fairly even split, as with just about every single other political topic there is.
One thinks, however, that if the opposite had happened, and Bush had taken the popular vote and Gore had won the electoral college, your opposition to it would be muted in the extreme. (This could have happened with a swing of only a few thousand votes in the right counties, and some analysts were actually predicting it.) Just speculation, of course.
skippyfetus
Carbonite Member
Re: Americans on the board...
I still disagree, but I can see where you're coming from
I still disagree, but I can see where you're coming from
Re: Americans on the board...
[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=285#286 date=07/07/04 at 18:19:41]I agree. And I think that is one of the biggest tragedies befalling our country. The concept of 50 unique states, each able to govern itself and establish its own priorities and the way its citizens want to live, is/was one of our greatest strengths. Losing that would mean losing a large portion of what it means to be an American.[/quote]
To say nothing, Barry, of the most attractive element of federalism and a major motivation behind the Framers when they so deeply entrenched it within our Constitution:
Federalism divides power. It divides it among the many; it divides it across geography. And power divided among many people and across a large territory is very, very difficult to usurp. And power difficult to usurp is a very, very good bulwark against despotism.
[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=285#286 date=07/07/04 at 18:19:41]I agree. And I think that is one of the biggest tragedies befalling our country. The concept of 50 unique states, each able to govern itself and establish its own priorities and the way its citizens want to live, is/was one of our greatest strengths. Losing that would mean losing a large portion of what it means to be an American.[/quote]
To say nothing, Barry, of the most attractive element of federalism and a major motivation behind the Framers when they so deeply entrenched it within our Constitution:
Federalism divides power. It divides it among the many; it divides it across geography. And power divided among many people and across a large territory is very, very difficult to usurp. And power difficult to usurp is a very, very good bulwark against despotism.
Slapdragon
Well-known member
Re: Americans on the board...
The reality is, the voting system for president would work with either an at-large vote or an electoral college vote. The Prime Minister of most European countries, since they are chosen from legislators, works closer to the US electoral system, as does Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Many South American systems use an at-large voting system.
The main issue is that both work -- England is no less free than the US for have indirect election of Prime Minister. The main issue you see is that people who harp on the thrown away vote issue do not understand that both work, but that you must follow the law you choose before the election. You cannot go into an election, loose it as Gore did, then proclaim that other rules should be followed.
The reality is, the voting system for president would work with either an at-large vote or an electoral college vote. The Prime Minister of most European countries, since they are chosen from legislators, works closer to the US electoral system, as does Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Many South American systems use an at-large voting system.
The main issue is that both work -- England is no less free than the US for have indirect election of Prime Minister. The main issue you see is that people who harp on the thrown away vote issue do not understand that both work, but that you must follow the law you choose before the election. You cannot go into an election, loose it as Gore did, then proclaim that other rules should be followed.
skippyfetus
Carbonite Member
Re: Americans on the board...
[quote author=David Jimerson link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=285#287 date=07/07/04 at 18:25:59]One thinks, however, that if the opposite had happened, and Bush had taken the popular vote and Gore had won the electoral college, your opposition to it would be muted in the extreme.[/quote]
That's not even true. I didn't vote in the '00 election, but if I would have I was going to vote for Bush. I didn't like either candidate and I especially didn't like the fact that Gore's wife was the head of the PMRC a music censorship group. I was also getting pissed off at all the democratic smoking bans.
Before the election, I remember many people complaining that the two seemed basically the same on most issues. Most people thought that Bush was a moderate, but as Bill Mahar says, "he showed us what a real republican is". I now wish that Gore had been elected.
That aside, it's not the Gore election that turned me off to the electoral vote system. I've thought it was stupid since I was in high school.
You're really showing how close minded and bullheaded you are by even trying to come up with excuses to discredit a gallup poll.
[quote author=David Jimerson link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=285#287 date=07/07/04 at 18:25:59]One thinks, however, that if the opposite had happened, and Bush had taken the popular vote and Gore had won the electoral college, your opposition to it would be muted in the extreme.[/quote]
That's not even true. I didn't vote in the '00 election, but if I would have I was going to vote for Bush. I didn't like either candidate and I especially didn't like the fact that Gore's wife was the head of the PMRC a music censorship group. I was also getting pissed off at all the democratic smoking bans.
Before the election, I remember many people complaining that the two seemed basically the same on most issues. Most people thought that Bush was a moderate, but as Bill Mahar says, "he showed us what a real republican is". I now wish that Gore had been elected.
That aside, it's not the Gore election that turned me off to the electoral vote system. I've thought it was stupid since I was in high school.
You're really showing how close minded and bullheaded you are by even trying to come up with excuses to discredit a gallup poll.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Americans on the board...
[quote author=Tony_H link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=270#281 date=07/07/04 at 17:45:19]Barry, that's fine and I respect your opinion (especially since it doesn't seem politically tainted) [/quote]
I appreciate your saying so. I do try to avoid the political debates -- I prefer to weigh in on tech matters or such, but if the opportunity affords itself to dispense some useful & unmotivated info, I do try. I'm certainly not trying to sway anyone one way or another, just relaying the reasoning (as I understand it) behind the decision -- whether I agree with it or not, whether you agree with it or not, etc.
It seems to me that those who want the one-man, one-vote idea the most would be those more angled towards the democratic or even socialistic persuasions, trying to make everything "equal". Curiously though, it seems like the law of unintended consequences would see to it that quite the opposite would happen: I think we would have a strong polarization happen in this country, further opening the gap between the groups, and concentrating power on the populous coasts. I would expect the "little guy" (i.e., the farmer in Nebraska) to be the big loser in that scenario, and that it might lead to furthering a "class division" between the so-called "haves" (the voters in the heavy population centers) and the "have nots" (the voters who would be marginalized and ignored.)
But our government provides for both. We have the House of Representatives, directly elected proportionately to the population, but we also have the Senate, in fact the senior body of Congress, where some temperance is designed to be handed out.
I am usually of the mindset that "if the system doesn't work, change it, but by all means understand what's broken first". Probably comes from 20 years as a computer programmer! ;D
[quote author=Tony_H link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=270#281 date=07/07/04 at 17:45:19]Barry, that's fine and I respect your opinion (especially since it doesn't seem politically tainted) [/quote]
I appreciate your saying so. I do try to avoid the political debates -- I prefer to weigh in on tech matters or such, but if the opportunity affords itself to dispense some useful & unmotivated info, I do try. I'm certainly not trying to sway anyone one way or another, just relaying the reasoning (as I understand it) behind the decision -- whether I agree with it or not, whether you agree with it or not, etc.
It seems to me that those who want the one-man, one-vote idea the most would be those more angled towards the democratic or even socialistic persuasions, trying to make everything "equal". Curiously though, it seems like the law of unintended consequences would see to it that quite the opposite would happen: I think we would have a strong polarization happen in this country, further opening the gap between the groups, and concentrating power on the populous coasts. I would expect the "little guy" (i.e., the farmer in Nebraska) to be the big loser in that scenario, and that it might lead to furthering a "class division" between the so-called "haves" (the voters in the heavy population centers) and the "have nots" (the voters who would be marginalized and ignored.)
But our government provides for both. We have the House of Representatives, directly elected proportionately to the population, but we also have the Senate, in fact the senior body of Congress, where some temperance is designed to be handed out.
I am usually of the mindset that "if the system doesn't work, change it, but by all means understand what's broken first". Probably comes from 20 years as a computer programmer! ;D
Re: Americans on the board...
[quote author=Tony_H link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=285#291 date=07/07/04 at 18:36:00]
That's not even true. I didn't vote in the '00 election, but if I would have I was going to vote for Bush. I didn't like either candidate and I especially didn't like the fact that Gore's wife was the head of the PMRC a music censorship group. I was also getting pissed off at all the democratic smoking bans. [/quote]
Then I apologize for an unfair speculation.
I was pointing out a scientifically valid skewing factor based on the current events of the time, and I demonstrated similar spikes under similar events. What I said was entirely non-controversial and any professional pollster would nod his head in agreement. Sheesh. Take a statistics class and switch to decaf. Not in that order.
[quote author=Tony_H link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=285#291 date=07/07/04 at 18:36:00]
That's not even true. I didn't vote in the '00 election, but if I would have I was going to vote for Bush. I didn't like either candidate and I especially didn't like the fact that Gore's wife was the head of the PMRC a music censorship group. I was also getting pissed off at all the democratic smoking bans. [/quote]
Then I apologize for an unfair speculation.
I was pointing out a scientifically valid skewing factor based on the current events of the time, and I demonstrated similar spikes under similar events. What I said was entirely non-controversial and any professional pollster would nod his head in agreement. Sheesh. Take a statistics class and switch to decaf. Not in that order.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Re: Americans on the board...
"Do you have anything to say other than a few ignorant fragment sentences? "
There is honestly not much I have to say as everyone is more or less saying how I feel.(Not you or Roadkill obvioulsy). When I see something that warrants my attention I'll respond. Right now there is no point as it would be like discussing it with a wall.
"Do you have anything to say other than a few ignorant fragment sentences? "
There is honestly not much I have to say as everyone is more or less saying how I feel.(Not you or Roadkill obvioulsy). When I see something that warrants my attention I'll respond. Right now there is no point as it would be like discussing it with a wall.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Americans on the board...
[quote author=David Jimerson link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=285#289 date=07/07/04 at 18:31:30]Federalism divides power. It divides it among the many; it divides it across geography. And power divided among many people and across a large territory is very, very difficult to usurp. And power difficult to usurp is a very, very good bulwark against despotism.
[/quote]
Magnificent point. And the supermajority requirement for constitutional amendments is another fine example: an idea had better be really, really good if it's going to get passed by 38 disparate states across this great country.
Furthermore, dare I say, if you wanted your vote to count more, you could always move to one of the lesser-populated states. Voting with your feet is one powerful form of expression that I hope we never lose (through homogenization of the States).
[quote author=David Jimerson link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=285#289 date=07/07/04 at 18:31:30]Federalism divides power. It divides it among the many; it divides it across geography. And power divided among many people and across a large territory is very, very difficult to usurp. And power difficult to usurp is a very, very good bulwark against despotism.
[/quote]
Magnificent point. And the supermajority requirement for constitutional amendments is another fine example: an idea had better be really, really good if it's going to get passed by 38 disparate states across this great country.
Furthermore, dare I say, if you wanted your vote to count more, you could always move to one of the lesser-populated states. Voting with your feet is one powerful form of expression that I hope we never lose (through homogenization of the States).
ChuckS
Veteran
Re: Americans on the board...
[quote author=David Jimerson link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=285#293 date=07/07/04 at 18:42:11]
I was pointing out a scientifically valid skewing factor based on the current events of the time, and I demonstrated similar spikes under similar events. What I said was entirely non-controversial and any professional pollster would nod his head in agreement. Sheesh. Take a statistics class and switch to decaf. Not in that order.
[/quote]
Statistics are way over rated! Are those the same professional pollsters that predicted a landslide win for Dean?
This country has a great political system, for those who continue to argue the one-man, one-vote idea please count it as a vegetable an move on.
"Federalism divides power. It divides it among the many; it divides it across geography. And power divided among many people and across a large territory is very, very difficult to usurp. And power difficult to usurp is a very, very good bulwark against despotism." That's socialism and there's still a few countries (and California) where you can move too and live in utopia.
[quote author=David Jimerson link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=285#293 date=07/07/04 at 18:42:11]
I was pointing out a scientifically valid skewing factor based on the current events of the time, and I demonstrated similar spikes under similar events. What I said was entirely non-controversial and any professional pollster would nod his head in agreement. Sheesh. Take a statistics class and switch to decaf. Not in that order.
[/quote]
Statistics are way over rated! Are those the same professional pollsters that predicted a landslide win for Dean?
This country has a great political system, for those who continue to argue the one-man, one-vote idea please count it as a vegetable an move on.
"Federalism divides power. It divides it among the many; it divides it across geography. And power divided among many people and across a large territory is very, very difficult to usurp. And power difficult to usurp is a very, very good bulwark against despotism." That's socialism and there's still a few countries (and California) where you can move too and live in utopia.
Ranger
Well-known member
Re: Americans on the board...
Barry,
That was a well-articulated explanation on the Electoral College. Far too many people are against this system mainly out of ignorance to its purpose and intent.
The 2000 election was a prime example of the importance of the EC. Its too bad people cannot come to grips with it.
Barry,
That was a well-articulated explanation on the Electoral College. Far too many people are against this system mainly out of ignorance to its purpose and intent.
The 2000 election was a prime example of the importance of the EC. Its too bad people cannot come to grips with it.
Re: Americans on the board...
[quote author=ChuckS link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=285#296 date=07/07/04 at 19:04:26]
"Federalism divides power. It divides it among the many; it divides it across geography. And power divided among many people and across a large territory is very, very difficult to usurp. And power difficult to usurp is a very, very good bulwark against despotism." That's socialism and there's still a few countries (and California) where you can move too and live in utopia.
[/quote]
Ummm . . . no, in fact, it is the polar opposite of socialism.
Socialism is the single most efficient mechanism ever devised by man to concentrate all power (political and economic, which are two sides of the same coin) into the hands of a few, and what's worse, it's made to appear altruistic.
Socialism is easily usurped and without exception, no matter how noble the intentions, eventually turns to despotism. Because once the government controls all the money, it controls you.
Socialism could not exist in a highly federalized society.
[quote author=ChuckS link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=285#296 date=07/07/04 at 19:04:26]
"Federalism divides power. It divides it among the many; it divides it across geography. And power divided among many people and across a large territory is very, very difficult to usurp. And power difficult to usurp is a very, very good bulwark against despotism." That's socialism and there's still a few countries (and California) where you can move too and live in utopia.
[/quote]
Ummm . . . no, in fact, it is the polar opposite of socialism.
Socialism is the single most efficient mechanism ever devised by man to concentrate all power (political and economic, which are two sides of the same coin) into the hands of a few, and what's worse, it's made to appear altruistic.
Socialism is easily usurped and without exception, no matter how noble the intentions, eventually turns to despotism. Because once the government controls all the money, it controls you.
Socialism could not exist in a highly federalized society.
Slapdragon
Well-known member
Re: Americans on the board...
[quote author=ChuckS link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=285#296 date=07/07/04 at 19:04:26]
Statistics are way over rated! Are those the same professional pollsters that predicted a landslide win for Dean?
[/quote]
Statistics are very important, but only if understood. The polls which predicted a Dean win predicted that win, at that time, and were right. Things changed, and as they did AP changed its prediction.
They are not perfect, and can be twisted, but used properly they are very powerful.
[quote author=ChuckS link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=285#296 date=07/07/04 at 19:04:26]
Statistics are way over rated! Are those the same professional pollsters that predicted a landslide win for Dean?
[/quote]
Statistics are very important, but only if understood. The polls which predicted a Dean win predicted that win, at that time, and were right. Things changed, and as they did AP changed its prediction.
They are not perfect, and can be twisted, but used properly they are very powerful.