Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine Dear God let election day be over!

I just checked CNN. They gave 3 states to Kerry (including Hawaii) just now. It's Bush 249 to Kerry's 242 and they are predicting it will be hours yet before we know who wins.

I guess I *won't* be around 'til the biter end... I have too much to do tomorrow to stay up much longer. This will certainly be interesting to discuss tomorrow, though.

Well if it goes the way it's looking now the whole world is very disappointed with you Americans. As of me leaving for work this morning about an hour ago Ohio was almost certainly going to go to Bush, which would mean he's won. But...

Also as I was leaving it came through that there are some issues in Iowa with them saying they probably won't actually come to a final total until some time in the next 24 hours which could mean that even if Ohio does go to Bush that Kerry could just pip him to the post if he manages to get Iowa (which as I understand it was being included in Bush's total at this point). It's incredibly close and really shows how divided a nation the US is at the moment. It's also a fairly good example of why ideally you should have at least a three party government just so that you can have a bit more balance. With just two parties it's almost impossible to have any middle ground. If you're a liberal in terms of social policy but conservative in terms of fiscal who do you vote for? Or vice versa? Admittedly even with a three party system you're not going to get a completely even view, but it's better than just picking the lesser of two evils. Here in the Uk the smaller parties do make a big difference. Labour has a big majority over the Conservatives but when you factor in the Lib Dems, the Scottish parties, Plaid Cymru (the Welsh National Party), the Irish parties, the Greens and various other minor parties you do have a system whereby it's very hard for the party in powe to have absolute control over the legislature. Yes Labour have managed to get most of their policies through, but largely that's because they have a *huge* majority (more than is normal for this country) but also because on a lot of issues the Lib Dems and the national parties of Scotland, Wales and Ireland hold similar views.

As an ardent Bush supporter,I thank you for your congratulations! I do hope, however, that I don't experience the entire country voting against me personally as you claim has happened to you. Somehow I think that there were other issues that weighed a bit more heavily on people's minds as they went to the polls (maybe the war perhaps? or the economy? just saying...) then the desire of you and your partner to be just like everyone else. While I will probably always disagree morally and biblically with what you want to do, I can, in all honesty, say that a loathing of you had nothing to do with the decisions I made at the polls today. I also don't remember Kerry being all that supportive of gay marriages either so I'm not sure what you would have to say about those who voted for him. Just trying to keep it in perspective...

Anyway, I am definitly feeling a bit more secure about the future and safety of our nation. I think that the war on terror will prove to be the factor that caused most Americans to vote the way they did. The fact that the economy isn't as bad as people tried to paint it has probably encouraged Americans to keep the same course.

Really? That's one of the most bizarre rules i've ever heard. Surely the whole point of political advertising is to urge people to vote for your candidate (regardless of whether you are directly tied to said candidate or not). If you're not allowed to do that then I can see that all one can fall back on is telling people why *not* to vote for someone else. Of course, this is bearing in mind that here in the Uk the whole non-candidate ads thing simply doesn't exist. Only official party broadcasts are allowed (and even then they're not ads in the same way that they are in the US, they're actual slots usually after news programmes shown on every terrestrial channel that are included in the TV schedules and everything. Like I say, very tightly controlled) so you don't get the whole 'independent' groups thing (apart from maybe groups that are just asking people to vote while being completely unbiased to each party). In the same way the amount that the parties can spend on elections is tightly controlled. In fact the total spend on TV adverts in Ohio in the last month is more than the entire budget of both Labour and the Tories combined for the whole election campaign (usually about a month or two for the whole thing) including all their print campaign, press conferences, doorstepping, *everything*.

Yeah, that's much as I suspected. Certainly I was left feeling like there wouldn't be any point voting for anyone since if the ads were to be believed then every single candidate was as corrupt and two-faced as the next one. Kinda making the election a choice of the lesser evil.

Uh... kind of a yes and no answer here. Techincally we don't have a constitution here in the UK, or at least we don't have a written one. in practice our constitution is the legal system, if you see what i mean. Rights are enshrined in the laws of the land which means both that we have more freedom and less than the US in some ways. t's easier to make changes but on the other hand it's easier to make changes. It cuts both ways. As for the right to free speech, yes it does exist. But we also have quite a lot of laws regarding hate speech and so on. It's a bit of an issue at the moment really and one that is going to take a long time to resolve. I get the imprssion that the same is true of the US but because of the 1st Amendment it's even more tricky than it is here. Everyone has a right to free speech but do they also have a right to insite religious or racial hatred? Do they have a right to express extreme political views? Do they have a right to denegrate women or queers? It's not the same issue as slander or libel (which are really quite clearly defined in law and are the basis of a lot of the controls on political electioneering) but it's an awkward one. Basically what it boils down to is like I say there is techincally no actual law or automatic right stating explicitly that everyone has a right to free speech, but it's also something that is an inherent right within the legal system even if there are some boundaries that are a little vague at the moment (as in the laws that prohibit incitement to violence especially with reference to race, religion, sex and sexuality). it's not really that different from most countries that do have a written constitution, it's just the way that it is included in the statute, if you see what I mean.

Yeah, I am *so* of a mind that it's a duty. Even if you decide that you don't want to vote for anyone and spoil you're ballot or whatever it is still you're duty to go out and actually use you're vote. A protest vote (even if that protest is voting for no-one) is still a vote and it's important that everyone expresses that. If a democracy is really going to be a democracy then *everyone* should have a say. I think the last General Election here had a turn out of something like 35% which is pitiful. Some places were as low as 15%. If people don't vote then how can they then feel they have a right to complain? It's not really about whether people are really intensly involved with politics or not, it's just that in a democratic society one should make sure that everyone has a chance to be heard, and for that to happen everyone should vote. I'm actually in favour of the system whereby everyone is automatically registered and is fined if they don't vote. it wouldn't need to be a big fine and it would still allow for people to cast a no vote but at least it would mean you'd actually get a much more even view of what the public want in their politicians. Maybe... Ach, no system is ever going to be perfect is it?

Unfortunately I don't think the media is entirely to blame here. One of the national newspapers here did an farily extensive survey last week in a few major cities in the US (mostly in the swing states I think) and found that a large majority of the public couldn't identify Iraq r Afghanistan on a map of the world and a significant portion of them couldn't even locate the UK or Australia. That's just really worrying (not that I'm saying the general public here in the UK is perfect but I'm pretty certain you get much better results here).

Not that low. The last three went:

1992: 78%
1997: 72%
2001: 59%

I stand corrected. Was it really that high in 92 and 97? I thought they were pretty low turn-outs for both of those as well. Maybe I'm thinking of the council elections, although they're usually not too bad.

78% is quite good really isn't it?

Well, this is the damnedest thing I've seen since ... well, 2000, anyway. One facet is absolutely unique, though, as we approach 5:00 am in Washington, D.C. (2:00 am in Los Angeles, 10:00 am GMT):

None of the networks, clearly, want to declare a winner. They're clearly holding back, nobody taking the step, intimidated by how they collectively screwed up in 2000. The Bush folks are clearly chagrined, as they can't send the Emperor, er, Prez over to the rally of the faithful to declare victory, and Kerry hasn't conceded, though he lags by 3.8 million in the popular vote.

To simplify: Bush leads in the state of Ohio, but enough absentee and "provisional" (questionable voter registration) ballots exist to conceivably turn the state's sizable 20 electoral votes to Kerry. Most of the provisional, etc., ballots won't be verified or fully counted for at least 10 days from now.

Two networks believe Bush has won Ohio: NBC and Fox. They both, however, won't give several smaller states to Bush, where he leads in nearly all of them. So, to them, Bush is estimated to be stuck at exactly half the electoral votes, 269, one short of the absolute majority needed to win.

Other networks believe some of the smaller states still outstanding have, indeed, gone to Bush: ABC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN. They all, however, won't give Ohio to Bush. So, to them, Bush is anywhere from about 15 to 30 electoral votes short of victory.

No media crowing about getting a winner declared. I never thought I'd see this. If anything, Americans are quietly sick of media arrogance, though not enough to do anything about it. It's the first time that the major networks are cowed enough to fit the popular mood, even momentarily.

One or more of the networks will probably break and declare a winner by mid-morning Tuesday -- but while it lasts, again, this is one of the damnedest moments I've ever seen. They're not rushing like lemmings over the prediction cliff.

I couldn't help but notice that, too, Grey. Very strange to see the networks (not even conservative-biased Fox!) holding back what should be an obvious choice based on their past performances. Of course, I hope this doesn't give the Dems incentive to drag this through the court systems to prolong the inevitable.

Didn't some of the networks decalre Gore the winner last time before it was actually clear whether he was or not? If that's the case then I would think they're all holding off saying anything in case they get it wrong adn end up looking stupid. CNN here this morning certainl were being *very* careful about saying anything definate, whereas the BBC were saying that Bush almost certainly had it. It'd be kinda funny if a foreign network declared the winner before any of the US ones.

Yeah - I'm 80% certain you're thinking of the Euro-elections. Which went 36.4% (1994), 24.0% (1999), 38.2% (2004).

Ah, you could well be right. I must admit in the Euro elections Chris and myself were virtually the only people I know who voted. Not many more voted in the last council elections either.

And up here the vote on a regional assembly is going to be lucky to get 40% of the population to vote.

I wish people would vote. Its the one chance they have to influence things. Yet they cant be bothered to go out at night and walk to their local school to put a cross in a box? And of course these are the very people who complain over their beer in the pub about the politicians

AAAAGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Just end it , Damn it.

Congrats, my friend. Your guy won.

We had a lot of long lines here in South Carolina, and a lot of people whining about it. That really ticked me off.

They were complaining about not enough machines, not enough people working in the polling places, no chairs to sit on while they waited...it was assanine.

The election poll workers were all volunteer. They were in many cases elderly people that volunteered their time gratis, working very long hours. And they got bitched at for feeling a sense of duty to country by doing what they could.

And to bitch about not having a chair to sit on while waiting? If you cant take a few hours for one day to participate in the countries elections, taking ten minutes to do your part, then they are flaming asses and i hope they don't contribute to the gene pool.

People fight and die to get to this country for the chance to participate in elections where they don't have to worry about being killed for their beliefs. If you are that sorry, that lazy, that assanine, don't be part of our collective misery.

That said, to everyone that participated, that voted for either party...well done. This was the first nation in the world were the people truly hold power, and you did your part. You are to be commended.

Thanks. I hope i can be as gracious here as i would like to be. I can't say that i was pleased with the new senator from South Carolina's acceptance speech. One line was pretty class-less. I really wish the line could have been left out. Other wise, it was fine.

As for president, i think it was amazing. Exit polling skewing, slashed tires, a lot of stuff to over come. And yet i heard of dirty tricks on the republican side as well, and i am not proud of them either.

But the main thing is...Laura is hotter that Teresa.

Great posts Mr Rickshaw; but who will be the first new Legion leader. Now that's an important election.

It was very easy to vote here in Upper Montclair, NJ. Sorry to hear about the lines and other problems. But hey! You are in S.C. at least you got great BBQ! LOL.

Now that the election is over I hope we can go back to being buddies. Mr. Pithy Rickshaw. LOL

Invis, i MAKE the best BBQ, lol. Eight hours, black jack oak coals, the best BBQ sauce you ever tasted, and hot enough to make yer hair sweat. And christmas time is comin' up, might have to do one this year for a family get together again. The last time was pretty great.

As for the lines, yeah, but some people would complain about winning ten million dollars and then having to pay taxes on it. I really don't think it too much to do your part in our nation.

Yeah, that was a little brag about my BBQ. Its about the only thing i WILL brag about, cept my wife, lol.

Party at Rickshaw's

Sincerely though, I'm glad it's all over too. What do you say, meet you guys all back here in four years and we can do it again? The whiskey is on me.

Great, break out a barrel and i am there.

And let me say this, i hope when the victory and concession speeches are done, BOTH parties are gracious about it. I think both parties need it. No joke. Thats why i was disappointed in DeMint's victory speech. One line ruined it for me.

And John Kerry's conceding! No armies of lawyers, no days-long gridlock, no James Baker flying to Ohio, no Katherine Harris...

Sort of skews the "The Democrats are whiny losers who want to litigate everything in the courts and will stop at nothing to steal elections in court battles" rationale, doesn't it?

John Kerry is a honorable man, folks.