It's over!

pitu wrote: [quote=alafairnadia][quote=qtrain][quote=EmilyM]Carnivore, I'm with you on Bill Bradley. I'm sorry he only ever ran against an incumbent vice-president. Since then, I've always joked that I look for "the Bill Bradley candidate" in any election--you know, the guy who's too nuanced and intellectual for his own good.

Another Bradley voter here. Bradley vs. McCain was the best presidential election that never was.



love it

mi tambien
[laughing and crying at the same time]
:roll:

yesss..i keeping hoping bill will find his way back. thanks for shaking that synapse

NYT feature on Yvette Clarke:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/nyregion/14yvette.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin

Medusa wrote: [quote=Carnivore]NYT feature on Yvette Clarke:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/nyregion/14yvette.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin

In the sidebar they mention her education at Oberlin but kind of just don't mention that she didn't actually receive a degree. That was weird.

I was initially really bummed that she won, but have been trying to console myself withthe hope that she'll be really into constituant service. I've got to remember to bug her about things once she takes office.
They discuss it in the article itself.

Smokin' Joe wrote:
and in addition to instant runoffs, which are great but a fairly recent innovation,

Not so recent. WP says "Instant-runoff voting was invented around 1870 by American architect William Robert Ware." Invented here, implemented mostly elsewhere.

Smokin' Joe wrote:

lots of states have plain old old-fashioned runoffs--if no one gets more than 50 percent of the vote, the top two candidates face each other in a runoff election a few weeks later.

That I didn't know. Like in some European countries. Always struck me as a waste of time and money.

Smokin' Joe wrote:

why is new york so backwards?

No idea. Party machines that have an interest in maintaining the status quo?

You guys push a lever to make one mark and you think you've voted? Let me tell you: until you've spent half an hour numbering all 264 candidates from 81 parties from 1 to 264 in pencil on a 7 sqft paper ballot using the Single Transferable Vote system under the Droop Quota to proportionally elect 21 state senators, you've hardly voted at all. And then they all have to be counted by hand. STV is truly the Mastodon of electoral systems; one STV can outweigh a lifetime of FPTPs, pregnant chads included.

But whichever way you work it, it always seems to be a politician who wins.