electoral college maps

[sargebaldy]

OK, so Cyb linked to his projection (http://cyb.vect.org:8080/election2004/) and I used his blank sheet to make my own (http://oregonstate.edu/~lloydo/2004sb.PNG) though as it turns out the only thing we disagreed on was Florida, which was enough to swing the election go either way.

So do the same if you'd like, I'm curious to see how these projections will differ from the actual end result.

[Gokuma]

http://gokuma.site.voila.fr/election2004b.gif

[sargebaldy]

heh, you project both Texas and Alaska for Kerry? Though I think Bush is probably going to fight allowing those Canadian votes.

[Gokuma]

I think the Bush states are pretty pissed off and feeling spiteful.

[Fredrik]

http://fredrikj.net/img/misc/random/election.png

[Gokuma]

Is yellow Libertarian? They might have won there.

Texas is the codpiece of the nation in my projection.

EDIT: Yellow is Independent Ralph Nader.

[Job]

It's snowing in Texas, so who knows what'll happen. My friend who lives in the south says that when it snows down there, everyone freaks out and stays inside, so yay and stuff. I guess its God's way of saying fuck you to Bush for using His name so superfluously without necessity (and to cover his ass).

[Bloodshedder]

Fredrik is just demonstrating how it's possible to use only 4 colors on a map without having any duplicate colors come in contact.

Though he did make Michigan two different colors.

[Fredrik]

Bloodshedder said:

Though he did make Michigan two different colors.

No I didn't.

[Psyonisis]

,

[Epyo]

I don't know, I say arizona and colorado are touching.

[Fredrik]

Psyonisis said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map_of_USA_highlighting_Michigan.png

Yes? Did you even look at my image?

[Psyonisis]

,

[Jonathan]

Actually guys...

[Caco-Puff]

Jonathan said:

Actually guys...

Saved

[Gokuma]

If Bush wins, I would welcome Jon's projection since Blair is probably going to be voted the hell out of power.

[Gokuma]

When is the next British election for Prime Minister? It would be nice to have some satisfaction from at least one major neocon getting the boot and Bush losing a major ally. Where will his "coalition" be when he doesn't have Blair's lips on his ass?

[pritch]

The insane thing is that Blair is Labour. Labour are like, much further left than the Democrats as a party generally. Blair, having taken this course, has done something that has in one blow confirmed him as the most right-wing member of his party. You would not believe how many of the Labour MPs a) actually did vote against going to war and b) wanted to, but were whipped behind the party line because they are spineless.

The problem is I don't know wtf the Conservatives would do differently. Traditionally they would be more pro-Bush but I think pretty much every party hates his administration, for obvious reasons, it's a bunch of retards. They have also now stated that Britain was taken to war on false evidence and that they would not have voted with the PM had they know this. The other problem is that the Conservatives aren't presenting a viable alternative atm. As a conservative myself (please please please don't translate this as being republican) it's pretty depressing when your party can't even make itself electable.

The whole Blair-Bush thing is so weird it does almost smack of backroom conspiracy and makes me wonder if the civil service, or osmehting like it, really is running the world after all.

[Grazza]

pritch said:

The problem is I don't know wtf the Conservatives would do differently. Traditionally they would be more pro-Bush but I think pretty much every party hates his administration, for obvious reasons, it's a bunch of retards. They have also now stated that Britain was taken to war on false evidence and that they would not have voted with the PM had they know this.

Clearly the Conservatives (US readers: note the capital C - we're talking about the British political party here) are seeking to make political capital from the way Blair stated the case for war. I think the difference there is that a Conservative government would have supported the war on different grounds (need for regime change, rather than "we're about to get nuked"). They would not have had to appease the Labour MPs at all, and would have avoided making hard-to-support specific claims of imminent doom if action were not taken.

What amazes me about current British politics is that a left-wing party with a right-wing leadership has remained relatively stable for so long.

Hmm, this is drifting a tiny bit off-topic. :p

[sargebaldy]

Yeah, I was talking about this a bit with pritch right after the election. Blair needs out. Obviously Bush doesn't need the UK's forces in order to invade various nations, but he needs the UK's political support so the US doesn't look completely alone, particularly since he's already lost Spain. Then what we need are condemnations of the US from the UK and Canada, and for someone to assassinate the Australian PM John Howard. After that Bush won't have much choice but to stick to just oppressing Americans.

[Grazza]

Uh, if Blair's party gets voted out, then they'll most likely be replaced by a government that is more firmly supportive of current US policy. That's the odd thing about this situation.

The only plausible scenario in which the UK government would do a U-turn on this is if Blair is replaced as leader of the Labour Party (probably together with several other leading figures in the government who share his views). But are they really going to dump a leader (and his policies) who has brought them two landslide victories after nearly two decades of opposition, and is quite likely* to bring them a third victory in the near future?

* note: the Daily Telegraph is a right-wing newspaper, generally very supportive of the Conservatives, so you wouldn't expect it to exaggerate Blair's chances or popularity.

[sargebaldy]

Well I don't mean vote Blair out. I mean have him killed and let the Labour party select someone tolerable as a candidate instead.

[fodders]

pritch said:

The whole Blair-Bush thing is so weird it does almost smack of backroom conspiracy and makes me wonder if the civil service, or osmehting like it, really is running the world after all.

You never hear of the paedophile evidence Bush has on Blair?
I havn't seen many reports of it in ages

[Scabbed Angel]

Paedophile?

[TheDarkArchon]

And I thought they were going hand-in-hand was because they were gay lovers.

[sargebaldy]

Hmm, I was talking to an ex-American Brit I know and she was saying the Liberal Democrats have a pretty good chance of getting elected, partially on their opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Any chance of that happening?

[Sharessa]

sargebaldy said:

Yeah, I was talking about this a bit with pritch right after the election. Blair needs out. Obviously Bush doesn't need the UK's forces in order to invade various nations, but he needs the UK's political support so the US doesn't look completely alone, particularly since he's already lost Spain.

Don't forget Poland!

[sargebaldy]

He's going to lose Italy in June too :D

[Scuba Steve]

Gokuma said:

http://gokuma.site.voila.fr/election2004b.gif

Minnesota isn't part of the stupid belt. :(

[Grazza]

sargebaldy said:

Hmm, I was talking to an ex-American Brit I know and she was saying the Liberal Democrats have a pretty good chance of getting elected, partially on their opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Any chance of that happening?

Not really. The only time they seemed to have a chance of being a party of government was in 1981 (when they were an alliance between the Liberal Party and the new Social Democratic Party), but then the Falklands conflict changed the political landscape.

They're a significant third party, but any idea of them winning an election is wishful thinking. If we had proportional representation, then there's a very good chance that they would hold the balance of power. But we don't.