Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
In an upset victory, all of New York's electoral votes went to dark horse "John L. Kerry."
Electoral College Surprise
Comments to "Electoral College Surprise":
joe | December 21, 2004, 9:49pm | #
I know...for a FACT...
that John L. Kerry was never wounded while commanded a Swift Boat.
TJ | December 21, 2004, 10:49pm | #
Further proof that casting my vote in Brooklyn for John F. Kerry was a pointless exercise.I may never vote again.
crimethink | December 22, 2004, 12:58am | #
What a bunch of f***ups we elected to the college this time. In Minnesota, one of the electors accidentally voted for Edwards for president.thoreau | December 22, 2004, 1:10am | #
crimethink-I recall reading that during the debates at the Constitutional Convention, one of the delegates gloomily predicted that the electors (paraphrasing) "won't be men of the first degree or even the second, but of the third or fourth."
History has proven that guy right.
JorgXMcKie | December 22, 2004, 1:27am | #
Uh, crimethink, it's worse than that. Someone voted for John Ewards, not John Edwards. And what makes you think it was an accident. The Elector probably got confused by the butterfly ballot they use for Electors in Minnesota. (And he/she was probably around 90 years old, so it was hard to see and read the ballot.)Fenrisulven | December 22, 2004, 1:34am | #
The Democrat Dilemma: Identifying voters dumb enough to fall for their propaganda, yet savy enough to cast a valid ballot.WSDave | December 22, 2004, 3:48am | #
So this means that Kerry got even fewer vote than previously thought. Does this, in turn, mean that Bush really does have a "mandate"?WSDave
Spear Shaker | December 22, 2004, 3:54am | #
Obviously these electors were not on par with John Kerry's high I.Q. . .I'm guessing that, "John L Kerry" wasn't the seditious & treasonous swine that John F Kerry was and still is...
Isn't it "L. John Kerry"? I seem to recall some talk show guy stating the first name as "Liberal".
clark | December 22, 2004, 9:46am | #
John L. KerryMaybe they remember him talking about Dick Cheney's daughter and just finished watching 'The L Word'
L stands for lesbian outer!
SixSigma | December 22, 2004, 9:52am | #
In an upset victory, all of New York's electoral votes went to dark horse "John L. Kerry." ---Proving once again, that the government is incapable of even the easiest of tasks.
SixSigma this isn't a government problem, the government had nothing to do with it, it is a Democratic Party problem. I just want to know where the Democrates got these electors (Psst, wanna fifth of Jack Daniels?).
Jesse Walker | December 22, 2004, 11:14am | #
Uh, crimethink, it's worse than that. Someone voted for John Ewards, not John Edwards.It's even worse than that. The same elector voted Edwards for vice-president, too.
SixSigma | December 22, 2004, 11:18am | #
David -Ah yes, the Democrats screwed up the actual form, but I'm assuming the election commision in the state of NY reviewed and accepted it as is.
I wonder if there's any election law stating the electoral votes have to go to someone actually on the ballot? I know they differ state by state, and most don't require you to cast the electoral vote for the person recieving the most ballots cast in their favor, but am curious if you can just simply pick anyone you want.
thoreau | December 22, 2004, 12:18pm | #
I'm glad that we have an elite body to act as an intermediary and make sure that the people don't elect the wrong person.Oh, wait....
Isaac Bartram | December 22, 2004, 12:54pm | #
I'm just grateful for politicians ready to deliver my god-given right to entertainment.crimethink | December 22, 2004, 1:00pm | #
SixSigma,In the case of Minnesota, the story said that, since the electors cast unsigned, secret ballots, that the votes could not be retracted --even if one of them realized and admitted their mistake. So I'm guessing the election commission isn't allowed to proofread them.
What would be funny is if Kerry had won Ohio. Would he still get credit for NY's electoral votes? Or would some unknown John L Kerry from MA (and I'm sure there are plenty of them) get 31 electoral votes, leaving JFK with less than 270? Of course, there would be tremendous pressure on Bush and the House Repubs to play nice and let Kerry win, for the good of the country. But if Bush won the national popular vote, the scenario might be more complicated...
tough love | December 22, 2004, 1:14pm | #
Let this be a lesson to possible future Libertarian electors:Do not, I repeat, do not get high the night before the vote!
Faithless Elector | December 22, 2004, 1:16pm | #
tough love: really, I didn't mean to vote for Dick Bush, but it just looked so rad, man, I mean, dick and bush on the ballot together, far outLibertsforJLK | December 22, 2004, 1:52pm | #
Does anyone know JLK's views on gun rights? The war on drugs? Gay marriage?Libertarians should seek common ground with this political titan immediately, as he has already won more than the LP has achieved in four decades of existence.
Hilary P Clinton | December 22, 2004, 2:26pm | #
Liberts,That's the ticket! The LP just has to nominate someone with a name deceptively similar to the Democrat candidate. Even if that doesn't confuse the ordinary voters enough to generate a victory, we still have a chance when the electoral college convenes...
I'm waiting for joe to explain that the Democratic electors were disenfranchised by a system that did not allow them to cast a valid ballot.
There's a very useful legal term called "scrivener's error" to take care of situations like this, thoreau.
Let's not let any of the electors' errors distract us from the fact that Bush voters are stoopid and that trivial errors only matter when you're spelling "potato(e)."