After hearing this, I wonder who REALLY won the election?

  • Thread starter Thread starter iamsuranovi
  • Start date Start date
I

iamsuranovi

Guest
That is, I have to wonder why the disparity between the popular vote and the results of the electoral college. Here is what I'm referring to:
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law,
St. Paul , Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Democrats: 20; Republicans: 30

Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000;
Republicans: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million;
Republicans: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Democrats: 13.2; Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the
territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat territory mostly encompassed
those citizens living in rented or government-owned
tenements and living off various forms of government
welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between
the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor
Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent
of the nation's population already having reached the
"governmental dependency" phase.

Yes, I'll get all kinds of responses, I know. But if the election results were really 'the will of the people', Obama would not be getting ready to assume office.
EDIT: I didn't lose and I'm not trying to be hateful. I wanted to explore this bit of info and discuss it, but I can tell that those who don't like this info will be using the same tired phrases of 'get over it', 'hater' and other juvenile and pointless phrases/words rather than explore the difference between the popular vote and the electoral college vote.
EDIT #2: I know the statistics are incomplete and all, but the fact remains that these details are true. You have to remember these are not MY statistics, but the findings of Professor Olsen. Don't make assumptions about what I believe, either.
"Justagrandma'; thank you. I looked around, but my search did not turn up what yours did. I will try to find out where the piece originated and see if I can prove the details either true or false.
 
Statistics are always made by loosers'' in special if they are done by a law professor. i wish Obama good luck and merry christmas to all the world, there is a lot of work to do in the years coming''
 
As much as I would LOVE this to be the truth it isn't. If you check on Snopes or the sites grandma gave then you would see this info is spam.

However, it is not unusual for the popular person to lose an election. If I had more time I would give you some stats. Maybe later I'll come back and provide you with some links.
 
He still won the popular vote... no matter how you put it.

personally i prefer it to go back to the system of government that existed pre-civil war when states had all the power.

You can warp it however you want to, but when it comes down to it. McCain lost because he didn't have the incredible celebrity that Obama enjoyed and republicans where coming off a very unpopular president.

It may suck in some democratic strongholds but land ownership means nothing. Why would my vote count more because I own 50acres vs 1acre or living in an apartment? What if I don't need 50acres to live on? Me and my wife are minimalist(meaning we only get what we need and don't own things for the sake of owning,) so doees that mean our vote should be less important?
 
wow.

I have always held your electoral system in contempt, but now that it functioned to keep a wacko like Palin out of power, I must concede it has its uses
 
Good information here. The second to the last paragraph really sums up the condition of our population now. People want the government to become Mom and Dad. It's an entitlement mentality now. We're looking more like France every year. Thanks for posting you findings.
 
when the non working thieving criminal portion finds out it can vote to mug honest people through the force of government instead of at the point of a gun america is over.

i'm paraphrasing, of course.
 
From my point of view, we did not have any one "WIN" the election, because we did not have an "Election", we had a nation wide" Auction, and the highest bidder won, not the most honest bidder. Very sad day for America to be bought by such a radical, arrogant, self centered clown. Looks like he is getting off to a good start, flying to Hawaii in his personal jumbo jet, playing on the beach, and renting the multimillion dollar mansion to stay in while his subjucts are homeless, some starving, some out of work, Long live King barry, one can really see how much he cares for his people. He does care, DOESN`T HE ????? God bless America, God bless you for the question, and You should have a Gold star for the info and question, May God protect us from this evil, scum, and may God have mercy on his soul
 
As to the land area portion of your question, if you take out Alaska, by far the largest state of them all, you almost halve the Republicans area. And also, many of the States that McCain won were simply larger in area and smaller in population. As someone once said: there are lies, damnable lies, and then there are statistics. People and organizations use statistics to manipulate the public to believe what they want them to believe. The Electoral College process isn't always fair (2000, for example), but it gives all the states more 'value'.

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the
territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat territory mostly encompassed
those citizens living in rented or government-owned
tenements and living off various forms of government
welfare..."

"[C]itizens living in rented or...". Most people who live in cities rent. So that isn't even a fair statement.

I think your Mr. Olson is just manipulating facts to fit a preconceived notion he has about the Electoral College and is wrapping it up with 'facts' to make his case.

The argument is interesting, but not worth much.

After reading what 'justagrandma' wrote, I apologize to Prof. Olson.
 
This is a spam, if you check it out, the Professors bio corrects this and denies any such report supposedly issued in his name.
You don't have to get over it or get called a hater, you just can't swallow everything whole that you get online.
Its not true at all, not any part of it was put out by Olson.

Again it is not true in any part, and Olson has never put out such a piece, its totally made up.

I went to Hamlines website, clicked on faculty and found Olson's name, clicked on it and got that.

Not only that, but it dates back to the 2000 election and of course, Obama didn't run back then. Its even a retread of a lie.
 
The American people won the election.
Its the first time in years a presidential election has not been stolen.

There is much to be grateful for.
 
So you'd base the election results on the murder rates in selected counties rather than on the votes of the people and the Constitution. Well I guess it's a good thing you're not our monarch.
 
That doesn't make sense.

Try and stay with me on this, because it's really complicated, but...

MORE PEOPLE VOTED FOR OBAMA.

Rural areas traditionally go republican, urban areas democratic. This is why large swaths of the electoral map would be red, much more than blue, but far fewer people live there.

There are a million ways to slice and dice the demographics. The wealthiest people also live in cities. I notice average income was not one of your statistics, nor was average education level.

But the bottom line is... more people voted for Obama. Unless, that is, you don't count people who live in cities as Americans, which is apparently you don't
 
The only metric that matters is the Electoral College. Obama won convincingly. You lost. Try to get over it.
 
the only system that really count in this country is the ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!

Poll shows 85% approve of way Obama is handling transition. Are YA GOP cons minority even among Republicans?YES!!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/09/Obama.poll/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/24/104627/43/472/676860
GOP will remain loser. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO win the electoral college without the supports of the minorities and the youths, AND THE EDUCATED URBAN VOTERS!!
We live in a very different political reality now, these people have learned that GOP really dont care abt them!!
365/173 is the political reality!!

GOP have no chance to win electoral college WITHOUT these people's supports. and these people WILL NOT support them!!!Even 46% of the South voted for Obama, we just may win the South too if Obama do well!!!

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results...
 
This is completely bogus. This is very similar to a posting supposedly made by Professor Olson on the 2000 election. However, Professor Olson denied providing this information even back in 2000.

According to the information below, McCain won 22 states which is almost a reversal of the information you posted. Obama won 28 states plus some territories and the District.

Your data completely ignores the fact that Obama pulled about 9.5 million more in the popular vote than McCain. Are you suggesting that the actual vote count irrelevant in a democracy?

I'm assuming that the murder rate, county statistics and the other data that you cite which is equally hard to confirm is bogus as well.
 
I'm sorry, but these details are not correct. Obama won 28 states and 52.8% of the popular vote. Professor Olson is giving you a lot of misinformation. And you should remember that and completely ignore him in the future. Because, if I can get the correct numbers, he could have. But, he obviously chose not to.
 
Back
Top