As noted by an anonymous reader of barnson.org, the Green Bay Packers won the last Redskins game before the election.
According to the linked page and story, if the Redskins continue this successful prediction sweep for the 76th year, Kerry will be President of the United States this January 1.
Of course, the chances were already 1 in 262,144 that they would successfully predict the presidency as long as they did. If the game succeeds in predicting the outcome of the presidency again, it would up the odds to 1 in 524,288.
As noted by an anonymous reader of barnson.org, the Green Bay Packers won the last Redskins game before the election.
According to the linked page and story, if the Redskins continue this successful prediction sweep for the 76th year, Kerry will be President of the United States this January 1.
Of course, the chances were already 1 in 262,144 that they would successfully predict the presidency as long as they did. If the game succeeds in predicting the outcome of the presidency again, it would up the odds to 1 in 524,288.
Go Packers!
I want to extend my condolences to Sam and the other die-hard Redskins fans on barnson.org. But remember that one game is a small sacrifice for your team to make in order to bring about change in Washington DC. 🙂
— Ben Schuman Mad, Mad Tenor
Non Causa Pro Causa
And, of course, in perpetuating this delusion, we’re all falling prey to the cum hoc ergo propter hoc, “Non-Causa Pro Causa”, or “Correlation does not equal causation” fallacy. Just because there’s a strong correlation between the Redskins performance and the incumbent party being ousted or not, does not mean one causes the other…
You can find a less academic description on about.com. I love that site; kind of like howstuffworks.com, it simply presents facts and lets you draw conclusions. Really excellent, impartial sites.
Regardless, given the correlation between the two events, it does brighten the prospects for Kerry supporters. The Redskins don’t win the election for anyone, but it’s a fun factoid!
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Amendment XX
Even if John Kerry wins the election (the one on Dec 13th, of course) he still won’t be president on Jan 1.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxx.html
Oh, bah…
You.
<big cheesy grin>
—
Matthew P. Barnson
If You Saw The Game
Then the irony would sink in even more.
The Redskins actually took the lead with less than 3 minutes to go in the fourth quarter. They punched it in the end zone, started celebrating, only to find out that the referees called a bogus penalty to nullify the score.
Sound familiar?
It’s like the 9 people who determine the outcome of an election rather than all those who actually voted.
bogus?
You’re not actually making the parallel that a Constitutionally allowed Supreme Court desicion is the same as a bad NFL call, are you?
The 2000 presidential election may have been hotly contested, and highly unusual but it was by the books and completely legitimate. And the book I’m referring to is the Constitution of the United States of America.
In fact, individual voters should count themselves fortunate to have a voice in the vote for President at all. The Constitution clearly leaves the right of selecting Electors to the State Legislators.
The Electoral College ensures that the Executive Branch represents the populations of States in the same manner in which the Legislative does. Without such a system, you would find far more “disenfranchised” voters across the country in states like, Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico, Idaho, Wyoming, Rhode Island, and Utah. How would Wyoming with its population of 501,242 ever have a voice were it not for their meager 3 electors?
The argument against the Electoral College process, to me, is another classic example of people from a few high-population eastern states completely missing the point that most of America is rural, conservative, and capable of thinking for themselves.
We live in the greatest country in the world. The fact that we had a system in place that, within the rule of law, accounted for all possible obstacles and decided the outcome of the election is a testament to the greatness of America.
steps off soap box
Fallible
I absolutely am making the parallel that the system and the Supreme Court proved fallible in the last election. I wasn’t even moaning about the electoral college in my post. I was pointing out that it’s upsetting when judges intervene and determine the outcome of an event, rather than the voters/players involved.
But speaking of the Electoral College…when was the last time a Presidential candidate campaigned in Hawaii? I think it’s happened once and that visit was classified as a mistake. I’m not sure about Alaska, but would love to see that as well. You think keeping the Electoral College preserves the importance of smaller, rural states? I live in a smaller rural state, here in Minnesota, and the state is AGAINST the electoral college. In fact, the papers are running stories on how to default out of electoral status (failed at finding a link).
…
Meh.
10 votes
Explain in what way the Supreme Court proved fallible. From my perspective the Court did exactly its job. The question at hand was “Do states have the ultimate right in deciding their electors in the manner they see fit”. The answer is plain as day in the Constitution and the Court agreed. To be fair to the court, they intervened because they were asked to. Moreover, it was the Gore campaign who brought the suit. If the Dems are so opposed the the Supreme Court “intervening” then they should not have been so litigious in the first place. Bottom line, their guys lost and they just can’t handle having no control over that.
Yes, I am aware that my opinion is influenced heavily because my candidate won. I would like to hope that I would at least be able to recognize the difference between my candidate losing and a fair decision.
BTW, I wouldn’t call 10 electoral votes small. MN is a medium-sized state by electoral standards.
RI – 4 NV – 4 HI – 4 UT – 5 WY – 3 AK – 3 VT – 3
Also, a paper running a story on an issue is no measure of the issue’s importance to anyone but the editor(s) of the paper.
I should also point out that while I am passionate about my point of view, I am aware that it is not the only one. I love having a forum where friends like us can debate issues like these openly. I harbor no ill feelings towards anyone who speaks in opposition to my points-of-view.
Electoral College
Although I am in a small-population state that benefits from the current electoral system, I’ve revised my opinion on the College over the last four years. I, too, voted for Bush in 2000, and thought the Democrats were whiners for contesting the electoral vote.
But it did mark only the second time in history where a U.S. presidential candidate has clearly won the popular vote, and lost the electoral vote. Not that I think Gore should have won, but I do think it’s indicative of how divided our nation is in choosing candidates that both try to appeal to moderates.
The principal issue as I see it is two-fold:
The solution to this, as I see it, is to adjust the Constitution to allow “instant runoff” voting. Make it so that citizens can vote for all the candidates they think can do the job, and rank them from their favorite to their least-favorite. This would give long-shot candidates a real chance of winning; people wouldn’t feel as if they are “throwing their vote away” by voting for them, since they could also vote for the other people they think could do the job.
It’s not perfect, but I think it would be a step in the right direction. The day of electors needing to travel overland for days or weeks to D.C. to cast their votes are long-gone. The system should be updated to reflect today’s communication realities.
Regarding this quote:
In my humble opinion, it is a mark of a clear thinker to acknowledge that his/her opinions may be biased, and that s/he may actually be unaware of those biases. It’s a trait that I seem to very often see among progressives, rarely from conservatives, and almost always from people who try to be “moderates”, like myself.
Yeah, so that’s a self-congratulatory statement. Sue me.
The bad thing about being a moderate is that the liberals perceive you as conservative, the conservatives think you’re liberal, and the only “benefit” to straddling the fence is the intimate time picking splinters out of your butt afterwards…
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Travel
I’ve examined the Constitution with specific focus on the electoral process. I’m not sure, in that context, that the purpose of the Electoral College has much, if anything to do with overland travel to DC. There are a couple of reasons to support this: 1) The Electors don’t meet in DC, they meet in their respective state capitals
2) At the time of its adoption the Electoral College didn’t take into account the popular vote of the people. In fact, the general citizenship had no vote for President. That right lies, constitutionally, with the State Legistators.
In fact, as originally adopted, the Constitution takes individual right into account very infrequently. The purpose of the Electoral College is to preserve states rights.
As for instant runnoff voting. I have heard this idea floated. In fact, the Utah GOP uses this method for selecting its candidates at the State Convention. My general feeling is that its WAY too much like a college football poll, and we all know how well those work.
As a point of correction, the popular vote and outcome of the election have been at odds 4 times, not 2.
In 1824, Andrew Jackson won both the popular and the electoral vote—that is he received more votes than any of the other candidates. But, no one in the four-man race won a majority, or more than 50%, in the Electoral College, so the House of Representatives decided the outcome. The House picked John Quincy Adams, who had come in second in the popular and electoral votes
In 1876 there were a total of 369 electoral votes available with 185 needed to win. Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, with 4,036,298 popular votes won 185 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, won the popular vote with 4,300,590 votes, but won only 184 electoral votes. Hayes was elected president.
In 1888 there were a total of 401 electoral votes available with 201 needed to win. Republican Benjamin Harrison, with 5,439,853 popular votes won 233 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Grover Cleveland, won the popular vote with 5,540,309 votes, but won only 168 electoral votes. Harrison was elected president.
In 2000 there were a total of 538 electoral votes available with 270 needed to win. Republican George W. Bush, with 50,456,002 popular votes won 271 electoral votes. His Democratic opponent, Al Gore, won the popular vote with 50,999,897 votes, but won only 266 electoral votes. Bush was elected president.
Sheesh
All this over a silly football game. Honestly, I expected better from Joe Gibbs.
NOT a sore loser
First off, Gore was not my candidate. At the time of the 2000 election, I was in business school, and you can imagine how your political thinking is biased when surrounded by hard-charging investment bankers. So, my prior statements weren’t from the position of the whiny loser.
I became politically active, and involved, after the 2000 election because I have become upset at what has happened to the country since that election. Also, I’m older now and need things to whine about when hanging out with the geezers at the coffee shop. For those of you who don’t live in bad-weather-areas, coffee shops are the lifestyle zen. There’s one located every other corner.
That being said (written), a couple things…
I wish I could find the story, because the story wasn’t run as an editorial. I believe it was actual news being reported.
I do consider Minnesota a small state, because the population density occurs in the Twin Cities. Drive 20 miles away from the urban center and it becomes rural. 95% of Minnesota is small town, rural, one-lane roads. It’s all farm land. In fact, the Twin Cities is right on the Wisconsin border. It’s more in WI than MN. Thus, I think it’s ridiculous to still condition electoral votes based on state lines, especially when the main defense for the Electoral College is about disenfranchising smaller states. Consider that the law was written in a time when there weren’t 4,567 channels of cable and satellites beaming cell phone signal to every foot of national space. Anybody can flip on a TV or a radio and watch or listen to a Presidential debate.
Also, I hate to break it to you, but us OECs (original east-coasters) don’t think we’re the only hubs in the U.S.
Coffee shop…
I consider barnson.org to be my coffee shop where I hang out and whine about the way things used to be.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Huh?
You mean you guys out west have settled the land? There’s women out there? Running water? Electric? You mean Deadwood was set in the past?
Geesh, I’m behind the times 🙂
My $.02 Weed
P.S. Say hi to LEwis and Clark for me…
I did!
I visited Lewis and Clark back in 1996! While I was there they gave me a BS degree. There are even paved roads out here! And speed limits that way exceed those back east!!!–
Christy
The Redskins
It seems the Redskins suck worse than previously thought. They couldn’t even get something as simple as predicting a presidential election right. Bring me Joe Gibbs’ head on a platter!
Thus ends the streak…
John Kerry just called Bush a few minutes ago to concede the race.
Thus ends an unusual 72-year prediction streak.
—
Matthew P. Barnson