Michael’s look on tonight’s Florida vote

This is what Michael posted on Facebook:

FLORIDA POLLS CLOSED.

48% FOR ROMNEY.

52% AGAINST ROMNEY!

Here are a few comments he got.

Someone else:Hey, if you have 8 people trying to decide where to eat, and 4 say pizza, and 2 say Chinese, and 2 say burgers, the pizza wins. It’s Math-Math.

Michael: ‎4 people voted for pizza (now a vegetable according to Big Government). 4 people vote against pizza. Equal winners/losers. Go to an all you can eat buffet. Win-win!

Me:You don’t like Romney I take it. I don’t look at it the same way as you do. 4 people didn’t vote against pizza. They voted for what they wanted.

Someone else:Most of the people who wanted to eat wanted to eat pizza, which means pizza won the majority of votes from hungry people. Math.

Me:The majority did vote for pizza. You can’t count the 2 for Chinese and the 2 for burgers against pizza. The people wanted pizza today. They didn’t vote against the Chinese or the burgers. They voted for pizza.

Me:How would you change voting if you don’t like it this way?

Michael:A candidate must achieve a majority of TOTAL votes (over 50%) to be declared winner.

How can a single candidate be declared a winner when the majority of voters are declared losers?!

Someone else: lol it doesn’t work like that. A majority isn’t always 50%, for one thing. And for another, when you’re splitting the votes into more pieces because there are, say, 4 possible candidates, it’s not going to divide into as large of slices of pie when there are, say, two. It’s unreasonable to think that if there are three strong candidates, any single person will get more than 50%.

Me:It can’t be 50% when there are more than 2 running. So does this mean if I want a burger at McDonald’s that I’m really voting against the fillet o fish? Do you think then people voted for Newt was really a vote against Romney or do you think they like him? What about Santorum? Where those votes really not for him but against someone else? You’re making it appear that people are voting against against someone instead of for someone.

Someone else: More than 50% is always the majority. But the majority of people can pick something other than pizza while pizza also gets the majority of votes for a single option. Sure its confusing and counter-intuitive but electing a president shouldn’t be simple.

What do you think? How do you look at it? Do you think your vote is for someone or against someone else?

This entry was posted in florida primary, voting and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Michael’s look on tonight’s Florida vote

  1. SKL says:

    I think I’m seeing double. Or triple.

    Besides that, I think in our system a plurality (more votes than anyone else) wins. Clinton didn’t get 50% of the vote either, but he won.

    I think that there are always some people voting against someone, but usually there are more “for” than “against” votes.

    That said, I’m so adamant that BO has to go, I would vote “for” someone who might not totally turn me on, because yes, I’m voting “against” someone in the upcoming general election.

    I don’t honestly have a preferred Republican candidate right now. I have not put any time into getting to know them. I figure there’s no point when the field will be whittled down before my state’s primary. Might as well wait and only study up on the folks who still have a chance.

    • Joy says:

      I’ll try and fix it. It didn’t copy right from FB and I didn’t want to publish someone I didn’t have permission from. Give me one more chance to get it right.

  2. All I know is now I’m kind of craving pizza.

  3. Sue says:

    I was confused too SKL! LOL! But, I read it on FB and it made sense. I think the whole voting system needs an overhaul b/c each person’s votes should count as one vote and credit given to whomever they voted for instead of the majority ruling in the state and those ‘state votes’ going to 1 candidate. I never did understand the electoral college and how it’s really suppose to work.

    • Laura says:

      In a nutshell, the Electoral College balances out the cities and the rural areas. If we went straight “majority vote”, then the big cities – New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc., would ALWAYS decide who the President is, and who the representatives to Congress are. All the time. Because they have the most people. And, in general, they all vote the same.

      The Electoral College allows states to be broken down – say a state has 4 delegates to the College, and the state is broken into N,E,S,W sections. The Big City is in the N section, so that section goes to the Dems. But the other three sections, E,S, & W, are all rural areas, and they all go to the Repubs. That state’s voters are still represented, but now the state goes to the Republicans, because all of the votes DID count. They were just “funneled” down into four votes, which gave the Rural Areas as much of a say as the Big City had.

      This is especially important now, because so many people are moving to the big cities, and, while vitally important to this country’s future, the rural areas are becoming less populated. Without the Electoral College, those in the Rural Areas would go completely unrepresented… much like many of the states are now, since the “smart people” refuse to put all the primaries on one day – or even in one month – so all states get a chance at electing the nominee… but that’s a whole other can of worms, so I’ll shut up now.

      • Laura says:

        Also… the Electoral College balances out the states. It was originally formed so that states like Rhode Island had a fighting chance at helping to elect a President against a state like Pennsylvania, which is like 100 times larger. This way, everyone’s vote has weight.

        It’s related, as well, to Congressional Representation. You know why every state has two Senators, but different numbers of Representatives, right? It’s the same thing – balance in representation. Two Senators from every state, regardless of size ensures that each state is equal to the others, and has no extra pull. But the House of Representatives is designed to represent the people, which is why their numbers are based on population.

  4. Laura says:

    As for the voting quandary, and pizza… mmmmmm, pizzzzzzzaaaaaaa……..

    Anyway…

    Yes, the majority voted “against” Romney. BUT, Romney got the largest concentration of votes, therefore, he won. The exact same thing happened to Clinton when he ran against George HW Bush. Bush had the lead, was doing very well, showing strong. Then Perot comes in with his pie charts and his straightforward “we have to treat the government like a business” talk. People liked that. They liked that he was an outsider and a successful businessman.

    All the political shenanigans aside (and you know there were some MASSIVE shenanigans in that race), Clinton won, even though the majority of the country voted Republican. The majority of the country voted against Clinton, but because they split their vote between two Republican/Republican-leaning candidates, Clinton won with the fewer number of votes.

    As for the “vote against Romney” – that is not true in a Primary. None of these candidates were running for “the office”. They are running for a chance to run. So the people truly did vote FOR the man they wanted. Not everybody votes in a primary, so only the ones who WANT to vote, and who are interested in the process, and (it can be inferred) have done their research, voted today. Therefore, they all voted FOR the man that they wanted to give the nomination to. There was no voting against anybody.

    That will not be true in the Presidential Election in November. On that day, there will be plenty of people who do not like the man that their party puts up to run. But they like the other party/candidate even less, so they vote AGAINST the guy they don’t like, rather than FOR a guy that they’re really in love with.

    • mssc54 says:

      But when George W. Bush and Al Snore had their vote thing GW got the vote of the Supreme Court so he definately had the majority. Electoral Judges always win!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s