| Author | Message | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1441 Registered: 9-2010 |
In the election, the Democrat received more votes than the Republican, but the Republican won the election. Now, you might be thinking I am referring to the 2000 Presidential Election, but in fact this was an election decided by popular vote. So how is this possible? | ||
| Yatin509 (Yatin509)
New member Username: Yatin509 Post Number: 72 Registered: 6-2011 |
Veto power? Were all votes legal? Minority power? Was their any other option except Democrat and Republican? | ||
| Shez (Shez)
New member Username: Shez Post Number: 1195 Registered: 2-2011 |
was this a real US election? presidential? real Democrats and Republicans? | ||
| Fionakelleghan (Fionakelleghan)
New member Username: Fionakelleghan Post Number: 119 Registered: 7-2011 |
Oh good lord. Don't tell me that the game Monopoly has become politically partial! No, this is a good teaser. Did this election contain the votes from a "shadow" voting scheme, in the way that, when 12 jurors have been picked, the defense team can also have a "shadow jury"? I'll follow Shez, but phrase it differently: Is the election a real-life incident, or a computer-based computation? Was the election held by legal voters in the US or in an allied country? Surely you don't have hamsters to whom you give frightful names... My cats are reminding me to tell you that they are all Democats. Gregory, is this akin to Ray Bradbury's "A Sound of Thunder," in which an amateur hunter panics and steps on the butterfly, and the changes avalanche across the centuries, and the opposition party wins the election? | ||
| Martinfg (Martinfg)
New member Username: Martinfg Post Number: 960 Registered: 8-2005 |
Is this to do with the unequal sizes of constituencies? | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1442 Registered: 9-2010 |
Veto power? irrelevant Were all votes legal? assume yes Minority power? irrelevant Was their any other option except Democrat and Republican? Yes, but with regards to relevant options, yesish was this a real US election? As in, did it take place in the US? Yes. But if you mean a national election, no presidential? So no. real Democrats and Republicans? Yes Oh good lord. Don't tell me that the game Monopoly has become politically partial! Not relevant No, this is a good teaser. Did this election contain the votes from a "shadow" voting scheme, in the way that, when 12 jurors have been picked, the defense team can also have a "shadow jury"? Huh? No I'll follow Shez, but phrase it differently: Is the election a real-life incident, or a computer-based computation? it's real. Was the election held by legal voters in the US or in an allied country? The US Surely you don't have hamsters to whom you give frightful names... ???? My cats are reminding me to tell you that they are all Democats. Ok... Gregory, is this akin to Ray Bradbury's "A Sound of Thunder," in which an amateur hunter panics and steps on the butterfly, and the changes avalanche across the centuries, and the opposition party wins the election? No. But I've read that and it's pretty good. Is this to do with the unequal sizes of constituencies? Not at all. | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1443 Registered: 9-2010 |
Actually, with regards to relevant options besides Democrat and Republican, it's probably a yope. That was a very good question! | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1648 Registered: 9-2009 |
Long shot in the dark: did the Democrat die or was somehow incapacitated before the official announcement of the results? | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1448 Registered: 9-2010 |
Long shot in the dark: did the Democrat die or was somehow incapacitated before the official announcement of the results? No | ||
| Shez (Shez)
New member Username: Shez Post Number: 1231 Registered: 2-2011 |
I don't suppose there's a block voting system? was this election to choose a person? to hold public office? to represent a group of people? | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1450 Registered: 9-2010 |
I don't suppose there's a block voting system? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Please clarify. was this election to choose a person? yes to hold public office? yes to represent a group of people? if you believe that is what politicians are supposed to do, then yes. | ||
| Shez (Shez)
New member Username: Shez Post Number: 1238 Registered: 2-2011 |
block voting is when a group such as a trade union all vote the same way, so this one "vote" actually represents several thousand. I think you can probably tell that I don't know much about it | ||
| Shez (Shez)
New member Username: Shez Post Number: 1239 Registered: 2-2011 |
was the count accurate? was there any corruption? did the Democrat give up before the result was announced? | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1452 Registered: 9-2010 |
block voting is when a group such as a trade union all vote the same way, so this one "vote" actually represents several thousand. I think you can probably tell that I don't know much about it No, not this. At least, not relevant. Although it is a little bit close, I suppose. Not really. was the count accurate? Yes was there any corruption? No did the Democrat give up before the result was announced? No | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 13989 Registered: 4-2010 |
Were any votes thrown out? Did either the Democrat or Republican vote? Is this a true story? | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1456 Registered: 9-2010 |
Were any votes thrown out? Probably some were, but irrelevant Did either the Democrat or Republican vote? As in, the candidates? I'd assume they both did, but that's irrelevant. Is this a true story? Yes. | ||
| Kayleetonkslupin (Kayleetonkslupin)
New member Username: Kayleetonkslupin Post Number: 4054 Registered: 9-2010 |
OK so... It is a true story. The count was accurate, and there was no giving up, or corruption. It was an American election, but not a national or presidential one. Was it state-wide? In Connecticut? Was it strictly limited to UConn? Or did it happen somewhere else? At another school perhaps? Was it a mock election? | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1462 Registered: 9-2010 |
OK so... It is a true story. The count was accurate, and there was no giving up, or corruption. It was an American election, but not a national or presidential one. Indeed Was it state-wide? Yes In Connecticut? No, it was New York, but it could have been Connecticut or a few other states. I won't accept the [LTPF List of States] though because that would give too much away. Was it strictly limited to UConn? Or did it happen somewhere else? At another school perhaps? Was it a mock election? No to all. It was a statewide, real election. | ||
| Kayleetonkslupin (Kayleetonkslupin)
New member Username: Kayleetonkslupin Post Number: 4057 Registered: 9-2010 |
Was it a governatorial election? (I am informed by the LTPF box that I have spelled this wrong, but I am not sure how it wants me to spell it. You understand what I mean, I'm sure) | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 14004 Registered: 4-2010 |
Kaylee: Gubernatorial | ||
| Kayleetonkslupin (Kayleetonkslupin)
New member Username: Kayleetonkslupin Post Number: 4060 Registered: 9-2010 |
Balin: Thank you. =) I do not know why it is spelled that way, though. I think my way makes more sense. *pokes odd spelling* | ||
| Wunderland (Wunderland)
New member Username: Wunderland Post Number: 1363 Registered: 3-2005 |
Republican #1 = Republican #2? or the Democrat received more votes than one Republican, but another Republican won the election? or the winner changed sides? Did the election use a voting system such as STV in which a single vote can move from one candidate to another? or more generally, was the situation made possible by the use of an unusual voting system? (not that I consider STV unusual, we use it in Ireland for pretty much everything) | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1469 Registered: 9-2010 |
Was it a governatorial election? (I am informed by the LTPF box that I have spelled this wrong, but I am not sure how it wants me to spell it. You understand what I mean, I'm sure) Yes Republican #1 = Republican #2? Yesish - they were the same person, but with one slight ish or the Democrat received more votes than one Republican, but another Republican won the election? No or the winner changed sides? No Did the election use a voting system such as STV in which a single vote can move from one candidate to another? No or more generally, was the situation made possible by the use of an unusual voting system? DOYD of "unusual" - it used to be fairly common in the USA, now it's less common. I don't know about Europe but I don't think they use it, at least not in the way America does. (not that I consider STV unusual, we use it in Ireland for pretty much everything) Nice: But the only deterministic voting system that does not involve strategic voting (voting for someone who you think can win rather than someone you like best who has no chance to win) is a dictatorship where one person makes all the decisions. And by "deterministic" I mean if everyone votes the same every time, the same winner will be the same every time. As opposed to non-deterministic which could be you pick a random ballot and whoever they voted for wins. Which would also not involve strategic voting. But that's al irr. | ||
| Solitiare (Solitiare)
New member Username: Solitiare Post Number: 117 Registered: 7-2011 |
Are all candidates human? (I assume so, but just to make sure....) Are all candidates alive? Are all legally qualified - over 21, etc? Was the election all fair & square but something happened between the election & the inauguration, e.g. the elected person died? or went to prison? Would it help if we narrowed down the time-frame? 20th century? 19th? 18th? | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1478 Registered: 9-2010 |
Are all candidates human? (I assume so, but just to make sure....) Yes... Are all candidates alive? They were at the time of the election. Idk if they still are. Are all legally qualified - over 21, etc? Yes Was the election all fair & square but something happened between the election & the inauguration, e.g. the elected person died? or went to prison? nothing like this Would it help if we narrowed down the time-frame? 20th century? Last quarter of the 20th century. I won't narrow it down any further since this isn't 20 questions. 19th? 18th? | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1490 Registered: 9-2010 |
Anyone have any questions? | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 14530 Registered: 4-2010 |
Was the vote to put them in office? Was it "Survivor" style -- voting them out? (I doubt that, but I recall a NotAlwaysRight story where someone thought that, so why not...) | ||
| Kayleetonkslupin (Kayleetonkslupin)
New member Username: Kayleetonkslupin Post Number: 4282 Registered: 9-2010 |
oooh really Balin?? what was it??? =) *loves notalwaysright, are silly kittehz* | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 14533 Registered: 4-2010 |
Kaylee: Can't remember what it was called, but it's an older one, I think. | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1491 Registered: 9-2010 |
Was the vote to put them in office? this Was it "Survivor" style -- voting them out? So no... (I doubt that, but I recall a NotAlwaysRight story where someone thought that, so why not...) Yeah, I remember that too. Kaylee, you can read it at http://notalwaysright.com/big-bother/5677 | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 14547 Registered: 4-2010 |
Thanks Greg; I couldn't remember what it was called. Did the Democrat concede the election? Drop out? Is trickery relevant? | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1497 Registered: 9-2010 |
Did the Democrat concede the election? Well, AFTER he lost, he gave a concession speech I suppose. At least I assume he did. This really isn't relevant though. Drop out? No Is trickery relevant? No Since this is going nowhere, I will give a hint. Look at martinfg's question way at the beginning. My answer is relevant. Quite relevant. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 14554 Registered: 4-2010 |
Did some people vote twice? | ||
| Kayleetonkslupin (Kayleetonkslupin)
New member Username: Kayleetonkslupin Post Number: 4287 Registered: 9-2010 |
*giggles at teh notalwaysright* I shared it with Emma =) thanx balin and mr. coke kittehz! | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1502 Registered: 9-2010 |
Did some people vote twice? no | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 14581 Registered: 4-2010 |
Is straight-ticket voting relevant at all? | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1507 Registered: 9-2010 |
Is straight-ticket voting relevant at all? Yesish. The -ish is very relevant. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 14591 Registered: 4-2010 |
Is the type of ballot used relevant? Were there voting errors made by constituents? | ||
| Sundowner (Sundowner)
New member Username: Sundowner Post Number: 909 Registered: 6-2003 |
Regarding Martinfg's question about the constituencies: Were they of equal size? or were they of unequal size but it did not matter? | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1511 Registered: 9-2010 |
s the type of ballot used relevant? Rephrase to something more specific. Were there voting errors made by constituents? No Regarding Martinfg's question about the constituencies: Were they of equal size? or were they of unequal size but it did not matter? Whoops. I meant Yatin509's question. Specifically concerning any options other than Democrat or Republican. I answered "Yes, but with regards to relevant options, yesish " This is quite relevant, though now I'm thinking the answer with regards to relevant options might be yope. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 14604 Registered: 4-2010 |
Was there a third party on the ballot? Any independent candidates? Write-ins? | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1515 Registered: 9-2010 |
Was there a third party on the ballot? There were several third parties on the ballot. As for whether there were any relevant third parties, once again the answer would be yope or yesish. And this is very important. Any independent candidates? Write-ins? No relevant ones. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 14616 Registered: 4-2010 |
Were any valid third parties on the ballot? | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1520 Registered: 9-2010 |
Were any valid third parties on the ballot? Once again, there were valid third parties on the ballot, and as for the question of relevant valid third parties, the answer is yope or yesish. In other words, assume all third parties on the ballot (relevant or not) were valid. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 14628 Registered: 4-2010 |
Did the third party candidates have similar names to the Democrat? So people got confused as to who they were voting for? | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1524 Registered: 9-2010 |
Did the third party candidates have similar names to the Democrat? Technically, some of them (note: some of the relevant ones) did. But this could be very misleading. So people got confused as to who they were voting for? No | ||
| Solitiare (Solitiare)
New member Username: Solitiare Post Number: 194 Registered: 7-2011 |
Was this another example of the infamous butterfly ballot? | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1530 Registered: 9-2010 |
Was this another example of the infamous butterfly ballot? No | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1531 Registered: 9-2010 |
Hint: remember, the relevant third-party candidates were only yesishly/yopishly third-party candidates on the ballot. This is quite relevant. | ||
| Sundowner (Sundowner)
New member Username: Sundowner Post Number: 914 Registered: 6-2003 |
I'm not really sure about the voting system applied in this election .. Was there exactly one person to be elected? Was each party allowed to nominate one candidate? more than one candidate? Were only parties allowed to nominate candidates? Did members of the Democrats/Republicans/other parties run in this election but not under their party list? if so: under a different party? under a group that was not a party ("voter alliance")? as independent? as write-in candidate? | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 2847 Registered: 7-2009 |
Was a runoff election involved? Such that one party received more votes than the other in the regular election, but not enough to actually win the election, due to third party candidates getting some votes? But then the other party got more votes in the runoff, and so won? | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1533 Registered: 9-2010 |
I'm not really sure about the voting system applied in this election .. Was there exactly one person to be elected? Yes Was each party allowed to nominate one candidate? this more than one candidate? Were only parties allowed to nominate candidates? Technically yes, but if I couldn't find a party to nominate me, I could just create the "Gregory Koch Party", get enough signatures on a petition, and run on that line. However, this is irr. Did members of the Democrats/Republicans/other parties run in this election but not under their party list? Yope if so: under a different party? Yes (with the yope from above) under a group that was not a party ("voter alliance")? Some have described them as voter alliances rather than parties. But officially at least, they are parties. as independent? as write-in candidate No to these Was a runoff election involved? Such that one party received more votes than the other in the regular election, but not enough to actually win the election, due to third party candidates getting some votes? But then the other party got more votes in the runoff, and so won? No. OTWT. | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1534 Registered: 9-2010 |
By the way, the party nomination process in NYS isn't as clear as I made it out to be. If you find out more about this, it might help you a little bit. But other than one pertinent detail that you have yet to ask, it's not really necessary. I'll explain more in the $poyler. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 14657 Registered: 4-2010 |
The "Gregory Koch Party"...reminds me of the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party in '06 the senator created after losing the Democratic primary. And Lisa Murkowski's Alaska write-in campaign this past election. On that line, are primaries relevant at all? Did the Dem get more votes than the Rep in a primary election? Did the Rep start as a Dem, but switch parties to stay on the ballot? And then won the general election? | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1538 Registered: 9-2010 |
On that line, are primaries relevant at all? No Did the Dem get more votes than the Rep in a primary election? Did the Rep start as a Dem, but switch parties to stay on the ballot? And then won the general election? Irr/no | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1550 Registered: 9-2010 |
Anyone want to post on this? I'm having surgery a week from today and will $poyle this puzzle and my other two Sunday night if they aren't already done. And I'm not creating any more before the. | ||
| Solitiare (Solitiare)
New member Username: Solitiare Post Number: 225 Registered: 7-2011 |
Thinking out loud: Sometime between 1975 - 2000 there was an election for governor in NY state, which was won by the Republican candidate. The Democrat got more of the popular vote because (speculation) NYC goes heavily Democratic? But on a district-by-district or precinct-by-precinct status, the vote went Republican? Maybe a recap would help - I need help! All I know about NY politics is what I read in the NY Times, and I only read that when I go to Starbucks. | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1553 Registered: 9-2010 |
Thinking out loud: Sometime between 1975 - 2000 there was an election for governor in NY state, which was won by the Republican candidate. Yes The Democrat got more of the popular vote Yes, possibly a slight -ish depending on how you interpret this. because (speculation) NYC goes heavily Democratic? irr/FA But on a district-by-district or precinct-by-precinct status, the vote went Republican? No/irr Maybe a recap would help - I need help! All I know about NY politics is what I read in the NY Times, and I only read that when I go to Starbucks. RECAP: In a New York governor election between 1975-2000, more votes were cast for the Democrat than the Republican. However, the Republican candidate won the election. Distribution of popular vote is irrelevant (and thinking it is could be based on an FA), and we are assuming all votes cast were legal. There were definitely third parties in the election, but with regards to relevant third parties, there were some yopishly/yesishly involved, but none that would elicit a "yes" for the question "Any relevant third parties involved?". Finally, there is some relevant aspect of the New York election process that is rarely present in a few other states and not at all present in the rest. Also, as a hint, read the phrasing carefully in the puzzle statement. The way I worded it is relevant. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 14720 Registered: 4-2010 |
Were all votes weighted the same? | ||
| Sundowner (Sundowner)
New member Username: Sundowner Post Number: 918 Registered: 6-2003 |
Did a Republican run for the Democratic Party in this election? vice versa? Are parties allowed in this election to nominate candidates who are members of some other party? of some other party that is also running in the same election? (the latter would not be allowed here in Germany) | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1556 Registered: 9-2010 |
Were all votes weighted the same? Yes Did a Republican run for the Democratic Party in this election? vice versa? No to both Are parties allowed in this election to nominate candidates who are members of some other party? Yes! of some other party that is also running in the same election? YES! And now ask another question about this and you'll be very close. (the latter would not be allowed here in Germany) Nor in most of the US. I'll explain in the $poyler. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 14734 Registered: 4-2010 |
Did a third party nominate a Democrat? A Republican? And that person won the election over the Dem candidate/Rep candidate? | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1557 Registered: 9-2010 |
Did a third party nominate a Democrat? some did this A Republican? and others did this And that person won the election over the Dem candidate/Rep candidate? No, FA Hint: I believe this electoral practice is also legal in Connecticut (as well as several other states) although it is seldom used there. So Balin might have seen it before, but I doubt the rest of you have. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 14737 Registered: 4-2010 |
Did either the Republican Party or Democratic Party nominate a third-party candidate? | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1559 Registered: 9-2010 |
Did either the Republican Party or Democratic Party nominate a third-party candidate? Yope/Noish, OTRT though. | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1564 Registered: 9-2010 |
If this puzzle gets some posts within the next 24 hours, I will extend it until after my surgery, rather than $poyling it. I am also doing the same on the science complisult puzzle because it is active but not done yet. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 14759 Registered: 4-2010 |
Trying to connect some dots here... Earlier, the question "Republican #1 = Republican #2?" received a "Yesish - they were the same person, but with one slight ish." Then "Did the third party candidates have similar names to the Democrat?" was answered "Technically, some of them (note: some of the relevant ones) did. But this could be very misleading." Are any of the candidates' names relevant? The parties' names? Was one of the third parties named something similar to "Democrat" or "Republican"? Did it even include "Democrat" or "Republican" in the name? Causing voters to vote for that party instead? | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1569 Registered: 9-2010 |
Trying to connect some dots here... Earlier, the question "Republican #1 = Republican #2?" received a "Yesish - they were the same person, but with one slight ish." Then "Did the third party candidates have similar names to the Democrat?" was answered "Technically, some of them (note: some of the relevant ones) did. But this could be very misleading." Are any of the candidates' names relevant? The parties' names? Was one of the third parties named something similar to "Democrat" or "Republican"? Did it even include "Democrat" or "Republican" in the name? Causing voters to vote for that party instead? No to all, entirely OTWT. Also, FA. | ||
| Kthumser (Kthumser)
New member Username: Kthumser Post Number: 1 Registered: 9-2011 |
I would have to assume that the more votes were "no" votes... if only that were how it worked. The Democratic party had more voters, but many voted for the Republican? There was a typo and the Democrat got the votes but that was because the Republican's name was in the wrong place on the ballot? Republican #1 and Republican #2 were the same person, but on the ballot twice for various reasons and so the votes were split between the write-in Republican and the one already on the ballot? (Even though it was the same person???) | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1573 Registered: 9-2010 |
I would have to assume that the more votes were "no" votes... if only that were how it worked. The Democratic party had more voters, but many voted for the Republican? I would have to assume that the more votes were "no" votes... if only that were how it worked. it's not that simple. rephrase this. The Democratic party had more voters, rephrasing this and some other answers to make it easier: the Democratic party got more votes than the Republican party but many voted for the Republican? There was a typo and the Democrat got the votes the candidate who was on the Republican party line got more votes than the one on the Democratic party line but that was because the Republican's name was in the wrong place on the ballot? No Republican #1 and Republican #2 were the same person, but on the ballot twice for various reasons and so the votes were split between the write-in Republican and the one already on the ballot? (Even though it was the same person???) Yope/yesishly, very OTWT. You might even have except that my brain is a bit out of it since I had brain surgery a few days ago. I'll look at this when I'm feeling sharpening and hope I didn't blooper. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 14803 Registered: 4-2010 |
Were there at least two Dems on the ballot? Both as listed as of the Democrat Party? One as a third party? Did the Democrat voting split between the multiple candidates, giving the Republicans the win? And slightly late: Welcome to the forum, Kthumser! | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1575 Registered: 9-2010 |
Were there at least two Dems on the ballot? No Both as listed as of the Democrat Party? One as a third party? this is somewhat OTRT Did the Democrat voting split between the multiple candidates, giving the Republicans the win? Oh, and the above is correct except that the last answer was supposed to be "Yope/yesishly, very OTRT". However, I actually misread the question so it is OTWT. Go figure. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 14863 Registered: 4-2010 |
Switching parties in my last set of questions: Were there at least two Republicans on the ballot? Both as listed as of the Republican Party? One as a third party? | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1579 Registered: 9-2010 |
Were there at least two Republicans on the ballot? No Both as listed as of the Republican Party? One as a third party? Ok... Actually, depending on how you meant the question, the OTRT/OTWT could be either one. Because you're fairly close to getting a "yes" to your next questions, but there aren't two Democrats on the ballot, nor are there two Republicans on the ballot, so it's really tricky for me to answer. As I said, the electoral process relevant here is legal only in a few other states and seldom used anywhere except New York. Connecticut is one of them, so Balin may have seen it at some point back home. North Carolina is not, so he could not have seen it there while at Elon. It's not legal in California either, so there's no way Kaylee could have seen it. If you want to ask about a state were you live (or at least know about state elections within fairly well) I'll answer. But I'm not posting a full list because some of you would recognize it. But the bottom line is, if Balin rephrases his last two questions, he will get a clearer answer from me. Because the answer to the first question of each set is definitely "no". But after that, it could be eithher OTRT or OTWT depending on what you're asking about specifically. I'm guessing I interpreted one way the first time and the other the second time. | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1580 Registered: 9-2010 |
Slight blooper: According to Wikipedia, when primaries are won by write-in candidates, it is legal in several other states, "notably New Hampshire". But it doesn't say what the other states are. However, as I said, write-in candidates are irrelevant here. That being said, Balin and Kaylee could have seen it in North Carolina and California elections, respectively, in other elections with primaries won by write-in candidates. As a hint, I believe Balin would be less likely to encounter it then Kaylee if hypothetically it did occur in both the elections in North Carolina and California. Balin, check your facebook messages for clarification. Everyone else need not worry about it, since whether my assumption is right is irrelevant to everyone except Balin. But the assumption itself is relevant. | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1581 Registered: 9-2010 |
And after I posted this, I realized I shouldn't have said I mentioned that I was messaging Balin, because I inadvertently gave you another hint. | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1582 Registered: 9-2010 |
Sorry to keep posting. Let me clarify something: If my assumption is correct, Balin is significantly less likely to have encountered the election practice in North Carolina than Kaylee is to have encountered it in California. That should be clearer and avoid a misunderstanding. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 15085 Registered: 4-2010 |
Is the age of any candidate relevant? Were there multiple Democrats on the ballot (even if they were running for a third party)? Multiple Republicans (ditto)? Were there multiple Democrats on the ballot (who were listed as Democrats)? Multiple Republicans (ditto)? Did any party run multiple candidates? Any third party? | ||
| Kayleetonkslupin (Kayleetonkslupin)
New member Username: Kayleetonkslupin Post Number: 4470 Registered: 9-2010 |
And since Kaylee kitteh is not politically minded, whether I may have encountered it or not, this still has me baffled, mr. coke...*ponders* By the way, I am very VERY glad you are back with us =) how are you feeling? | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1585 Registered: 9-2010 |
Is the age of any candidate relevant? No (other than that they were all legally eligible) Were there multiple Democrats on the ballot (even if they were running for a third party)? Multiple Republicans (ditto)? Once again, noish to both. Please rephrase or ask a different question. Were there multiple Democrats on the ballot (who were listed as Democrats)? Multiple Republicans (ditto)? No to both Did any party run multiple candidates? Any third party? no to both Remember: unless you live in New York State (or possibly one of the few other states that allow this, though it is seldom used) you've probably never seen this done before. So try asking different questions, instead of trying to get it all at once. And since Kaylee kitteh is not politically minded, whether I may have encountered it or not, this still has me baffled, mr. coke...*ponders* By the way, I am very VERY glad you are back with us =) how are you feeling? Pretty good. I got officially cleared to return to UConn for next semester. :-) | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 15150 Registered: 4-2010 |
Were any parties allowed to nominate multiple candidates? | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1589 Registered: 9-2010 |
Were any parties allowed to nominate multiple candidates? No. Each party nominated only one candidate. I have answered this question in many forms and the answer is still the same. So why not try a different question? | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 15159 Registered: 4-2010 |
Is the exact number of third parties on the ballot relevant? | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1596 Registered: 9-2010 |
Is the exact number of third parties on the ballot relevant? No, but.... Additionally, bear in mind that not all third parties are relevant to this puzzle. So for clarity's sake, unless you state otherwise, from ere on out (including this question), I am interpreting "third parties" to mean "relevant third parties". | ||
| Solitiare (Solitiare)
New member Username: Solitiare Post Number: 352 Registered: 7-2011 |
You said that no candidate died (or was otherwise disqualified) between the election and the inauguration, but did someone die previous to the election, and the election was a special one to choose a successor? And it was open to all parties? I was thinking a situation like that couldn't happen in Texas, but maybe it could? (consider that a question, please.) | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1599 Registered: 9-2010 |
You said that no candidate died (or was otherwise disqualified) between the election and the inauguration, but did someone die previous to the election, and the election was a special one to choose a successor? And it was open to all parties? Nobody relevant to the election died at any point. OTWT I was thinking a situation like that couldn't happen in Texas, but maybe it could? (consider that a question, please.) I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. The electoral practice used in this election could not be used in Texas today (except possibly after a primary won by a write-in candidate, I'm not sure). However, in one historic election in Texas, it was used, with equally strange results (although it was a different situation). Do you live in Texas? If so, if you're old enough and have lived there long enough you might remember that. | ||
| Kayleetonkslupin (Kayleetonkslupin)
New member Username: Kayleetonkslupin Post Number: 4560 Registered: 9-2010 |
Texas? Is the Bush family at all relevant? | ||
| Crackers833 (Crackers833)
New member Username: Crackers833 Post Number: 1 Registered: 10-2011 |
Do the voters in this election district have the option to vote "no" or "against" a candidate on the ballot rather than voting "for" or "yes" for the opposing candidate? | ||
| Solitiare (Solitiare)
New member Username: Solitiare Post Number: 359 Registered: 7-2011 |
LBJ? Not that I'm admitting I'm old enough to remember that! Anyway, it was, as you say, a different situation. | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1602 Registered: 9-2010 |
Texas? Well, Solitaire said "I was thinking a situation like that couldn't happen in Texas, but maybe it could? (consider that a question, please.)" As for the historic election in Texas, no, the Bush family is not relevant, and unless you're a long time-Texan or really knowlegeable about politics, you probably wouldn't know about this. Also, looking into it further, another notable but strange example of this practice occurred a while ago in California, and was pretty much identical to the Texas story other than names and places. But both were somewhat different than this one, which is what you're trying to figure out. The only good Texas and California could do you is identifying the practice (which in turn leads you to $poyling the puzzle). They are otherwise irrelevant, though I will reveal them in the $poyler. Is the Bush family at all relevant? No Do the voters in this election district have the option to vote "no" or "against" a candidate on the ballot rather than voting "for" or "yes" for the opposing candidate? No. Also, maybe a slight FA. LBJ? Not that I'm admitting I'm old enough to remember that! Anyway, it was, as you say, a different situation. I'm assuming you're referring to the 1968 presidential election? In any case, if you're too young to remember that, you're certainly too young to remember this incident, an the one in California six years earlier. | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1603 Registered: 9-2010 |
But the unusual relevant electoral practice is no longer legal in California or Texas (except possibly when a primary is won by a write-in candidate). Keep that in mind. | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1604 Registered: 9-2010 |
One more thing: If anyone wants to ask me whether this electoral practice that led to the events of the puzzle is practiced and/or legal in their state today, email me or otherwise contact me privately. This is because if I posted the whole list of states, someone might recognize it/google it, but at the same time people can get some info without having to play 20 Questions. That being said, googlepedia is legal, so use it. | ||
| Solitiare (Solitiare)
New member Username: Solitiare Post Number: 366 Registered: 7-2011 |
I may be driven to do that! *headdesk*headdesk*headdesk* | ||
| Rebeccaisawesome (Rebeccaisawesome)
New member Username: Rebeccaisawesome Post Number: 1 Registered: 10-2011 |
Seems like the electoral practice in question is Electoral Fusion. So, some major third parties pointed to the Republican candidate? | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 15431 Registered: 4-2010 |
Rebecca, welcome to the forum, and that's some first post! Looking at the article, the states discussed in this puzzle are there too, so I bet you've got it. | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1605 Registered: 9-2010 |
Sorry for the delay Seems like the electoral practice in question is Electoral Fusion. So, some major third parties pointed to the Republican candidate? Bingo! We have a **********SPOILER******** Electoral fusion is a practice whereby multiple parties can endorse the same candidate (as opposed to the same party endorsing multiple candidates, which you guessed). The election in question was 1994 NY Governor's election. George Pataki, the Republican, also had the endorsement of the Conservative Party and the Tax Cut Now Party. Mario Cuomo, the Democrat, was cross-endorsed by the Liberal Party. There were also a few true third party candidates who are irrelevant. In any case, the results were like this: 1. Democrat Mario Cuomo with 2,272,903 votes 2. Republican George Pataki with 2,156,057 votes 3. Conservative George Pataki with 328,605 votes 4. Inpendence Party Thomas Golisano with 21,490 votes 5. Liberal Mario Cuomo with 92,001 votes 6. Right To Life Robert Walsh with 67,750 votes 7. Tax Cut Now George Pataki with 54,040 votes The Libertarian and Socialist Workers Parties were also on the ballot and various write-in candidates were eligible as well. However, the totals when you combine Cuomo's and Pataki's votes were 2,488,631 for Pataki and 2,364,904 for Cuomo. Hence, Pataki (the Republican) won the election even though the Democrat (Cuomo) got more votes than the Republican (Pataki). It was the votes for the Conservative (also Pataki) that put him over. However, the Democratic Party was still considered the #1 party in New York for the next four years, entitling it to the first line on the ballot. Then it went Republican, Conservative, Indpendence, Liberal, Right to Life, and Tax Cut Now. Any other party would have to petition onto the ballot for the next four years and hope to receive 50,000 votes in the next governor's race. This is why some parties will cross-endorse a major party. They hope that they can get 50,000 votes on their line, thus enabling them to run their own candidates in local elections. Good job everybody, and welcome Rebbeca! | ||
| Solitiare (Solitiare)
New member Username: Solitiare Post Number: 408 Registered: 7-2011 |
Whew! Interesting. Thanks for a fascinating, if fustrating, puzzle, Gregory, and welcome awesome Rebecca! |
