NY electors elect John L. Kerry

[bones_7672]

Look at the New York Certificate of Vote, page 3:

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/2004_certificates/vote_new_york_03.html

[Ian David]

1. Didn't New York go to Kerry?

[mattclearing]

2. New York elected John F. Kerry.

eom

[rndmprsn]

3. yes...and he get's the state's votes.

eom

[mod mom]

4. Is there any meaning to this or a mistake?

[bones_7672]

15. I'm sure it's just a "clerical error" with no real damage, just funny. n/t

[woodsprite]

5. Is what a mistake? Did the number of electoral votes change? n/t

[pnutchuck]

6. More Red jargon

I like their definition of the Electoral College

"The Electoral College, administered by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is not a place, it is a process that began as part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution. The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote. The people of the United States vote for the electors who then vote for the President. "

As the original framework of the Constitution and a compromise with congress, we the people don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting rid of these bastards. Nor are we going to be able to swing the repukes in abolishing it either with that kind of brainwashing language.

[demodonkey]

8. The electoral college really wasn't established bey the "founding fathers"

It is not in the original Constitution.

The EC was established later, in the early 1800s as a compromise between the slave states and the non-slave states... the slave states got a little more power under the EC because each "negro slave" counted as something like 3/5ths of a person, which gave the slave states more seats in Congress and of course more electoral votes than they would have had otherwise, even though slaves (any black people, and NO women) could NOT vote at the time (of course.)

Am not an expert on the history of all this, but go google it, it is very interesting.

[ISUGRADIA]

13. Actually it was

Constitution of 1787 included it. Washington elected by unanimous electoral vote county 1789.

It was not in the Articles of Confederation that the US was first governed under though.

[saracat]

7. And , the point is ????

Why are we looking at this? For encourgement? I don't get this.

[headrock]

9. Look at the middle initial...............

Unless Kerry changed his middle name in the last month they have something wrong..;)

[PBS Poll-435]

11. By Executive Order...................

* changed his middle initial for him. It stands for Libril (Liberal)

:evilgrin:
:eyes:
:spank:

[merh]

18. ROFLMAO!

Yeah, it stands for "Liberal" - so there you stinking conservative, fundies and neocons in the red states! :evilgrin:

[saracat]

12. Wow! Does that do something to the vote?

The bozo who unintentially voted for Edwards was stuch with his vote!

[newyawker99]

16. Hi headrock!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[dweller]

10. who the hell is john L kerry?

:eyes:




dp

[KansDem]

14. "John L. Kerry"

Speaking of six-feet-under, John Kerry was as dead as the proverbial doornail in 2003 after he lost his frontrunner status, faded even in his own backyard, and fired his campaign manager. Yet John F. Kerry has become John L. Kerry, with the "L" standing for Lazarus. Short of a religious miracle, how did he do it? Another L word: LUCK. Yes, he's experienced, understands the nuances of politics, has a great life story, and all the rest. So do other candidates. But Kerry's timing was impeccable. He rose as Dean fell, just as Democrats were looking for a substitute for their near-nominee, just as a Vietnam veteran – honest, unprompted, and unscripted – emerged into the klieg lights to tell spellbound Iowans how a young John Kerry heroically risked his own life to save his fellow soldier's in the nightmare that was 'Nam. EVERY CANDIDATE ELECTED PRESIDENT IS UNACCOUNTABLY LUCKY; HOW ELSE COULD HE BE PLUCKED OUT OF 281 MILLION PEOPLE TO WIN THE WHITE HOUSE LOTTERY?

The early polls already matching John Kerry against George Bush in November show Kerry winning, and the Crystal Ball guesses that the Democrat's margin will grow in the coming weeks. Almost everything is going right for Kerry. Almost everything is going wrong for Bush. Surely the thought has occurred to Bush late at night in the unnatural quiet of the White House: Will I have an annus horribilis just like Dad did in 1992? And it is surely possible if American jobs keep disappearing, if Iraq keeps looking like Vietnam without the jungle, and if the deficit keeps growing. And yet… early polls are worth very little. Michael Dukakis led George Bush Sr. by 17 percentage points as late as August 1988, yet Bush el pere scored a near landslide 54 percent to 46 percent win against a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts. THE ENTIRE 2004 ELECTION MAY BOIL DOWN TO ONE SIMPLE QUESTION: WILL THIS YEAR BE A REPRISE OF 1988 OR 1992? Nine months away, polls are useless, and it could go either way. The Crystal Ball will bet that one of those years – both with decisive conclusions in November – will be more predictive of 2004 than the cliffhanger year of 2000.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=LJS2004020401

Still doesn't explain much, though...

[IndyOp]

17. Worst case scenario: The election is contested and the votes for

Ohio go to John F. Kerry, but with one vote going to John Edwards and all of the New York's votes going to John L. Kerry -- John F. Kerry STILL won't win!

Okay, sick joke. Sorry, it's been a long 48 days...

:eyes: