🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov6.050049.22628@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.212445.27963@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>>thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>Kennedy 1960 (lost popular vote to Nixon)
>>
>>Bzzzt. Kennedy got 100,000 more votes than Nixon.
>
>Only if you count voters in the South who voted for Democratic slates in
>the electoral college that announced that they would not vote for Kennedy 
>under any circumstances.

The total popular vote for Kennedy included
	1.  Northerners who said they would not vote for him, but did anyway;
	2.  Southerners who said they would not vote for him, but did anyway;
	3.  Easterners who said they would not vote for him, but did anyway;
	4.  Westerners who said they would not vote for him, but did anyway;
	5.  Northerners who said they would vote for him, and did;
	6.  Southerners who said they would vote for him, and did;
	7.  Easterners who said they would vote for him, and did;
	8.  Westerners who said they would vote for him, and did;
	9.  Northerners who didn't say who they'd vote for, and voted for him;
	10. Southerners who didn't say who they'd vote for, and voted for him;
	11. Easterners who didn't say who they'd vote for, and voted for him;
	12. Westerners who didn't say who they'd vote for, and voted for him.
With these 12 groups of people, Kennedy got 100,000 more votes than Nixon.
Why do you single out the 2nd group?  Is there some reason why their votes
should not have been counted?

Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com		x 6244  ----------------+
|  I don't belong to any organized political party:  I'm a Democrat.	|
|						-- Will Rogers		|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+