1,352
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 48:
Line 48: + +
Talk:United States presidential election, 2000 (view source)
Revision as of 15:54, June 10, 2008
, 15:54, June 10, 2008→Plurality of popular vote
: First you argue that a majority is not significant, because it happens all the time in a 3-way race. Then you argue that it is significant, because the 3rd party candidate affects the winner. Which is it?
: First you argue that a majority is not significant, because it happens all the time in a 3-way race. Then you argue that it is significant, because the 3rd party candidate affects the winner. Which is it?
: Kennedy failed to win a plurality of the popular vote in 1960. (He is sometimes credited with a plurality, because he is sometimes credited with some southern votes that were not actually votes for him.) [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:35, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
: Kennedy failed to win a plurality of the popular vote in 1960. (He is sometimes credited with a plurality, because he is sometimes credited with some southern votes that were not actually votes for him.) [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:35, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:: You might want to tone down your response a little bit, as it seemed a bit argumentative. It comes across as awkward when your reply is nearly 6 months after his comment. Which also may mean it might be some time before he gets back to you, since the following day was his last edit.
==LePore==
==LePore==