News Vote Now: Polls Open in Eastern USA

[Ben Niehoff]

1. The greater part or larger number.

Note carefully the wording. It is not "The greatest part or largest number". Comparatives (as contrasted with superlatives) are used, grammatically, to distinguish exactly two alternatives. The correct interpretation of the definition given is

"The greater part or larger number of two alternatives."

I know that the distinction between comparatives and superlatives has been slowly going out of style for centuries, but I'm fairly sure the dictionary writers, being English majors, intended the grammatically-correct reading of the definition.

 

[D H]

Wrong. According to my "Webster's New World Diction", a majority is defined as 1. (therefore the most common definition) 1. The greater part or larger number.

Nice how you cut off the half of the definition you didn't like (the full definition is "1. The greater part or number; the number larger than half the total "). Nicer yet is how you truncated the "ary" from Dictionary.

Edit: I see you fixed "Dictionary" -- but you have not fixed the out-of-context quote.

A majority inherently involves more than 50%.

 

[Cyrus]

Today I went for the GOLD!

RIGHT JOHN?

 

[OrbitalPower]

It's not out of context. The same definition is also given as part of 3c at:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/majority
"the greater quantity or share" - it does NOT have that addendum you added.

I said I took it from Webster's New World - you took it from dictionary.com. Of course if you take things from other dictionaries they won't match up.

I'll take his word for it that "greater" means "of two," although I've heard majority used all the time to refer to the one with the most votes, and words are mostly defined according to how they are used.

 

[Cyrus]

I'll help you pack.

IM Not going anywhere BABY!

 

[russ_watters]

It's not out of context. The same definition is also given as part of 3c at:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/majority
"the greater quantity or share" - it does NOT have that addendum you added.

Though there are multiple definitions and that one isn't clear (it doesn't say greater than what: wiki expands on it and makes it cleaer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_(voting ) ), when applied to politics, in the US in particular, there is only one definition that applies, and that ain't it. It's spelled out explicitly in Article II, sect I of the Constituion.

In 1824, Andrew Jackson failed to get a majority of the electoral college vote and as a result, the election was decided by the House.

Regardless, the point is the same: a relatively close election.

There have been numerous close elections in US history and the last two weren't even the closest in terms of the popular vote.

The 1960 was "closest" in popular vote in that one candidate only had .1% more than the other, but in 2000, the candidate with more popular vote didn't win. Either way, that makes it an extremely close election. Here's a list where they combine popular and electoral votes to rank the closest elections (2000 is listed as the closest for obvious reasons): http://historylist.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/closest-us-presidential-elections/

 

[OrbitalPower]

Yes, apparently the definition came from my own misunderstanding as when I read "greater part" I interpreted it as "the greatest part." For example, "most" is defined as "the greatest part" of a certain amount. My point was that Clinton actually did win most - the plurality - of the votes, i.e., he didn't lose the popular vote. You learn something new everyday - I'll use "plurality" when I mean "most" from now on. As my writing shows, I'm not an English major or a grammarian.

1960 is considered a close election and the difference was not an 18% popular vote - I didn't know what you meant there, as there are a couple others.

 

[russ_watters]

Today the country has judged President-Elect Obama by the content of his character not by the color of his skin.

I'm not convinced of that and I'd very much like to see what the exit polls have to say.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Theodore Roosevelt's 336 electoral votes to Alton Brooks Parker's 140 electoral votes in 1904

Obama's victory may be around this, and it's considered a "landslide" according to wiki, so "near landslide" is thus correct.

 

[Borek]

Just waked up and switched my computer on - and everything is clear already.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Ben & Jerry's is giving away ice cream?! I'm so deprived! We don't have a Ben & Jerry's store around here. I want my free ice cream too!

I'll mail you a bowl!

 

[Moonbear]

I'll mail you a bowl!

Thanks...it would make a nice consolation prize. Oh well, maybe in 4 years we'll finally open the doors for a viable third party candidate.

 

[chasely]

So apparently there were 160 million registered voters in the US (from a wiki, so I don't know how credible it is).

With the CNN poll showing that approximately 118 million voted, we had a turnout of 73.75%. Not bad, but not as high as some people were predicting.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Oh well, maybe in 4 years we'll finally open the doors for a viable third party candidate.

The only difference between a viable candidate and a non-viable one is votes. Did you vote for a third party candidate?

 

[turbo]

I had pegged Obama at 350 - 400 EV. 349 is pretty darned close, but they still haven't called NC nor MO from what I can see.

 

[Borek]

MO for McCain according to msnbc. But it have changed in the last 30 minutes or even less.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I had pegged Obama at 350 - 400 EV. 349 is pretty darned close, but they still haven't called NC nor MO from what I can see.

MSN gives MO to McCain. The margin is very thin so there might be a recount. However, it won't affect the outcome so it may not go to the Supreme Court. I wonder if it is worth the cost. NC has not been declared, but unless the numbers that they report change (now it's 2,101,986 Obama, 2,089,826 McCain) this will go to Obama. Ditto on the possibility of a recount.
www.msn.com

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

A quick glance at the election map shows a strong correlation between miles of coastline (Ocean, Gulf, or Great Lake) and political orientation.
www.msn.com/

 

[chasely]

It looks like Obama will pick up NC and IN, but probably lose MO.

That would give him 364 EV. Not too shabby.

 

[LowlyPion]

I'm so happy, my President is giving his acceptance speech now. My president - President Obama!

And a fine speech it was.

He understands the need for grace in victory. And I rather think that he will be as I have sensed all along an able leader that will build a consensus that he is uniquely qualified to build. Rather than be a nation divided, I think he will be the 21st Century's Lincoln building a Nation United.

Lincoln for his part at least lived to see the moment that the Nation was again United at least in name, as he toured the streets of Richmond shortly after its fall, the night they tore old Dixie down, but sadly days before he was shot. Weeks and months and decades of course short of healing the Nation divided. Perhaps it is now finally healed and we can move on and leave behind this notion that there are real Americans, and those that are not, living among us.

 

[mheslep]

Two words: Universal Healthcare.

Doesn't exist, anywhere.

 

[mgb_phys]

Interesting comment from the bbc (John Simpson?)
When JFK won he became the first Catholic president - which 10years earlier would have been unthinkable, now nobody (except for a few fundies) would even know it was ever an issue. The legacy of an Obama victory might be that in 20-30years nobody remembers why a black president was such a big deal.

 

[LowlyPion]

I keep seeing these clips of Jesse Jackson with tears streaming down and I have to say I think he is really really sorry he said he wanted to separate Obama from his seed bearing organs. I think he is also thinking "Why can't that be me?"

All that time with Martin Luther King, and I don't think he really got it, because I don't think he ever truly could see it outside of what he got out of it.

Looks to me like Obama understands, and seeks this power as an instrument for change, a change that he alone maybe is qualified to affect and not so much as an end to itself.

 

[siddharth]

Doesn't exist, anywhere.

Umm... most of Europe? Or did I misunderstand something?

 

[mgb_phys]

And there's that other country that Palin can see (the not russian one)

 

[mheslep]

Umm... most of Europe? Or did I misunderstand something?

Nothing Universal about Health Care there. In all OECD cases I am aware of a) the country has a large (and usually growing) segment private/market health providers mixed in with the government plans (as in the US), or b) the government service severely rations care so that many services are flatly denied or the queue is 6-9 months. There's nothing universal about either of those approaches IMO.

 

[siddharth]

Nothing Universal about Health Care there. In all OECD cases I am aware of a) the country has a large (and usually growing) segment private/market health providers mixed in with the government plans (as in the US), or b) the government service severely rations care so that many services are flatly denied or the queue is 6-9 months. There's nothing universal about either of those approaches IMO.

a) Well, if you take Germany for example, the large part (~80%) is actually government funded. In India, there are government hospitals which are fully funded by the government, and also provide treatment free of cost.

See here for the statistics on % of healthcare spending supported by the goverment
http://www.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_select_process.cfm

b) Do you have a source for this claim? Is this problem long-lasting and widespread, or only isolated to a small number of cases or specific treatment types, and for a short-period? AFAIK, in India, services in government hospitals aren't denied, and the treatment time is usually reasonable.

 

[mgb_phys]

b) Do you have a source for this claim? Is this problem long-lasting and widespread, or only isolated to a small number of cases or specific treatment types, and for a short-period?

In universal healthcare there is always an element of rationing - there will be drugs or treatments that are too expensive for the limited benefit that they give.
Usually there is a central body that licences new drugs and treatments and decides which ones will be adopted - in the UK-NHS this is NICE (National Institute of Clinical Excellence).
There are occasional rows when a new treatment isn't offered - especially one which might postpone the onset of some disease (like Alzheimer's ) but isn't a cure.

 

[cristo]

Nothing Universal about Health Care there.

It depends on your definition of "universal healthcare." I would define it to mean that one can obtain the same level of healthcare from the hospitals, regardless of the amount of money you have, or position in society you hold. With the NHS, for example, this is the case. That there is a private healthcare for those that choose not to take up the NHS healthcare is regardless.

Sorry: you're wrong!

 

[mheslep]

...b) Do you have a source for this claim? Is this problem long-lasting and widespread, or only isolated to a small number of cases or specific treatment types, and for a short-period? AFAIK, in India, services in government hospitals aren't denied, and the treatment time is usually reasonable.

We're OT so moving off this thread over to here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1944707&postcount=85

 

[mheslep]

Congratulations all around to President-elect Barack Obama.

 

[Ouabache]

So it seems the PF Presidential Election 2008 poll questions, were off by a factor of 10..
The questions could have been rewritten, with following adjustments: where you see 15, make it 150.. (Obama win by over 150 electoral votes, Obama win by less than 150 electoral votes, etc.. How many guessed the spread would be that large?

 

[Evo]

Bet you a PF gold membership your wrong. (That's 14 bucks USD).

DEAL..I am not joking either..PF gold membership...

You're on. Dead serious.

Greg, notarize this bet please.

witnessed and stamped!

Ok john160, you need to get your information to Greg so he can charge you for Cyrus' Gold membership.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm so happy, my President is giving his acceptance speech now. My president - President Obama!

How about that; my President? It has meaning again.

 

[Astronuc]

Some interesting perspectives on Obama's win and its consequences.

Very interesting interview with Former Republican Congressman Mickey Edwards (OK).
The Future Of The Conservative Movement
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96648705 (requires Flash)


Mark Sawyer On Implications Of Obama's Election
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96649317

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

NC to BO according to AP. AP

 

[LowlyPion]

NC to BO according to AP. No link yet.

It was declared for Obama just now on NBC. Undoubtedly from the same source.

Washington Post too.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110601556.html