Valhalla Legends Archive

At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinborough) had this to say about "The Fall of The Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior. "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship." "The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years.  

During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:  

From Bondage to spiritual faith;  

From spiritual faith to great courage;  

From courage to liberty;  

From liberty to abundance;  

From abundance to complacency;  

From complacency to apathy;  

From apathy to dependence;  

From dependence back into bondage."  

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St.Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent Presidential election:  

Population of counties won by:  

Gore=127 million  

Bush=143 million  

Square miles of land won by:  

Gore=580,000  

Bush=2,427,000  

States won by:  

Gore=19  

Bush=29  

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:  

Gore=13.2  

Bush=2.1  

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare..." Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the "apathy" and "complacency" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

I do find it interesting, and do not disagree.  Good find.

All big cities are primarily liberal and free from the "idiocy of the country."  Therefore, Gore carried areas that are very densly populated, such as Washington D.C. (which 91% of the vote went to Gore). I am not so sure that the election has anything to do with people being dependant on the government. For all of modern history (1500 - present) , cities have been primarily liberal while the country site has been primarily conservative.

Quote
Population of counties won by:  

Gore=127 million  

Bush=143 million

I am not sure what that means, but Gore won the popular vote by about 500,000 votes.

I love the Electoral college.

Quote from: DaRk-FeAnOr on March 27, 2004, 01:52 PM
All big cities are primarily liberal and free from the "idiocy of the country."  Therefore, Gore carried areas that are very densly populated, such as Washington D.C. (which 91% of the vote went to Gore). I am not so sure that the election has anything to do with people being dependant on the government. For all of modern history (1500 - present) , cities have been primarily liberal while the country site has been primarily conservative.

Quote
Population of counties won by:  

Gore=127 million  

Bush=143 million

I am not sure what that means, but Gore won the popular vote by about 500,000 votes.

That means that, if everyone in the counties voted exactly (percentage-wise) as the few people who did vote in those counties, that Bush would have had 143m votes, and Gore would have only had 127m.

I thought it meant that if everyone in the counties Bush won had voted for Bush and everyone in the counties Gore won had voted for Gore, then they'd have gotten those numbers? I.e. 100% for one candidate, 0% for the other?

Oh, I understand.

Quote from: Myndfyre on March 27, 2004, 03:27 PM
That means that, if everyone in the counties voted exactly (percentage-wise) as the few people who did vote in those counties, that Bush would have had 143m votes, and Gore would have only had 127m.

Does this mean Bush voters are more apathetic than Democratic voters?

Quote from: Grok on March 27, 2004, 04:13 PM

Quote from: Myndfyre on March 27, 2004, 03:27 PM
That means that, if everyone in the counties voted exactly (percentage-wise) as the few people who did vote in those counties, that Bush would have had 143m votes, and Gore would have only had 127m.

Does this mean Bush voters are more apathetic than Democratic voters?

That wouldn't suprise me, but then you also have to consider other factors -- for example, perhaps the voters in Bush's corner couldn't get to the polling place because they had work and/or school.  I know that my parents -- particularly my dad -- aren't apathetic to the political situation, but he doesn't make any special effort to get to the polling place.

[edit]
So I suppose Bush voters are just more lazy, not apathetic.  
[/edit]

One problem I see with those numbers is "population" is not the same as "population of voting age and status".

So noncitizens, everyone under 18, as well as all people in jail, on parole or probation, should be subtracted to find out the actual numbers.

Another possibility is that Gore carried counties by a greater percentage than Bush did. Like Gore won his counties by an average of 65% while Bush won his counties by an average of 55% or whatever.

Quote from: DaRk-FeAnOr on March 27, 2004, 04:49 PM
Another possibility is that Gore carried counties by a greater percentage than Bush did. Like Gore won his counties by an average of 65% while Bush won his counties by an average of 55% or whatever.

That is inconsequential in counties that have smaller populations.

Quote
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:  

Gore=13.2  

Bush=2.1

That is the best part in the whole thing!

You dug up a thread that has been dead for a month and didn't add anything constructive. You broke the second cardinal rule you bafoon.

Quote from: Hazard on April 28, 2004, 03:37 PM
You dug up a thread that has been dead for a month and didn't add anything constructive. You broke the second cardinal rule you bafoon.

Hey hey -- first of all, it's "bufoon."  Get it right.

Second -- well, you were right about the rest of it.