I lol'd

The negative side of computers they been doing this and getting worse and worse since Uniac was built..

you mean the ENIAC, a computer designed to calculate missle trajectories in WWII?

How is that even related? :/

No..

ENIAC was the british code breaking machine.

UNIVAC was the computing machine.

No, ENIAC, the Electronic Numerical Integrator And Computer, was the computer built at the Moore School of Engineering in Pennsylvania to calculate trajectories of naval artillery shells. It was the first electronic computer. UNIVAC, the Universal Automatic Computer, was the first computer created for commercial purposes by the same team that created ENIAC, J. Presper Exkert and John Mauchly. However, the Eckert-Mauchly Computer Corp. was bought out and became the "Univac Division of Remington Rand."

The code breaking computer from England was called the Enigma, but it was really an encoding/decoding system created by the Germans. Britain was able to get their hands on some of the plans, and succeeded in breaking the rest of the code, so they knew all the messages the Germans were radioing to their troops during WWII.

And now you know the rest of the story!

an now i know.. Go Joe!

That's still not quite it. The Enigma Machine was invented back in 1918 by private German inventors and only later got adapted for war. "Colossus" was the main machine used by the British at their Bletchley Park code-cracking lab, under the guidance of Alan Turing. Wikipedia and other sources have some neat info on how the Enigma worked, including how to build a paper version.

Oh, right, the picture! Yeah, it must be frustrating to be in the west for that purpose. It's bad enough being in an Eastern state where the electoral votes are winner-take-all and the popular vote is a foregone conclusion, so that my vote has zero effect on the national electoral score -- but that's a problem in the west too.

OK I got the machine name wrong.. But they did try using Univac to prodict the election years ago and have been doing it every sence

I loved ABCs announcement last night saying they wouldn't announce a winner until they were confirmed going over 270, then california put obama at 262 and they confirmed him president in the same breath :P

I caught that too. I couldn't help but be amused.

Well that's just the news. It isn't over until it's over, as they say. If the west coast decides to stop because of that, it could cause a huge swing. I mean, CA, OR, and WA are big electorals, amirite? But yeah, the news is annoying.

I cried. Cause this probably happened. The media won this election far before the voting ended

Oh yeah, that just sucks! My state got it's vote in.

I agree totally, I remember I was pissed when they did that

Nah it's more like what we get here in Canada, more than 50% of the voting constituencies are in the eastern 1/5 of the country, therefor by the time us folks out west get voting it has already been decided who is going to lead the country and every single riding west of Ontario all voting the same way still wouldn't change one damn thing.

I know, right. Yahoo had anounced him as the winner the night of 3rd. At 4am EST, we got a paper which proclaimed, in some of the largest print I've seen on a newspaper, "OBAMA WINS!" which they would have had to have printed pretty early in order to get them distributed and delivered only a few hours after the polls closed.

I think it's funny how we rely upon computers so much for an election. You can walk in with a thumbdrive and have as many people as you want vote, dead, alive, fictional, or otherwise... It's been seen before that Dick Tracy, Marilyn Monroe, Roger Rabbit, and other characters have voted time and time again...

I can't complain about the election though, I didn't vote. That was only because I didn't know I had to re-register before it was too late, silly me for not being informed on when voting registration expires. =x..x=

eh i have to agree with it, cause really by the time the eat shuts down and their votes counted were screwed for our votes the only ones that matter at that point is the state ballots

Damn, that is so true....but coming from Ohio, it doesn't happen here.

They really shouldn't announce the election results and confirm a winner before all the precincts across the whole country are in. You would think they'd learned their lesson after the Bush v. Gore fiasco in Florida - but no, they like to make their predictions. They don't seem to care about how that could sway an election. If people on the West Coast decide not to vote because the election has already been won, it skews the data. People who would vote for the opponent might not because they think the winner's already completely determined, and if that number of people is significant, it could actually result in a state going for the predetermined winner when it may have otherwise gone for the other candidate!

And that is teh suck....

Damn. McBama won? That's it. I'm moving to Canada. I thought people would be smart enough to vote for O'Cain!

lol, to escape from socialists health care and over taxing and an all controlling government your going to Canada? Running in the wrong direction there.

I voted Obama. :P

I was just needlessly extending the whole 'McBama' joke made in the comic.

Oh yeah, me too, people just don't realize when they say they will leave the country if a democrat wins they will likely be going to a far more socialist one if they go to Canada or Europe.

Well in thier defense they didn't call it until the polls in CA closed and what chance in He!! did Mcain have of taking that state?

Dont worry, you still get a hug, even if I have to deliver it. x3

It happened this way exactly, including the part where my vote was a waste of time...

It's sad but too true.

Once again the news system ruined an event..

sad but true

Votes are never a waste of time, Remember the headline of Dewey defeats Truman? that's why you should vote no matter what some talking head on television or radio says.

LOL. I was making the exact same point and ya beat me to it while I was writing my post up.

Meh. I don't see what the big deal is. Remember a lil election a few years ago where the winner was called but then was brought into doubt later and eventually the person who was NOT voted in by the people became president?

Don't let the news choose for ya.

Hell man, I live in Utah the most red state in the whole fu**ing country, and I still went out and voted for my party (and it wasn't the Republicans). The attitude about the press could work the same here - why should I vote, it won't count? Cos it can count. Every vote can count, and screw the general way the state leans, and what the press may or may not say.

Fuck em, vote, and remember, as the news famously reported once before: "Dewey Defeats Truman". Guess what they were wrong. But if people had given up just because of that, who knows, maybe Dewey may have won.

http://kswolff.files.wordpress.com/.....ts_truman1.jpg

...Mcbama? I thought there was an o...

Really, votes should be counted AFTER they've been cast, not AS they're being cast. People just can't stand NOT having instant updates on everything in this day and age.

Or maybe you want to do something constructive like create an amendment that makes ALL polls close at the same exact time so time zones don't factor in. Would that make you happy?

The news really needs to be taken down a peg. Or a few dozen. Perception is a major part of market reality, and the news have pretty well driven us into a recession by screaming about us being in a recession for the past two years...When we weren't...Then assassinating WaMu when WaMu wasn't doing anything any other bank wasn't doing. They pointed the finger, people panicked, WaMu crashed, the market followed shortly thereafter. Yes, there were vast economic problems...But there always are. People buoy the market due to positive perception that they stand to gain something by investment. When that perception gets raped on every channel, they bail...And the economy founders.

Perception is no longer 'nine tenths' of reality. In our civilization, perception can make reality.

I know how ya feel, man. Native Floridian here and I remember keenly what the Media did to us in 2000, making a circus out of a molehill.

You might want to Isaac Asimov's short story "Franchise" for another 'extreme' take on the situation.

The coverage of the American election was plastred all over out tv's here in Australia for the past three months @.@ but im kinda glad Obama got in although I dont live there lol

Amen, Flinters. I can't tell you how much I hate the media we presently have...

so thats what roo was bitching about when you made that journal post.

Yeah, someone mentioned "Our voices have been heard" and I had to correct them. Not everyone's voice was heard, especially here in California. I have been so disappointed knowing that the election was over before a single ballot could be picked up and counted.

I wish NO ballot was counted, anywhere in the country, until the last polling place closes.

yeah, that dose kinda blow, but that's also mainly because of time zones and the fact that you only need X amount to win.

No frakking kidding...

I truly, TRULY despise these early-callers.

I also don't believe the results. Not for a minute.

Something fishy happened. Voter fraud on a massive scale, all for the sake of 'doing the right thing.', regardless of the rules it broke and the sacred nature of the American vote.

I smell an ass...

weeeeeeeeeelll, if your talking the 2000 and 2004 elections yes...since there's very strong evidence of those 2 elections being "rigged".

as far as usual election results. mostly they are taken on how large percentages of voters have voted on past elections. whether they sway one way or the other, you know?

of course there's other variables but basically it's estimating probability. If you have a bag full of orange rocks and purple rocks, and the purple ones are a great deal bigger, you can only assume that more often then not you will pull out a purple rock. sort of same with voting, if the country has voted mostly this way or that, you can predict that it's more then likely going to do the same.

The only problem with the 2000 election was the constant wails for recounts in Florida. That made a mess of things. As for 04', unless you forget, Kerry had thrown in the towel. I actually liked Kerry and would've voted for him if not for his creepy-as-hell veep, Edwards.

aaactually there was more too it then that.

the goverenor of flordia mandated police to prevent African Americans from voting in certain districts.

also in flordia a current running candidate (for governor)during the 2000 election campaign year was working for a computer programming firm. The current governor had him design a program that could switch voting counts for the machines that were being used by the state. (basically it would take the total percentage of votes and switch them).

Not only that but there was that one district in ohio where only 626 people voted, and some how 4,300 some of those votes were all for george bush.

there's huge stockpiles of data about the 2000 and 2004 elections and how they were more then obviously rigged. Hell there's even a public awarness movie about it.

Okay. I stand corrected.

Unlike the Obambi supporters who covered their ears and hummed or got butthurt when people spoke ill of their golden boy, I can actually acknowledge things like this.

I'm sorry to hear about it and it angers me that the balances were tipped.

yeah, i feel bad for that guy in Nevada where he was a people elected poll official who reported an error with the voting machines in 2000. when the company found out they flew down CEO's to meet privately with the mayor and governor of the state without the public official present. the next day, he was fired. and no change happened to the poll machines.

At least CNN waited until the polls in California, Oregon, and Washington were CLOSED before giving their prediction (although they still did so only moments afterwards, with 0 votes counted from 0% of precints reporting).

I'm just glad to see that RM is a responsible citizen and willing to take time out from her current troubles to cast a ballot. :)

The news only covers what they want, there is rarely any more real investigation into what they say anymore. And if it doesn't fit what their top brass wants to see it gets burried.

This is illegal in Canada.. we are QUIET stick on this, including the preventing of ANY campaigning on election day.

=^.,.^=

We could learn a lot from you folks, I think...

So, what you're saying is that a third party who really has nothing to do with anything at that point made a prediction and because of that votes no longer counted?

I sense a lot of butthurt with these comments...Face it, the predictions are based on EXIT POLLS (asking voters who they voted for), and are accurate, and with Obama having such a huge lead (winning Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, Florida and California, the "Big Five") there was no way McCain could come back from such a deficit.

There ought to be a media blackout on polling day until all polls have closed.

Amen...

I'm confused though, what difference does it make which states you count first? If you started in Calif and moved East Obama still would have won and the Eastern states wouldn't have a made a difference. If you start from the south and moved north then Obama still would have won.

The problem is that the media kept a running total going of all the states' results and had already predcited/called the election before many people in other states even had a chance to cast their vote. That same media coverage could easily affect the results.

If you were in line to vote and hear on the radio that XYZ candidate had won all the seats needed to win, would you even want to bother voting at that point? You know your vote means nothing at that point and that is the issue that I think people have a problem with.

If there was a waiting period of one day while all the votes were tallied, then you could have a much more realistic and accurate set of results that are not influenced by the media.

Besides, could you just imagine the build up of excitement while everyone on the planet waits for the results to be annoucned the next day...

"And the chairman of the electoral college steps up to the podium... the entire world has been waiting for these results to be announced. Who will it be? Obama or McCain? Quiet everyone, Chairman Smith is about to speak-"

"Good evening ladies and gentlemen of the audience and to all those watching this momentous event all over the world as we choose the next leader of the free world. It was a long and tough road for both candidates and it all comes down to this. The next President of the United States will be.....announced after this word from our sponsor, Toyota Motors now with zero percent financing-"

My country (New Zealand) had an election a few days after the US - with our system no-one starts trying to predict results until ALL the polls are closed on election day and counting starts. As an outsider, I just don't get how the US permits results to be announced from some areas while polling is still taking place elsewhere - like you say, it's unfair influence on those about to vote.

Mind you, it helps that all of my country sits in a single time-zone...

I saw your journal on this yesterday, too, and being the first American election that I've followed live, I was very surprised that the winner was instantly declared when the polls closed on the West coast as well (I'm also not totally certain why the winner of certain states can be declared with literally 0% reporting!) But even though you get the winner before your own result, it's the certainty of your state going blue caused by your and others' votes that allows them to do that.

So you could convince a few people to vote red to make things a bit more exciting next time, but overall I prefer the stability :)

Congratulations on electing a decent President for yourself, by the way.

When did we do that?
First off, *we* didn't elect a president, the Electoral College did, and you might notice a small difference in the percentage of EC votes for each candidate versus *the People's* vote. That would be "landslide" versus "just barely not 50-50."
Second, I don't call a tax-and-spend, anti-gun, anti-freedom, anti-Constitution (you may have heard of the Constitution?) nanny-government, welfare-state Socialist a decent President. I work hard for my money, and I'd like to keep it, thank you very much, not hand it out to slackers and professional couch potatoes.
Having said that, I'm not happy with the current administration's handling of Iraq and the current financial crisis either. the reason a Democrat will be in office is directly related to the actions of the Republican administration of the last 8 years.
Me, I don't like neither one of them, but McCain was less of an extremist, and closer to my Libertarian beliefs.
Minimal government, Constitution over all is all that's necessary.

Wow. I gather you're not entirely happy.

The electoral college system is something that's a great mystery to most of the rest of the world, and while it has its flaws (it caused the beginning of the problem eight years ago, for a start) this time I can't say that the popular vote was barely 50-50 when it was the largest gap for the Democrats for forty or so years - CNN's latest result puts it at 53-47, and looking at the numbers alone, eight million votes is a respectable enough margin.

For your list of adjectives, I haven't heard of Obama's gun policy - I come from a country that banned them several years ago and is really quite happy about it, but I can't find anything more than him wanting to regulate their ownership. And anti-freedom? Socialist? They're very broad terms, and importantly, sometimes not actually bad ones on their own.

Whatever our personal views, I can guarantee that the world in general is going to have a better view of America thanks to their choice, the Electoral College's choice, whatever you want to say it was, a couple of days ago.

You have to understand that this person doesn't actually know the facts on anything he's accusing Obama of. It would ruin his fun to actually know what he was talking about. Of course, if he knew what he was talking about, he'd probably like Obama.

I was rather hoping for a reply, actually - it stopped too early! (Although I could just have retracted my congratulation on being on the road to being a respected country again instead of a sort of international joke...)

Throughout the election - the first that I've been in America for - it became quite clear to me that a lot of the republican side was very clever with their words and the implications of them, seeming to have made sure to take the really good-sounding ones for themselves - two strong view/buzzwords that many take are being "pro-life" and "pro-freedom". This sort of implies that anyone that disagrees would be, well, pro-death and pro-hanging people up by their nostrils.

I don't just sit ans wait for replies, is all.
Not really interested in a debate. I've bashed this all out with a friend of mine already...

All right. Well, that sounds fair to me, too. :)

I'm sorry, what?
Yes, I do, and no I won't.
I don't like anyone who espouses "spreading the wealth around", and I don't like anyone who talks about "removing the restrictions the founding fathers placed on us" in the Constitution. I work hard for my money, and no one else "deserves" any part of it. Taking money from those that provide jobs and drive the economy NEVER works. Making everyone equal almost always means making everyone equally miserable and poor. Ask the Russians how well "equality" works.
The man is a Socialist, and I'm a Libertarian, which pretty much makes him my mortal enemy. I'm no huge fan of the Right, but their espoused ideals definitely lay more in line with mine. The Conservatives are too much "conservative family values" rather than the "conservative government" i.e. small government than I'm comfortable with, but they're still better than the nanny-state, cradle-to-grave government that the Democrats apparently want. I have no desire to be a ward of the state, thanks.
Remember that any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it away, and without personal ownership of weapons, there's nothing to stop them.

I've read a bit more on the Electoral College. I'm still not entirely convinced that it's a necessary institution, but it's general purpose is tied to the concept of state's rights, which was a big deal back in the day (we had a Civil War about it - despite the widely-held belief that it was over slavery,) the idea being that the people of each state make their choice, then the states elect the President based on that choice.

Regarding gun ownership, you must trust your government far, far more than I do. I'm proud of my country, but there are times that our government scares me. Force of arms is one of the few things that hold those opportunistic bastards in check. First line of defense is the courts, second is the will of the people expressed through flying lead, if necessary God forbid.

Absolutely, friend. Absolutely. Glad I'm not the only one who hates Obama's guts.

The webcomics community does seem to be full of left-leaning touchy-feely types, doesn't it? Don't seem to be to many conservative cartoonists outside of the editorial pages...
I'd point you to this essay:
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/arch.....es/000129.html
I''m a sheepdog, not a wolf.

im glad i cant vote. :D
cuz im not going to anyways.
:P

See THIS is why I vote early XD

This is very easy to fix. Oregon votes exclusively by mail. You *can* drop off your ballot on voting day at the country registrar, but almost all of us just mail it in a few weeks in advance.

I'm in Washington just like that roo feller, (Hi Flinters!) but I was lucky enough to live in an area where I mailed in my ballot (2 weeks ago). So I was able to avoid the 'why bother' syndrome. ^_^ But that was a recent change. Previous votes for presz were teh sukzorz.

Only two counties don't use mail in. Mine got double postage a week ago, so I was set. My vote counted. I still prefer getting off my ass and going to a polling place.

Canada has laws where the networks are not able to post results nationally until the last polls close (730 in BC/Yukon) The local stations can start posting results as soon as their polls close.

That's how we felt in Western Canada before that law was passed. The only thing is now the west generally does decide the election.

I always wonder how someone can win in an area when no precincts are reporting. I mean, doesn't that mean that either no one's voted in those areas, or NONE of the results for those areas are in?

Kinda warped logic to see something like "So and so 206 -- So and That 45 .... with 0% of precincts reporting!" To me, 0% of precincts means NO VOTES... so therefore how can there be a vote number at all to say someone's in the lead?

*feels a breaker trip in his brain*

I'll see if I can get them to reverse the Earth's rotation for you before the next election. :D

Of course California is so powerful in everything, could almost be said to run the country anyway-- those of us out here in what New York and LA so charmingly call "Fly-Over Space" are invisible. The fact that our votes get reported a hour or two before California's is the only time anybody on a national scale mentions us or pays any attention to our problems at all. Talk about your vote not counting.

Media Monsters, they have caused so much heart ache.

Sounds like California, declared Obama the winner, 3 minutes after the polls closed.

This stupid country.

this brings to mind the race of Truman and verse Dewey race a long time ago.

Being from Idaho, I'm totally all too familiar with this.

*faved*

Well, I have to say the only way news can influence the election is if the voters, on the very day of voting, change their mind about who to vote for because of how the election is being called. And if you care so little about your convictions and/or are so stupid to listen to the news that carefully, maybe you shouldn't vote. o.O Democracy only works in an educated populace.

None of this is directed at anyone in particular, especially not Flinters. (Look how cute and eager he is in the first panel!) I'm just saying that it's not really a huge deal. Stupid sometimes, but no big deal.

Besides, it was pretty obvious Obama was going to win in even the month before the election. McCain took a big shit on his on campaign by turning to trash, slander and lies.