Realcent.org

Our country is an ocean of red with islands of blue in it. Of course, the red represents Republican majorities and blue reps Democratic majorities.

Here's the map I saw. Small differences.

60% of the people must live in the blue areas then.

Some interresting cartograms:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/

m83striker wrote:60% of the people must live in the blue areas then.

No. The blue areas mostly represent high population centers except for the Mountain West. That does not mean 60% of the population lives there. The point spread was not that broad.

The latest vote figures I read were from the Huff Po Ho, so you know that's gotta be right:
Obama--- 61,173,739 votes
Romney-- 58,167,260 votes
Total-- 119,340,999

The difference between them is 3,006,479. That is 2.5192% . Not recount area, but significantly narrow.

There are over 310,000,000 people living in the USA. 119,340,999 voted O or R. An insignificant amount voted Third Party. Let's say they were 1.5% of the vote. 119,340,999 * 1.5% = 1,790,115

Total 119,340,999 + 1,790,115 and you get 121,131,114.

Now, approx. 310 million - 121 million = 189 million didn't vote at all.

Back out maybe 25% of the population too young to vote and subtract that from the 189 million non-voters and you get:
310 * 0.25 = 77.5 million too young to vote.
189 million non-voters - 77.5 kids = 111.5 million voting age adults who didn't vote!!!

189 million non-voters are missing from the red/blue map. That's 60% of the USA population missing from the tallies.

So, based on my very rough calculations... there is too much play in the numbers to tell where the missing 60% live.

If my numbers don't jive, heck I don't care. I'm just killin' time before my next appointment.

I think that the number of kids is higher. Plus there are people who can't vote because of their criminal record. I think the number is closer to 80 Million people who could have voted didn't.

In Australia, its a $20 fine if you fail to vote. Just sayin'.


from the Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_ ... _Australia :

The 1925 federal election was the first to be held under compulsory voting; the turnout figure climbed to 91.4 per cent, an increase of 32 percentage points on the previous election.

Voting is compulsory both at federal elections and at elections for the state and territory legislatures. In the states of South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia voting at local elections is not compulsory. About 5% of enrolled voters fail to vote at most elections. People in this situation are asked to explain their failure to vote. If no satisfactory reason is provided (for example, illness or religious prohibition), a $20 fine is imposed, and failure to pay the fine may result in a court hearing.

IdahoCopper wrote:In Australia, its a $20 fine if you fail to vote. Just sayin'.


from the Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_ ... _Australia :

The 1925 federal election was the first to be held under compulsory voting; the turnout figure climbed to 91.4 per cent, an increase of 32 percentage points on the previous election.

Voting is compulsory both at federal elections and at elections for the state and territory legislatures. In the states of South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia voting at local elections is not compulsory. About 5% of enrolled voters fail to vote at most elections. People in this situation are asked to explain their failure to vote. If no satisfactory reason is provided (for example, illness or religious prohibition), a $20 fine is imposed, and failure to pay the fine may result in a court hearing.

Do we really want those who are not engaged voting? Scary.

reddirtcoins wrote:Here's the map I saw. Small differences.

I like your map better. It shows the state boundaries and has less blue in it.

IdahoCopper wrote:In Australia, its a $20 fine if you fail to vote. Just sayin'.


from the Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_ ... _Australia :

The 1925 federal election was the first to be held under compulsory voting; the turnout figure climbed to 91.4 per cent, an increase of 32 percentage points on the previous election.

Voting is compulsory both at federal elections and at elections for the state and territory legislatures. In the states of South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia voting at local elections is not compulsory. About 5% of enrolled voters fail to vote at most elections. People in this situation are asked to explain their failure to vote. If no satisfactory reason is provided (for example, illness or religious prohibition), a $20 fine is imposed, and failure to pay the fine may result in a court hearing.

If we tried that here, the ACLU would pee all over itself. Then is would salivate at the mouth over all the legal fees it could bill the gobment for violating peoples rights. People would stop voting just to demonstrate it is their constitutional right NOT to vote! Barbara Streisand would hold a charity concert to help raise money for poor people to pay the non-vote fines. Beyonce & Madonna would hold a lesbian kiss-in to raise awareness for non-voter stress disorder.

Doctor Steuss wrote:Some interresting cartograms:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/

That's some good stuff! It puts a different bent on what I was thinking. Makes things a lot more complicated. What I had in mind is pretty simple. It goes like this:

We the People get together and petition the gov'ment for a redress of grievances. We say "Look, let's be honest with each other. It's time we got a divorce. We are no longer compatible. We Reds no longer like you Blues and you Blue A$$holes call us Reds too many silly names. Let's just quit this sh!t. It's time to part the blanket and go our different ways."


Then we divide up the country and see who has the better way of doing things.

I know, the Libertarians have a stake in this too, so they can have Wyoming. They will make a killing on Yellowstone & Jackson Hole plus all the mineral rights in that energy rich state. That ought to make them happy.

What do you say, Prez. Obama??? How about it??!

Cool we can give Maricopa County to California and sell the California coast to China and square up out debt. They all want to be communist anyway. It's a win -win.

I'm sure the Chinese will fence them in and save all.

Thogey wrote:Cool we can give Maricopa County to California and sell the California coast to China and square up out debt. They all want to be communist anyway. It's a win -win.

I'm sure the Chinese will fence them in and save all.

Maricopa County??! I though that was the most conservative county in AZ! Sheriff Joe and his posse, ya know.

Yavapai is the most conservative but I don't want to be in California.

Once we sell the coast to China and move Maricopa to California. That should fix California.

Thogey wrote:Yavapai is the most conservative but I don't want to be in California.

Once we sell the coast to China and move Maricopa to California. That should fix California.

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I like it! Sell those sorry Mother F'er's good and kind Liberals to China! There is one little California coastal county up against the Oregon border that is Red. Can we keep that for a tourist attraction? It's really pretty up there.

EDIT: I realize I may have offended Blues and any of the overly-sensitive lunatic fringe out there, so I hereby apologize for it. Time to re-fill my drink! Have a nice day!

Sheikh_yer_Bu'Tay wrote:

Doctor Steuss wrote:Some interresting cartograms:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/

That's some good stuff! It puts a different bent on what I was thinking. Makes things a lot more complicated. What I had in mind is pretty simple. It goes like this:

We the People get together and petition the gov'ment for a redress of grievances. We say "Look, let's be honest with each other. It's time we got a divorce. We are no longer compatible. We Reds no longer like you Blues and you Blue A$$holes call us Reds too many silly names. Let's just quit this sh!t. It's time to part the blanket and go our different ways."


Then we divide up the country and see who has the better way of doing things.

I know, the Libertarians have a stake in this too, so they can have Wyoming. They will make a killing on Yellowstone & Jackson Hole plus all the mineral rights in that energy rich state. That ought to make them happy.

What do you say, Prez. Obama??? How about it??!

With all due respect, I find most Reds to be just as big A-Holes as the Blues. Both groups have more in common than you realize. Both are welfare/warfare statists. They just alter some peripheral details and give their letters different colors. Both groups want to tell the other group what to do and impose their will, beliefs and opinions on the other. Both groups are hypocrites. Both groups worship big government and the police state.

Both groups ideologies require a central bank issuing a fiat currency to fund. A direct taxation would come up way short for all your glorious Imperial war mongering, tithing of your national treasure to the master race chosen ones home land, free health care, tax exceptions, food stamps, etc, etc...

Both groups are deficit spending Keynesians.

Oh, and to anybody who thinks your not on the dole? Who think they are above and better than that. Are you getting any kind of a tax break or tax exception because you have kids or have a mortgage that others who don't, are not...???

Bluegill wrote:

Sheikh_yer_Bu'Tay wrote:

Doctor Steuss wrote:Some interresting cartograms:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/

That's some good stuff! It puts a different bent on what I was thinking. Makes things a lot more complicated. What I had in mind is pretty simple. It goes like this:

We the People get together and petition the gov'ment for a redress of grievances. We say "Look, let's be honest with each other. It's time we got a divorce. We are no longer compatible. We Reds no longer like you Blues and you Blue A$$holes call us Reds too many silly names. Let's just quit this sh!t. It's time to part the blanket and go our different ways."


Then we divide up the country and see who has the better way of doing things.

I know, the Libertarians have a stake in this too, so they can have Wyoming. They will make a killing on Yellowstone & Jackson Hole plus all the mineral rights in that energy rich state. That ought to make them happy.

What do you say, Prez. Obama??? How about it??!

With all due respect, I find most Reds to be just as big A-Holes as the Blues. Both groups have more in common than you realize. Both are welfare/warfare statists. They just alter some peripheral details and give their letters different colors. Both groups want to tell the other group what to do and impose their will, beliefs and opinions on the other. Both groups are hypocrites. Both groups worship big government and the police state.

Both groups ideologies require a central bank issuing a fiat currency to fund. A direct taxation would come up way short for all your glorious Imperial war mongering, tithing of your national treasure to the master race chosen ones home land, free health care, tax exceptions, food stamps, etc, etc...

Both groups are deficit spending Keynesians.

Oh, and to anybody who thinks your not on the dole? Who think they are above and better than that. Are you getting any kind of a tax break or tax exception because you have kids or have a mortgage that others who don't, are not...???

Hey! I am giving you Wyoming! What more do you want???!! ( you just had to go and take all the fun out of it, didn't you?)

Your response reminds me of a song we used to jokingly sing to new guys when they walked into a party: " Every party needs a pooper, that's why we invited you.. Gaping Anus!"

Oh, and all due respect intended, of course!

m83striker wrote:60% of the people must live in the blue areas then.

Obama got well under 30% not 60% of the vote. We didnt even have a 60% voter turnout this election. It was 57.5, which is less then the last two elections. More people didnt vote then voted for obama or romney respectively. A third party that inspired the non voters could have won in a landslide.

Bluegill wrote:
With all due respect, I find most Reds to be just as big A-Holes as the Blues. Both groups have more in common than you realize. Both are welfare/warfare statists. They just alter some peripheral details and give their letters different colors. Both groups want to tell the other group what to do and impose their will, beliefs and opinions on the other. Both groups are hypocrites. Both groups worship big government and the police state.

Both groups ideologies require a central bank issuing a fiat currency to fund. A direct taxation would come up way short for all your glorious Imperial war mongering, tithing of your national treasure to the master race chosen ones home land, free health care, tax exceptions, food stamps, etc, etc...

Both groups are deficit spending Keynesians.

Oh, and to anybody who thinks your not on the dole? Who think they are above and better than that. Are you getting any kind of a tax break or tax exception because you have kids or have a mortgage that others who don't, are not...???

You are probably right. But I'd still like to sell the Ca coast to China. I'd rather live with the red a-holes than the blues ones.

Taking tax break or deduction does not mean you are on the dole, that is absurd. You are on the dole if you have more money coming in than what you earn. I take plenty of deductions and pay plenty of tax. Much of which is going to programs I or my family will not benefit from. I contribute to an HSA so the government will not be responsible for my health care, is my deduction a handout?


One thing you wrote really does ring true, especially with the old people who live and die by what Limbaugh says and claim to be conservative. This is the post WWII generation who ran this country into the ground. Go ahead and suggest they pay an extra 50 bucks for a doctor visit or pay for thier own damn medicine and BS surgerys. Why aren't they required to throw down a few grand for a hip replacement? We can't afford to pay 20X ROI on their medicare tax.

But they hate Obamacare? Why? This opposition is not based on conservative principles.

If you don't behave like the people I describe here, than please don't take offense. It's not about you.

I found it hilarious that romney was the republicans pick and obamacare was so similar to the failed romneycare he forced on his state. yet many I know were so gung ho for romney in large part to get rid of obamacare.

Treetop wrote:I found it hilarious that romney was the republicans pick and obamacare was so similar to the failed romneycare he forced on his state. yet many I know were so gung ho for romney in large part to get rid of obamacare.

I can't speak for others, I just wanted to get rid of Obama, period.

Romney lost the Presidency during the Republican National Convention. He and the RNC strong armed all the opposition. Many of us here at Realcent predicted his demise the very day almost every Ron Paul promised delegate was "UN-credentialed" and un-seated. Romney didn't have to do that. He had the nomination sewn up. The RNC would not even publish/count Ron Paul's votes during the roll call of the States. Sad day to be a Republican.

If Romney had embraced the RP crowd, instead of rejecting them.... We might have had a different outcome.

This week, in an interview with Diane Sawyer, Speaker of the House John Boehner said there was "no TEA Party Caucus in the House". Really? Well, they even have pulled the welcome mat for guys like me.

Texas and Louisiana have citizens now circulating secession petitions. Where can I sign one???

I was more talking about the fact he was picked among the other republican candidates. Rather then the fact people voted for him and mainly against obama later.

Once again Thogey and I agree with each other, saying that because you didn't have to PAY ADDITIONAL TAXES due to kids/etc. is not in any way the same as GETTING MONEY from the government.

Those getting money and those GIVING money are 2 groups. If the "GIVING" group gives a little bit less they are still in the "GIVING" group.

I’m sorry, you can twist it all you want with your giving and taking. Bottom line, you’re paying less than somebody else at somebody elses’s expense. Somebody has to make up the shortfall in revenue. Somebody is subsidizing your life’s choices.

Some households never have a tax liability when they get done with their exceptions and tax breaks. Yet they still get the same services. How are they not on the dole..?

Nope, when I’m paying a higher tax to subsidize your lifestyle via a tax break or exception for you, You Are On The Dole.

I too pay a lot of taxes, more than most. You get exemptions I can’t. Why? Seriously, why is that? Why do choices you made in life get you a discount at tax time?

So yes, your not being required to pay the same rate as me is a back handed stealth hand out.

This is blatantly discriminatory and immoral. But the Reds don’t seem to have a problem with that, yet are never short of comment when the Blues practice this.

So then.....,

Everyone who files a tax return is on the dole?

Do you take a personal deduction?

If you do, than by your definition, you too are on the dole.