Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 October 25

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 25

the price of David Copperfield's caul

“ ... the caul was put up in a raffle down in our part of the country, to fifty members at half-a-crown a head, the winner to spend five shillings. ”

What does "winner to spend" mean? That the winner receives 5s spending-money? Or that the winner, to claim the grand prize, must put up another 5s (twice the price of the raffle ticket)? —Tamfang (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like he won an option. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Or the bidders are submitting binding offers, with the winning bid selected by lottery. It is not clear just from the passage quoted whether the winner, once selected, has the option of backing out of the purchase or not (if they do, it would be an option, if not, it wouldn't be.) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Speaking purely as a reader (I think I may have formally studied the novel at school, but that was a looong time ago), I understood it to mean your second alternative, that the winner would have to pay an additional 5/- over and above his 2/6 raffle ticket in order to claim the prize: thus the organisers would (before expenses) gain 50 x 2/6 + 5/- = £6 10/-. {The poster formerly known as 87.85.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

For any reader wondering what on earth this is all about, our Caul articles says that it is "...is a piece of membrane that can cover a newborn's head and face immediately after birth." It continues; "A legend developed suggesting that possession of a baby's caul would give its bearer good luck and protect that person from death by drowning." The winner of David Copperfield's caul was an old lady who "... was never drowned, but died triumphantly in bed, at ninety-two." Alansplodge (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I was wondering about that, and why anyone would want a magician's caul. :-) StuRat (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

[1] - for anyone who didn't understand StuRat's allusion. (Like me, for ex.) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

And, of course, for anyone who doesn't know, David Copperfield (illusionist) is also the name of a famous magician. Here's one of my fave lines from 3rd Rock from the Sun: "My teacher assigned us some big old book named David Copperfield, but I found it on video instead. And you know, the video isn't boring at all, he makes the Statue of Liberty disappear and everything ... I'm gonna totally ace this report !" - Tommy Soloman. StuRat (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not charge an extra penny and avoid the winner having to pay the five shillings?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure but a) there was a 2s 6d coin so it would have been easier to collect (and account for). b) The caul was originally offered for 15 Guineas ie £15 15s (£15.75p decimal) so even at 7s 6d (37.5p) it was still a considerable bargain. Alansplodge (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I think lotteries required leave of the government or an act of Parliament or some such. If the prize is an option (which, of course, could be declined), it may avoid that problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Roman Catholic incorporation?

In The Castilian Fathers at the Council of Basel, it states "Cardinal Cervantes incorporated on November 29, 1432 along with three members of his household." Obviously, he didn't go into business. What does this mean? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I think what we're talking about here is College (canon law). Marnanel (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

The mechanics of the Imperial Diet of the HRE

So, I was just reading through some articles about the Holy Roman Empire, and while perusing through List of Reichstag participants (1792), I had some questions about how the Reichstag worked during this time period. Reading Imperial Diet (Holy Roman Empire) doesn't give a lot of insight as to the mechanics of how various Diets operated, excepting to note that "The precise role and function of the Imperial Diet changed over the centuries" without noting the operation of the Body. In List of Reichstag participants (1792) there are several things I have questions about regarding how that Diet would have operated, based on the voting membership:

• Several "seats" in the Diet are held by the same person. For example, Archduke Maximilian Francis of Austria has several seats on the body: One as Elector of Cologne, a separate one as Bishop of Munster, and another as Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights. When Maximilian Francis officially recorded a vote, did it represent the vote of one man (as his vote) or the did it count as 3 votes (one for each office he held)?
• Several members of the Diet are foreign princes who held important offices elsewhere. For example, many of the seats are held by George III of the United Kingdom through his various German titles. However, George never set foot in Hanover, and I don't believe he attended the Diet in person, which brings up the question of his votes: Could he "vote by mail", sending envoy of his official vote on various issues, or could he "vote by proxy" by sending a representative in his stead to represent his voice, and vote for him? And if so, did he send one envoy (to represent him) or several (to represent each state he had title to)? Or, if he wasn't personally present, did he forfeit his right to vote?
• Some seats are held simultaneously by more than one person, sometimes many people combined for one vote. For example, the vote held by The Duke of Saxe-Coburg was officially split between two men: did they have to achieve consensus to register their single vote, or did each man represent 1/2 vote in the tally? The vote of The Prince of Anhalt is similarly divided among 4 people, and others similarly.
• Regarding the "Colleges" Were they handled differently for the split votes of some Duchies noted above, which collectively represented a single vote? I suspect, from the wording of our articles, that the single vote of the College of The Counts of Swabia would be arrived at by the College voting amongst itself first, and then recording that as their one Vote in the diet? Or was there a representative elected from the college that served as the person who made the votes in the diet? Or did one of the members of the College have hereditary right to represent it in the diet?

Just some questions that come to mind. Any ideas or thoughts? --Jayron32 18:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Erzherzog Maximilian Franz von Österreich didn't inherit any votes, he was a self-made Diet seat-holder. All his votes weren't hereditary. I'm guessing the votes were cast in order of precedence, the name of the seat was called out and the holder stood and cast his vote for all to hear. I'm guessing if the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland didn't send a deputy then he would lose his multple votes. I'm guessing the split votes would require agreement before the vote or the holders would alternate each vote. For the circles that held one vote, I'm guessing the majority of an internal vote was used or maybe rounds like the election of the Pope.
Sleigh (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a category de:Kategorie:Funktionsweise Reichstag (HRR) with a couple of small articles or stubs on the functioning of the diet, the corporate votes were called Kuriatstimmen and the personal votes Virilstimmen. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you translate, perchance, the relevent bits? I don't have much German skills. Danke schoen. --Jayron32 22:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

My best guess is: (Question 1) Counted as 3 votes. (Question 2) I do not think that personal presence ever played a role. Everybody was represented. (Question 3) By consensus. (Question 4) Internal consensus reached first. Please correct. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

What am I supposed to correct? Do you have any documents or sources which inform your guesses? --Jayron32 01:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Everybody is supposed to correct my answers, for I have only marginal knowledge in this realm. The answers are confirmed, however, by Reichstag in de:Universal-Lexikon der Gegenwart und Vergangenheit, online [2] or [3]. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Your answers are helpful then! Just one question for clarification. Your answer for number 2 is unclear. When you say " I do not think that personal presence ever played a role. Everybody was represented." Does that mean that "Every person who had a seat in the Reichstag was represented by somebody other than themselves" or does it mean that "Every person who had a seat in the Reichstag was represented, some in person and others by proxy"? If the second, was the "proxy" a single person per seat or per representative: That is, was George III represented in the Reichstag by a single proxy to represent him, or by one proxy for each of his German realms? --Jayron32 13:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If we do not talk about the periodical diets of 1486-1654, but about the Perpetual Diet of Regensburg 1663-1806, I guess the Emperor never attended this diet in person, hence the electors and princes saw no need to attend it in person, hence everybody sent representatives in the diplomatic rank of envoys (not even ambassadors). Such an envoy (I would not compare this to proxy voting) represented one or several votes, even of different princes, see also PDF with images. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) - If this was anything like the Imperial electoral college, there would be a rigorous process for the acknowledgement of proxy voters, and each prince would only need one proxy, no matter how many votes he held. (I suspect that the split and collegiate votes would result in the delegation of one proxy voter each, too - but I have less basis for this.) And remember: in the United States, it's your vote that counts. In the HRE, it's your Count that votes. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Old people over here

I just want to know whether there are old people on here. I'm 77 and I remember it clearly to hear on the radio about the death of last surviving veterans, such as Albert Woolson of the American Civil War, or Hugh Theodore Pinhey, of the Second Anglo-Afghan War, or other people's death such as that of Samuel J. Seymour, who was the last witness to the assassination of President Lincoln. I remember it all. Is there anyone on here with the same memories? Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there are other people your age on here. For my part, I'm acutely aware that (if I'm spared) I will one day be in your position. As it is, I'm old enough to be slightly awed by the people here who don't remember the Cold War, Thatcher and Reagan, and so on. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Then you'll be really awed by people like me, who don't remember 9/11. --140.180.252.244 (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It's chilling to realise the Beatles formed half a century ago, and last performed 43 years ago. And Lennon's been dead for almost 32 years.

I remember going to Anzac Day marches where veterans from the Boer Wars marched, but I don't remember hearing when the last Boer veteran died. They didn't seem to make as big a thing of such "last events" back then as they do now.

I was born in the dying months of 1950. The first historical event I remember was the arrival of television in Australia in September 1956. We lived in the country and didn't have TV till about 1963, but all our Sydney relatives got them early, and it was always a big talking point when the next lot of rellos got a TV. Ironically, I have no memory of the 1956 Melbourne Olympics, which was why TV was necessary, but it would have been radio news in our case, rather than TV broadcasts, so .... I imagine the first time I actually saw television was at Christmas 1956 when we visited Sydney, but the Olympics were over by then. I clearly remember hearing about the launch of Sputnik 1 in October 1957. I remember often hearing on the radio about some dude named what sounded to my tender ears as "President Ivanhoe". I have a vague memory of hearing when Oliver Hardy died in 1957, and when Mike Todd was killed in March 1958 (but mainly because he was Elizabeth Taylor's husband - yes, she was very well known even to 7 year old boys). But the first clear memory I have of a notable person dying was that of Pope Pius XII in October 1958. Church bells rang unexpectedly, and we didn't have to come to school the next day. Yippee. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I was born in 1963. The first historical event I remember knowing about was Expo '70 in Japan, I wanted my parents to take me there from New Jersey ... when I visited Osaka in 2002, I was careful to visit the site. The first death of a notable person I remember was J. Edgar Hoover, I was home from school (1972) and it was on TV. I remember watching a moon landing on TV, not certain which one, but my late mother told me that I fell asleep for Armstrong's small step. I suppose I became aware more of the world in 1972, as I remember watching Avery Brundage's famous Munich speech on September 6, 1972 (perhaps it was on tape). Also, my father had a reel-to-reel audio and 8-track tapes, neither of which he used often.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Though I prefer not to give my precise age, like JackofOz I'm a sexagenarian and pretty active here (though not nearly so much as Jack, sheesh). There's not anywhere nearly so many of us as there are the young whippersnappers, but we're represented (and a lot wiser, heh, heh, heh). I don't have the memories you do, you've got a few years on me, but I can remember some things just short of those. (43 years since the last Beatles performance? I hadn't realized that until now. Now I'm depressed...) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I listened live to the radio broadcasts of Marilyn Bell's swim across Lake Ontario. Bielle (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I remember where I was when I heard about the Assassination of John F. Kennedy - I was 5 years old. I also remember watching the funeral of Winston Churchill on TV, I had reached the grand old age of 6 by then. Alansplodge (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, you guys make me depressed to think that one day, I'll be as old as you. I'm not old enough to remember any major historical events except the 2008 financial crisis; my earliest memory was right after 9/11, which I wouldn't even call a major event. The Cold War might as well be the Peloponnesian War from 2400 years ago, because that's how much I can relate to either (and actually, if you read Thucydides, it's depressing how similar the Athenian/Spartan justifications for war mirror those offered for the "hot" proxy wars by the US/USSR). Considering the murderous passions that historical conflicts seem to incite in people generations after they take place, I'm very glad that I don't remember any. --140.180.252.244 (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Even more depressing is to think that in 20 years or so, your "nostalgia" radio channel will be playing such eternal classics as "Call Me Maybe" and "Gangnam Style". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, those will be widely praised after their creators die, just like a lot of famous works. Also, radio channels? If every square centimeter of my beloved city doesn't have high-speed WiFi coverage by 2022, I'll make it happen. --140.180.252.244 (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Funny, I just had a nightmare about a nuclear war two nights ago. That dates you. My earliest historical memories are of the last moon shot and Watergate. Elvis's death and Jonestown I remember clearly. John David Stutts shooting Reagan and Mehmet Ali Agca shooting the Pope happened a few months ago, and 9/11 last week. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

As you grow older, hopefully you'll come to realize it's even more depressing not to reach our Mathusalean age. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

After you have lived about maybe 80 years to 100 years then you will have a feeling of you have lived enough. Seriously, I wouldn't live pass 200 years, it is just too much. Death always has been the natural cycle of life, you can't escape it no matter what. Even if one day we, humans, somehow can make ourselves live forever then that would defy natural and to me it is not a good thing. And I'm very sure when you live to a certain point you WILL want to die. Even the most lively people will want to die "eventually". Maybe not after 1 thousand years or 1 million years or 1 billions or 1 trillions.... Eventually you will want to die, you got my point. Perhaps that was the reason Albert Einstein, a genius, who has well understood the meaning of life, refused to get a surgery to prolong his life (doesn't matter how long the surgery could have prolonged his live but the point here is he doesn't want to prolong his life even for 1 second). When it is time to go, just be happy to go, that's my way of taking it. Just live a meaningful life so when you died you will feel the fulfillment of life! That's all there is to the world! 184.97.240.247 (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Malthusian? Methuselahian? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

As in like Mathusal, Methuselah's older, illiterate brother. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I remember watching The Day After as a college student (1983), everyone in the dorm got together and watched it in the lounge. Very somber, as I recall, lots of crying, even a few of the guys.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I just watched that again over the summer, great film. And it did influence my nightmare. Probably the best work the KGB ever did. μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that would surprise the writer, who is (or was) a card-carrying Republican. Oh, I forgot: anything to the left of Genghis Khan is commie. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not a Republican, your comment on party affiliation is silly. It's documented that the KGB led a misinformation campaign aimed at getting the American left to support unilateral disarmament. Carl Sagan's politically premissed nuclear winter paper data was never published. According to Sergei Tretyakov,[4] the KGB held a party to celebrate the showing of The Day After, which was coordinated with the nuclear winter propaganda campaign and a special on ABC which ran the miniseries. As for political labels, I am not interested. If you think there's some sort of essential distinction between the murderous dictator Genghis Khan and the murderous dictator Joseph Stalin your thought is too subtle for me. Nevertheless, The Day After was a great movie. μηδείς (talk) 05:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, Genghis Khan was no more a dictator than he was a misogynist or a homophobe Asmrulz (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

When I was young the world population was just over a third of what it is now. I lived in a jungle and spoke another language. Now the jungle is cut down and there is a town there. My father and mother went back there a few years ago and found a couple of pictures of themselves hung up in the town hall, the people were astonished some of the 'ancestors' were still alive! Dmcq (talk) 10:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

There are always some things that seem to define a generation, that younger people on hearing it think you are really old. When I was a kid (born 1960) it was people who remembered WW2. In my case people even a decade younger than me are amazed that I can remember steam trains on British rail. My daughter says that people a few years younger are amazed when she talks about "before there were mobile phones" or the internet. Somehow to each generation each thing feels like it is in the distant past, even though it was not that long ago. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The phenomenon of remembering significant and often unexpected events in vivid detail is called flashbulb memory. For what it's worth, I was born in Australia in 1987, and the first event I remember vividly was relatively local in nature – the rescue of Stuart Diver after the 1997 Thredbo landslide; . I also vividly remember the slightly later death of Princess Diana and being bitterly disappointed that the TV show Who Dares Wins was cancelled due to coverage of her demise. However I only have vague memories of the Port Arthur massacre and, going back a bit further, I can't remember much at all about the Oklahoma City bombing or the Srebrenica massacre. I'm totally blind as it says on my user page, so this doubtless affects my perception and memory of TV news reports. Graham87 15:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I can also vaguely remember former Australian Prime Minister John Howard's acceptance speech after his party won the 1996 election; some of my classmates in high school seemed pretty amazed at that. But all I can remember him saying is that he'd support people with disabilities ... enough blathering from me. :-) Graham87 15:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, the article Childhood amnesia says: "Research has suggested that public events are remembered from approximately age 6". Graham87 16:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

For many American (recent) high school graduates, one of their earliest memories might be the Millennium, or 9/11, and the idea of a world without the internet (or Wikipedia) is quite alien. The typical 25 year-old probably thinks of Ronald Reagan the way I think of Harry Truman (a few years before my time), and doesn’t know a world without computers. An American 40 years of age can’t remember the outrage Richard Nixon generated, nor the controversey of the way Garry Trudeau protrayed Watergate in Doonesbury. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Why does Obama vote in Chicago?

Why not Washington, where he lives, or Hawaii, where he was born? OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

If he does, that is because Chicago is where he is registered. Bielle (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The basic answer is that when a person has a temporary residence, like Obama does in DC or while you're in college or on an extended but temporary job assignment, the law in the US affords quite a bit of choice to you to decide what your permanent residence (i.e. your domicile) is going to be. That determines where you vote. Ordinarily, and most easily, you'll either choose between where you are now, with the idea that though it started out as being temporary you don't intend to leave when the temporary situation ends) or the last place you did live as a permanent residence. That, in Obama's case, was Chicago. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

"Choice" — in practice, maybe. In theory, no. States have definite rules about whether you are a resident or not, and choice does not enter into them. "Intent", on the other hand, does enter into them, but your intent is a question of fact, and in theory they could attempt to prove that you are a resident even though you say you're not (or vice versa). --Trovatore (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

College students frequently vote in the district of their permanent residence and not where they spend the night when on campus. Living in a dormitory on a college campus doesn't make a student automatically and unambiguously a resident of the district where the dorm is located, and not a resident of, say, their parent's home where they used to sleep most nights. Presidents traditionally always vote in their "official" home district, and not Washington DC. A quick perusal will easily show George W. Bush voting in Texas, Bill Clinton voting in Arkansas, etc, etc, back through time. Obama isn't doing anything that every president prior to him didn't do.--Jayron32 22:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, the courts have pretty regularly upheld that students are allowed to vote in their college precincts, even if they live in, for example, a dormitory [5]. It really is, in most cases up to the student what they consider to be their residence. Buddy431 (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Your link doesn't indicate, at least literally, that a student can choose where he/she votes. It says it depends on whether the student intends to return to the parental home on graduation. Of course, in many cases that's not particularly well-defined, but in theory a student who clearly intends to return home after graduation is supposed to vote there rather than where the school is. And conversely, a student who definitely does not intend to return home is probably not supposed to vote there. --Trovatore (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

True. My hometown being in Salina, Kansas that's where I cast my ballot (via absentee ballot) even though I have the choice to register as a voter in Norman, Oklahoma. I've even seen voter registration drives on campus the past couple years. I feel like I have more of a say casting my ballot back home than I do at university, so I stay registered at home. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

There's not much about it in our Wikipedia article, but in Texas Waller County is semi-notorious for repeatedly down the years coming up with semi-ingenious schemes to inconvenience students at a historically-black college in the county from voting there (a right which they indisputably have under relevant state laws)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

No one cares where they vote for president. The issue is voting for local officials by out-of-towners living off and with their parents. That's a concern in every college town I have lived in. μηδείς (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

"Out of towners" who live there the majority of the year? The courts have consistently upheld the rights of college students to vote in the elections of their school's district if that's where they consider themselves to be residents. Buddy431 (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not arguing for or against, just pointing out that the concern does exist, since yes, the interests of temporary student residents and families and property owners can certainly clash. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It becomes an issue when the kids have their parents' state's drivers license, which is a privilege of state citizenship (or, in a few cases, employment). That's one of the issues over voter ID laws.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A driver's license is not a prerequisite for voting. I'll be voting this year in the state that I go to school, while my driver's license is from the state where I used to live. An ID at the polls (what most current voter ID laws deal with) is to prove that you are who you say you are, not that you're a resident of the precinct (they check that when you register to vote). Buddy431 (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You might want to look into what your new state has by way of requiring that you get a local license when you move into a new state ... I think there's something about it in the interstate compact on drivers, which is probably part of your state's law ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, my state has rules about how quickly I have to get a new driver's license (90 days). But that has nothing to do with whether or not I am eligible to vote. Buddy431 (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Both are generally privileges of state citizenship, though different time periods for a change on moving are involved, and it is possible to get a driver's license from a state sometimes though you are not a resident.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It's probably got more attention this time because he voted early, which I think is a first for a president. When the spotlight shines, it illuminates everything. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

So, did he vote Green, or Socialist? μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

straight Official Monster Raving Loony Party ticket. Blueboar (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

(removed, just saw the immediate preceding post) The Masked Booby (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I hear he wanted to write in for vice president and they wouldn't let him.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I heard... well actually, I didn't hear, because he voted by Secret ballot. He can write in whoever he wants, and they'll only determine the validity of the ballot and the vote anonymously, when all votes are tallied. Buddy431 (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You can't actually write in for vice president as you are voting for electors, so it was meant humorously.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I can write in for vice president on my Kansas ballot...if you chose to write in there are blank lines for you to write in both the president and vice president you're voting for. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you vote Obama for pres but someone else besides Biden for vp?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

In my state, there are several paired choices, and then a single line for a write-in. Obviously, write-ins have no chance of winning the popular vote. But if they did, the state would have to somehow come up with a slate of electors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw an odd possibility in the paper. If there is an exact 50-50 split in the electoral college, the election is decided by the two houses of Congress, which will presumably vote on party lines. The House of Representives elects the president (1 vote for each state, presumably decided by the party that controls that state's delegation) and the Senate elects the president. Anyway the numbers work out that the House is Republican controlled and would pick Romney, while the Senate is Democrat controlled and would pick Biden. So we'd have Romney as President and Biden as VP. What a weird thought. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It's the new House and the new Senate, so that's a bit more up for grabs than you note. Running quickly down the list of current representatives, I get 31 states with a majority of Republicans in the House, 16 states Democratic, three deadlocked (though one deadlock, Washington, is created by a vacancy caused by the death of a Democrat, so if form holds, that state would go Obama in a House vote.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

(Outdent.) Something has just occurred to me: suppose you lived (say) in both Philly and Chicago, because you were a college student. Would it be possible to have a vote in electing the mayors of both cities? If you would, is there any theoretical or practical reason you could not also have a vote in electing the presidential electors from both PA and IL? Marnanel (talk) 04:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Is Chicago really known for its stringent election rules? --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well... --Jayron32 05:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I see dead people ... voting. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Off topic, but it might be interesting to people to know that in the UK, you can register to vote at more than one address if you spend "an equal amount of time at each". This is frequently done by students. In a general election, you can choose which of them to vote in (and you don't have to decide in advance, just turn up to one or other polling station on the day). In local elections, you can legally vote in both locations on the same day, if you so choose. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Marnanel -- at one point I was registered in two different counties at the same time (though I didn't want to be). If I had voted in both counties for the same election, then I would have committed a crime... AnonMoos (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)