promotion image of download ymail app
Promoted
Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Do you find these stats interesting about the election?

Interesting Statistics

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul,

Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the Presidential

election:

Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29

Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million

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

Democrats: 13.2

Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican

won by Republicans was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens

of the country.

Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in

government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government

welfare.

Professor Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the

"complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of

democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already

having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

26 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    What that tells me is those spread out non populated states have less of a chance catching farmers having sex with their sheep, and the animals have no way of reporting the crimes.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anne F
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    Well, first of all it's Hamline University, with an "a", not Hemline University (which is, I believe, where you go after you graduate from Project Runway)

    And secondly, if you'll check Professor Hamline's profile at the Hamline University Law School, you'll see that he's disavowed any connection to this piece of spam that's been floating around the Internet.

    But even if it were true...

    Professor Olson is on the faculty of the Law School - not the Department of Sociology. I doubt that he has the necessary skillset to adequately analyze voting data. As an example, the information you posted seems to indicate that Professor Olson believes that things would be better if citizens were to vote by acreage. He also seems to have failed to take into account the ameliorating effect of the Electoral College, which makes the votes of those who live near cornfields up to 5 times as important as the votes of those who live in cities.

    Finally - Professor Olson is (in addition to his teaching job) an activist for far Right causes. He is on the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association.

    Source(s): Professor Olson's profile at the Hamline Law School webpage http://law.hamline.edu/node/784
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Laser
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    Dry Shave, I gave you too much credit.

    You really do believe your chain emails, written by a 34 year old in mom's basement.

    THIS ENTIRE POST IS COPIED AND PASTED FROM A CHAIN EMAIL, WHICH HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE.

    Before it concerned the 2008 election, it was focused around the 2000 election.

    http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/government/a/elec...

    Mr. Olson seems to think that the states and counties won by Gore and "Democrats in 08" were exactly the same, and the murder rates were exactly the same.

    Either that, or that 34 year old in mom's basement copied and pasted the info and changed it to fit 2008.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago

    Well, the very first stat given is wrong: Obama won 27 states (plus D.C. and one congressional district in Nebraska). The area is also wrong - I didn't add up all the states he won, but if you just count the states Obama won in the Pacific and Mountain time zones you're at 667,000 square miles. I'm not going to bother with looking at the other ones, since the first few are so massively incorrect. The quote attributed to Olson is so mind-numbingly stupid that I can barely refute it, but: it basically comes down to saying that urban voters are all on welfare and rural voters are all hard-working taxpayers. Anyone who has ever lived in either type of area knows that is untrue.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    This does not surprise me at all. It is a known fact that the dems base is lazy people that have their hand out waiting for the next check.

    This is also true with the education system, they make people dependent.

    As the saying goes. Think of it as Republican and democrat.

    Give a man a fish he eats for the day, (dem) but teach that man to fish he eats for a life time. (Republican)

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    So, basically, cities wanted Obama, and the suburbs and rural areas didn't. The poor who live in the city outnumber the rich, so that leaves one to conclude that there are more poor people living in cities then the rest of the country (population wise), and those are the people who wanted Obama in.

    I could see that.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    LOL I love you.

    in reading that - giving voting rights to EVERYONE was a mistake IMO - people vote for welfare rights so they don't have to work hard !

    at least if you own property you probably work hard to earn it/keep it (inheretance set aside, corporations set aside too) and familiarize yourself with law/voting issues MORE than the 'masses' who dont ever write their congressmen and just turn up to do the bandwagon vote.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Oh, wow you want to lie huh?

    A study was done in collaboration between between professors from Yale and U of T (Canada) about whether or not people are predisposed to being violent: Does the environment have more of an impact on the person, or are there certain traits that are inherent. THIS IS FOR YOU REPUBLICANS!!! They discovered that crime rates in areas where there weren't too wide a disparity between income groups (as in just about everyone is poor, or just about everyone is rich) were really low, but when there existed a huge gap between (like there exists in the U.S.) there was always going to be trouble going on. They had a show on yesterday where one of the commentators actually said, "As a Republican politician, it is impossible for you to want there to be a gap, like there currently exists between the rich and the poor, and also say that you want to be tough on crime. They also noted that crime in Red states are HIGHER then those in Blue states, and that crime has always been higher under Republican [or Republican-ish administrations]. Well, contrary to what a lot of Repubs like to say, it actually turns out they really don't have America's best interests at heart, in fact, under them the U.S. is ever closer to the fragmentation that the Russian professor talked about on CNN. THANKS FOR SCREWING UP THE COUNTRY GUYS :)

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It is well known that where population is concentrated democrats win because the closer you are to your neighbor the more social you need to be to live civilized. Republicans live in uncivilized parts of the country.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Unfortunately, I've seen these statistics before. Even though I'm a Republican, I don't see how the GOP can win in future elections, which is a really sad thing.

    After all the handouts that the Obama administration will give us, everyone will vote liberal so they can live free and easy, ridin' dirty.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.