It's election night, so what the hell.  Here are two interesting questions that crossed my mind over the course of the day.  Please feel free to chime in, but please also do your best to respect the Gotham Blog rule against partisan politics.

1)  The Senate race in Louisiana appears to be headed for a "runoff".  That's when the winner on election night doesn't get 50% of the popular vote (obviously as a result of one or more "third party" candidate).  They set up a follow-up election shortly thereafter between the leading two candidates only.  How do you feel about this.  Does it allow more ideas into the race without the risk of a candidate with the support of a minority of the population?  Something to keep in mind, Bill Clinton never got 50% of the popular vote and would most certainly have lost at least the first election due to the presence of right leaning Ross Perot.  Could a runoff between GW Bush and Al Gore hve changed the results (Ralph Nader had far less support than Perot)?

2)  How is it possible that our elections are literally on the honor system?  We walk in, we give our information verbally and absolutely no confirmation of who we are is made.  My dad passed away last December.  I would never do it because dishonesty is something I despise vehemently, but could I have simply walked in and voted again as my dad?  Is it possible I may have found out that my dad had already voted?!?  I'm sure it would not be difficult for a political operative to get a list of people that have passed over the course of a certain period of time.  Races have certainly been determined by smaller numbers.

Thoughts...anyone...keep it friendly :)