One Man One Vote...??

[LogdeC]

A friend recommended that to rid my frustrations with the outcome that I grudge f@ck a Democrat. Seems like a good idea to me!

 

[sleslie23]

A friend recommended that to rid my frustrations with the outcome that I grudge f@ck a Democrat. Seems like a good idea to me!

That might be tough. I'm not sure many farm animals are registered Democrats.

 

[hannstew]

It doesnt matter who won, the world will end in December anyway.

 

[LogdeC]

"Can't we all just get along?" - The late Rodney King

 

[scotttswan]

I'm glad Obama won, i think he is more likely to do something about this than Romney was.

Romney was also quite keen to invade Iran

 

[ElQueso]

I'm glad Obama won, i think he is more likely to do something about this than Romney was.

Romney was also quite keen to invade Iran

I agree with you about the Iran thing. As a Libertarian, I believe that the US has its sticky little fingers in too many things which causes way more problems than benefits around the world, and only benefits US citizens that don't leave the country and aren't victims of terrorist attacks on our own soil.

However, the global warming thing, I have to vehemently disagree with you on. I don't want to get into that specific argument here, but here's something well-written, with lots of good reference links, that presents the other viewpoint rationally and quite un-politically (if you think the anthropogenic global warming isn't filled with a LOt of politics, you need to read about it a bit more):

http://www.middlebur...warming-01.html

I responded to this because it is part of an example of the deep divide in the US, no matter which "side" you're on. For me, I'm doubly left out in the cold because I think both main "sides" are in error and I have no real representation under the current rigid two-party system.

I was watching CNN last night and was pleased to see the commentators specifically addressing this point when one of them, looking at the electoral college count and ignoring the popular vote count, said it looked like the country was overwhelmingly crapping on the Republican agenda and approving Obama's agenda. The other commentator (I can't remember who said what) mentioned how very, very close the popular vote was. Basically a 2.2% win by Obama. At the time the other guy made his comment, the difference was .6% (I did the calculations at the time - a roughly 700,000 vote difference with 75% of the vote counted).

There have only been 6 other elections since the popular vote was tabulated starting in 1824 that were as close or closer, not counting the few times (including 2000) when the electoral college chose contrary to the popular vote. But even the Bush/Gore difference in 2000 was .51% - not much of a difference anyway. And Bush/Kerry was almost as close at 2.46%.

I guess what I'm saying with that is that Obama hardly has any kind of mandate from the people. What he has is a nearly minisculely larger percentage of the population (about half) who thinks that we should expand social progams and incur a debt we can't afford in the long (or maybe even short?) term, while the other party says that we should not do that, but rather cut spending (I love the idea) - supposedly not just stop increasing spending and counting that as a cut, but really decreasing spending - but of course they (as well as many in Obama's party) want to continue to spend outrageous amounts of money to boss the rest of the world around in the form of a huge military budget and presence around the world.

The whole thing is so disfunctional, and the two-party system has brought things to the point where almost everyone in the country is divided right down the middle, with a few people in the middle being left to decide the fate of the nation. Neither side has been talking reality, as far as I'm concerned.

As far as the electoral college goes, I just don't know. I haven't studied the thing dispationately enough to have an opinion. I do know that the electoral college, since 1824, has not chosen differently from the popular vote very often. I don't think that is at the root of any real problems in the US.

And one of the reasons is that the president is NOT a king. Too many people have fallen into this trap of looking to one person to solve all of our ills, to the point where the presidency is accepted as the real head of government, instead of another cog in the three separate but equal branches. Oh sure, everyone pays lip service to that, but the reality is that it has become a habit to think of our electing the head of government and expecting that one person, through leadership, or back-room dealing, or what-have-you, to solve the issues that the government itself has put us into, by that very process of electing a head of government.

Our original founders were true liberals. They were also human and quite flawed as are we all. But their ideal was to give sovereignity to each and every person, and along with that sovereignity a solemn duty to protect it. They didn't intend handouts, and certainly not a tyrannical government that followed the whim of the people as politicians seek their favor in order to make a lifetime career out of corruption and greed and little real care for the people that the govern.

But hey, that's my personal belief. It has little representation in the current system because the federal government has gotten so big that it is trying to fit everyone in the same hole. There is so little experimentation between the States and people who have diferent beliefs, even if they congregate in certain states, have little hope of being able to express that in any way except the in the most narrow of senses because the great all-mighty US government tells everyone one of us how we have to live, eat, work and now maybe even die.

 

[PhilinBSAS]

Donald Trump launches Twitter tirade over Barack Obama's victory - Tycoon attacks electoral college system and calls result a 'disgusting injustice'

I was wondering what was the relevance of all this had to do with a website for Ex-Pats in Buenos Aires. Still wondering :lol: .

But thanks to this I now more about an electoral college system which doesnt operate in Argentina and some right wing USA republicans finding excuses for not accepting democracy .... and wierd hairstyle preferences http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/07/donald-trump-twitter-tirade-obama?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

Behold the creation of a political myth along the lines - We were robbed of our entitlement and betrayed by "socialism" - vaguely familiar ring to this as has been used before. Expect Civil War - but only in the Republican Party as the Reagan Heritage is jettisoned. Maybe time for disenchanted republicans to go buy saucepans?

 

[scotttswan]

However, the global warming thing, I have to vehemently disagree with you on. I don't want to get into that specific argument here, but here's something well-written, with lots of good reference links, that presents the other viewpoint rationally and quite un-politically (if you think the anthropogenic global warming isn't filled with a LOt of politics, you need to read about it a bit more):

http://www.middlebur...warming-01.html

Whether you believe in man made global warning or not, the rolling stone article asks an important question. Why should the oil companies be allowed to dump their waste for free. No other industries are allowed to just dump their waste into the environment.

Natural CO2 and Methane being released is also quite scary, especially when you think about just how much is being released now.

The Medieval warm period was still actually cooler than now.

That article you posted is pretty poor and full of errors.
http://rabett.blogspot.com.ar/2008/12/he-has-another-list.html
http://malaysia.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080324161730AAfJ20G

I guess what I'm saying with that is that Obama hardly has any kind of mandate from the people. What he has is a nearly minisculely larger percentage of the population (about half) who thinks that we should expand social progams and incur a debt we can't afford in the long (or maybe even short?) term, while the other party says that we should not do that, but rather cut spending (I love the idea) - supposedly not just stop increasing spending and counting that as a cut, but really decreasing spending - but of course they (as well as many in Obama's party) want to continue to spend outrageous amounts of money to boss the rest of the world around in the form of a huge military budget and presence around the world.

Pretty sure Romney had a plan to cut taxes and still somehow cut the debt... I think the majority of people were turned off from Romney due to the crazy right in the Republican party.

I'm sure Americans would vote for a moderate conservative if they could, but the rabid pro-life, anti-gay, anti-immigration stance of the modern Republican party is too much for most of them.

Romney's record was pretty moderate before he had to go full retard to win the preliminaries.

 

[esllou]

the republicans have won the popular vote ONCE since 1988, and even then only by the same narrow margin that Obama won by this time when he, apparently, "doesn't have a mandate".

Odd, I don't remember all these "has no mandate" arguments on fox news in 2000 when Bush didn't even win the popular vote.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

As Brit Hume put it on Fox last night, this is no longer the country the Reps thought it was. All the demographic tides are working against them. They change...or they die like the Whigs. No amount of "no mandate" squealing is going to change that.

 

[John.St]

Some Voters are frustrated by the Electoral College System, should the System be changed....?

For some outside observers - like me - it does seem odd, when the loser wins; e.g. George W(ingnut) Bush who received app 1 mio. votes less than Al "I invented the internet, well, at least I have used it" Gore.

The "winner takes all" (in the US the exceptions being Nebraska og Maine) stems from the UK and is usually a reasonable principle in local elections, but it seems really weird in a federation wide election, especially combined with the electoral college system, because in one state (e.g. Wyoming) there is one elector per 190 000 citizens, while in others (e.g. California) there are 685 000 citizens to one elector. One woman/man one vote democracy, anyone?

I have seen the interesting arguments, that the US is a republic, not a democracy, and that the electoral system protects the citizens against a majority dictatorship. To me it seems as if one gets a minority dictatorship instead, in particular during the last 20-25 years, when a fierce partisanship regrettably has replaced co-operation in the US.

Oh well, to each his own.