Printable View
MetroStars, given the piece I posted about the methods of voting to be used during the election, the very many other articles exposing the same difficulties, and the fact that at the last election the guy with the most votes did NOT win, can I ask you
1. What type of system will they be using in Conneticut and
2. Do you think most Americans still have faith in their electoral system?
You cant have a proper opinion as an out-sider. If your American things are seen differently.
If I was American Id vote Bush, hes all about the USA and nothing or nobody else, domestic affairs come before foreign affairs. Now would you not want that. Id also not vote Democrat as they are too liberal for my liking.
From the outside though I think Bush is off his game !!
While it is true that Al Gore got more votes than George Bush in 2000, the US uses the Electoral College system, not a straight overall vote count to determine the winner. In Ireland, it is possible for one party to get the majority of votes in a general election and still have less TDs than another party, right? In regards to Florida, the problem was that there was different rules for different areas and the democrats wanted to change the rules in come countys and not in others. A few months after the election an independant group counted the votes the way the democrats wanted them counted and Bush would still have won.Quote:
Originally Posted by patsh
As for Connecticut, at least where I live we have a mechanical/electronic machine where you flip switches for your candidate of choice and pull a lever when you're done. Your vote is automatically recorded and there really cant be any skrew ups unlike in Florida where you had the hanging chads, bulging chads, pregnant chads and dimpled chads. My first time was in 2000 shortly after I became a citizen and it's the same system they use here for the local and state elections.
With the Electoral College, I think most people still view it as being the best way. Originally when the first president was elected, there were only 13 states, some large, some small. The concept was that each state would nominate or elect a group of electors to the electoral college and each elector was required to cast 3 votes at least 1 of which had to be for a candidate from outside their state. The number of electors for each state was made up from the number of senators and number of members of congress the state had (which is the same as today).
I myself think because it has strayed from the original idea, it should be done away with. But supporters of the electoral college support it because it still allows the individual states have more of a say in who is elected. Also, if the winner was determined by an overall vote as opposed to the electoral college, then parties could ignore areas of the country that are less populated and put all their resources in the densely populated urban areas. But I think that in a place where I live, an individual vote doesnt really matter that much, while in close states they do matter.
Regarding your piece about the problems, I really think that both sides are already gearing up for complaining about how their voters were unfairly treated. The real problem is that a lot of voters are just plain stupid and don't know how to use their voting system. And it's just politics.
It's not really possible for a party to get the majority of votes and get less seats than another party. Proportional representation pretty much ensures that can't happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Metrostars
As regards Florida, I'm pretty sure that the "count" where Bush "won", did not take any account of the number of black voters who were deprieved of the chance to even cast a vote, and also included some areas where a lot of votes were missing.
he's been quite active on the foreign front, sorry for the phraseQuote:
Originally Posted by dortie
and i thought you were a pinko?
edit: sorry, mixed you up with brendy_eire ;)
Should be one person one vote. how can the say they are a democracy....
http://www.wc3sear.ch/misc/Voting_Machine.wmv for the US Elections
Need sound!!
Good old Al-Queda Éanna strikes again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Éanna
Sure all the Germans deserve to be shot too, sure didnt they vote for Hitler.
Ever here of controlling the media? Try here www.foxnews.com
Propaganda plays a huge role.
People in America dont understand what Bush is about. Bush's cleverest ever tatic was to make people think he's stupid. Whilst the man himself might be as think as the walls of Babylon he's surrounded by a lot of people who know how to twist and mutate stories and facts. They have mastered the politics of fear, people in America are so afraid of everything they have been lead to believe that if Kerry is elected the UN in conjuction with Bin Laden will invade the US burning flags, giving abortions, taking away their guns, and banning all things to do with the Christian and Jewish faiths. The more fear Bush & Co generate the more they feed of it.
Thats without going into the whole cheating his way to an election thing.
Thank God that we have lawyers to sort out the last part at least:D
Bush will win, but I'd rather Kerry to.
anyone who believes fox news doesn't deserve a vote anyway, its so obviously propaganda a fool could see otherwise :rolleyes:
Of course we all see it as a load of ****e. We have something to compare it with, in Ireland the media is generally critical of the Government of the day, it plays an important role even if they do lean in certain directions (Irish Press for FF, Indo for West Brits/FG, Star for campgaining groups). In the US the Repulic Party have moulded a situation where if you give out about the government you're anti-Americian, you hate the country etc. Free media doesnt exist over there. Remember the shock of Dubya when the RTÉ reporter asked him real questionsQuote:
Originally Posted by Éanna
We're outsiders looking in, its easy and obvious to us. A hefty percentage (those who are not fundamentalist Christians/Jews, gun nuts, big corporations) of the Bush voters are scared by the spin Bush & Co have managed to put in the media (not just Fox) and see him as the only man who can save them from Al-Queda & Co.
We all know its different, we know the reality but only becuase we are told, we can source the information with out being accused of being some kind of anti-patriot
Yeah, even the few US channels which are critical of Bush run into problems. A lot of them have their shares owned by big businesses, who threaten to sell if the channel reports news in a way they dont like. A lot of these businesses are tied to the Republican Party, so if a channel is deemed as being pro-democrat then these companies kick up a fuss.
Give it 10 years and the News over their will look like something from the DDR, except instead of Hoenecker pulling the strings "for socialism" it will be a whole load of CEOs in Manhatten pulling strings to line their wallets.
You can scrub off one of the 5 votes "for Bush" - I thought the poll was "who do you [i]think will[i] (not want to) get in" and I imagine Bush will win again. The winner will be the guy with the best lawyer, more than who got the most votes. Personally I think both are poor candidates, I've a marginal preference for Kerry but have a feeling, where he to get in, he'd end up going down the same roads as Bush.
PS - You do know that Kerry's walk-on music for rallies/conventions etc is "No Surrender". :eek:
Thanks for all the posts guys, but Bush won,dam it,I hate him