US Presidential Election

[ainsworth74]

Indeed, of course Bush won in 2000 despite Gore winning the popular vote!

All of which goes to show that it's beyond time that the US did away with this ludicrous Electoral College system and, in the Presidential Election at least, went with a straight winner takes all popular vote.

 

[starrymarkb]

Republicans have kept the House...

I think I'd have preferred Sarah Palin to Romney on the lunatic scale

 

[SS4]

Republicans have kept the House...

I think I'd have preferred Sarah Palin to Romney on the lunatic scale

Balls, that means the "Just Say No" policy of Republicans will continue and Obama will take the flak as said Republicans put party politics before America.

 

[Oswyntail]

Balls, that means the "Just Say No" policy of Republicans will continue and Obama will take the flak as said Republicans put party politics before America.

Taking their lead from the "Opposition" in the UK Sadly, in an age when few have any real idea how to cope with the 21st Century, few seem able to have sensible, co-operative discussions with those with differing views.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm hoping one positive out of this might be that the Republican Party finally have the civil war they need to have between the Tea Party (and other extreme wings of the party) and the more moderate Republicans. So that the US might end up with an effective opposition party before the next election. Still I don't hold out that much hope.

 

[Eagle]

All of which goes to show that it's beyond time that the US did away with this ludicrous Electoral College system and, in the Presidential Election at least, went with a straight winner takes all popular vote.

Technically you can't abolish the Electoral College (without rewriting the constitution), but you could let each state appoint its electors according to the national vote rather than the statewide vote. Indeed many states have signed into law that they will do this as soon as enough other states agree as well. See here.

Of course for a completely fair contest, there should be a top-two runoff if no candidate receives 50% of the vote, as happened in 2000 and very nearly happened this year. This eliminates the impact of vote splitting by minority candidates.

 

[kylemore]

Ahh, that repository of unbiased information. Where there is just as much to be found to debunk the myths about Obama.

Still, if the internet says something is true then it must be. There's actually quite a sophisticated legal and judicial process in place in the US to determine someones eligibility to be President.

Any perusal of information which is reasonably freely available reveals just what bizarre hypotheses the tin foil hat wearing brigade come up with.

Dammit! I forgot the Tin Foil Hats!

I am wary of believing anything I'm told and that includes by the likes of the BBC just as much as by any dodgy Internet site. So please note I am not saying I know these things to be true, they might be, they might not be - ultimately you would have had to be there to see for yourself! However nothing is more important to me than an open mind.

I admit I find it hard to understand how intelligent people can be so touchingly trusting of what they are told to believe by official sources such as the BBC, the "Government", school etc etc.

The thing that changed the way I view the world was reading everything I could many years ago about the JFK assasination - the official story, and the only story allowed, is patent rubbish. We were, and continue to be, lied to on an epic scale about that - my point is why only that?

 

[ainsworth74]

Technically you can't abolish the Electoral College (without rewriting the constitution), but you could let each state appoint its electors according to the national vote rather than the statewide vote.

Of course for a completely fair contest, there should be a top-two runoff if no candidate receives 50% of the vote, as happened in 2000 and very nearly happened this year. This eliminates the impact of vote splitting by minority candidates.

You'll hear no opposition from to either of those two suggestions. Nearly any system would be better than the present one where it's possible to win the Presidency without wining the nation and at an extreme you can be President with only twenty-two per cent of the national vote!

 

[YorkshireRider]

You'll hear no opposition from to either of those two suggestions. Nearly any system would be better than the present one where it's possible to win the Presidency without wining the nation and at an extreme you can be President with only twenty-two per cent of the national vote!

Does this differ much from what happens in the UK?

 

[Eagle]

...and at an extreme you can be President with only twenty-two per cent of the national vote!

At an extreme you can be president with 0.000,01% of the vote!

If you win the eleven most popular states, you get 270 in the EC, enough to win overall. You could theoretically win each of these states by one vote to zero, and lose every other state by 100% of the electorate (which by my calculations is of the order of 100 million votes). You'd be president with just 11 votes.

 

[SS4]

Dammit! I forgot the Tin Foil Hats!

I am wary of believing anything I'm told and that includes by the likes of the BBC just as much as by any dodgy Internet site. So please note I am not saying I know these things to be true, they might be, they might not be - ultimately you would have had to be there to see for yourself! However nothing is more important to me than an open mind.

I admit I find it hard to understand how intelligent people can be so touchingly trusting of what they are told to believe by official sources such as the BBC, the "Government", school etc etc.

The thing that changed the way I view the world was reading everything I could many years ago about the JFK assasination - the official story, and the only story allowed, is patent rubbish. We were, and continue to be, lied to on an epic scale about that - my point is why only that?

Indeed, the only accurate news is gained through one's five senses. Everything else can only be a close approximation of which the best is corroborated from various sources, preferably internationally and from opposing views.

I take the BBC with more of a pinch of salt these days after it acted as a mouthpiece for no to AV along with the rest of the press.

Does this differ much from what happens in the UK?

No, it's depressing really. Proportional Representation is a precursor to fair and true government but nobody in power wants it because they know they'll have to relinquish some of said power.

 

[kylemore]

Indeed, the only accurate news is gained through one's five senses. .

Right on the Nail - I'm glad we agree about something!

 

[Oswyntail]

Indeed, the only accurate news is gained through one's five senses..

Not even that, writing as a short-sighted man with arthritis and tinnitus who imagines aromas and tastes:roll:

... Proportional Representation is a precursor to fair and true government but nobody in power wants it because they know they'll have to relinquish some of said power.

PR is just as open to abuse as any system. Sadly, what is needed is a population fully engaged in the process of politics, willing and able to let their representatives - however chosen - know what they expect of them and will tolerate, coupled with a usable system for changing the representative when necessary. IMHO, PR would make that more difficult.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Am I alone in becoming rather annoyed by the TV political presenters who constantly seem annoyed as they try to make reference to the final result of this American election not tallying with the "dreaded" opinion polls....as if those polls have any real effect but to make these TV political presenters seem somewhat foolish when they do not tally with the line taken by these "pundits".

Was there not a recent British general election where the "polls" were constantly being referred to by the "political pundits" as being something that would reflect the final result....and then "red faces" were to the fore as these polls were proved to be totally incorrect when compared to the actual result.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Well, polls are the only thing you can base any judgement on otherwise it's all guesswork, in which case there'd be no point to the analyst's existence or indeed any build-up. They aren't perfect, however they ado offer a platform for a general idea without knowing the result.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Well, poles are the only thing you can base any judgement on otherwise it's all guesswork, in which case there'd be no point to the analyst's existence or indeed any build-up. They aren't perfect, however they ado offer a platform for a general idea without knowing the result.

Now then, Matt....Poland is full of people who offer their opinions for free....is that what that part your posting (as in heavy face type above) was referring to..

 

[Butts]

Am I alone in becoming rather annoyed by the TV political presenters who constantly seem annoyed as they try to make reference to the final result of this American election not tallying with the "dreaded" opinion polls....as if those polls have any real effect but to make these TV political presenters seem somewhat foolish when they do not tally with the line taken by these "pundits".

Was there not a recent British general election where the "polls" were constantly being referred to by the "political pundits" as being something that would reflect the final result....and then "red faces" were to the fore as these polls were proved to be totally incorrect when compared to the actual result.

You must be thinking of 1992 when John Major won for the Conservatives. That buffoon Kinnock had his triumphalist rally in Sheffield and it was all down hill for Labour from that point.

 

[Ivo]

Puerto Rico has narrowly voted against the status quo and in favour of statehood, which will certainly be significant...

BBC Article

With not one new State since 1959, this is big news. How will this affect the distribution of votes for 2016 - will Florida lose a small number of votes in favour of Puerto Rico? Or will the 538 maximum be increased?

 

[ainsworth74]

will Florida lose a small number of votes in favour of Puerto Rico? Or will the 538 maximum be increased?

Why Florida? California has more votes than any other state so why not them instead?

Also how his this been handled historically?

 

[Ivo]

I just seem to recall Dimbleby saying something about Florida's value being representative of Puerto Rico's population, even though they don't have the right to vote in Presidential elections, or something like that...

I may have imagined this. I am not sure.

Looking at the island's population, I would expect it to receive it approximately seven Electoral College votes. This may be taken from other states, or may be generated as new votes. I would expect an even number to remain the overall total though, so perhaps one state could lose one point to Puerto Rico and then it gain an additional six, for a total of 544? Alternatively, other states could lose votes (perhaps CA and TX two and FL, NY and IL one)?

 

[12CSVT]

You must be thinking of 1992 when John Major won for the Conservatives. That buffoon Kinnock had his triumphalist rally in Sheffield and it was all down hill for Labour from that point.

And in that same election it is reckoned that had less than 2,000 Tory voters voted differently there would have been a hung parliament.

 

[Butts]

And in that same election it is reckoned that had less than 2,000 Tory voters voted differently there would have been a hung parliament.

That would have been a "Florida" moment for the UK.

My belief is that Major was a decent man in a world of "Plastic Politicians" -ie Blair and Cameron, the public sensed this and he won.

He even held 11 seats in Scotland.

 

[yorksrob]

That would have been a "Florida" moment for the UK.

My belief is that Major was a decent man

in a party of swivel-eyed idealogues is more how I recall it.

 

[Butts]

in a party of swivel-eyed idealogues is more how I recall it.

Your confusing Conservatives with Blair and his "New Labour" mob

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Major was a very weak PM though, he was very easily influenced and basically anyone and everyone, especially in his Cabinet, could twist him a lot, a world away from Thatcher or Blair.

As much as I despise Blair I have to be honest and say that I respect him in a way, along with Thatcher and Bush Jr in the US, because they didn't let anyone tell them what to do - in a way they were true leaders, determined and confident...

 

[martinsh]

As much as I despise Blair I have to be honest and say that I respect him in a way, along with Thatcher and Bush Jr in the US, .... - in a way they were true leaders, determined and confident...

And stark raving bonkers !:roll:

 

[Butts]

And stark raving bonkers !:roll:

Screaming Lord Such springs to mind - he is sorely missed at By-Elections !!

 

[Ivo]

And stark raving bonkers !:roll:

But isn't that one of the prerequisite qualities for a successful leader?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Can you imagine how annoying it would be if Florida was still holding the key to the final outcome of the 2012 election result. Still no news as I write.

 

[Butts]

Can you imagine how annoying it would be if Florida was still holding the key to the final outcome of the 2012 election result. Still no news as I write.

Why is it taking so long ?