World opinion on US Presidential Election

[Rex]

http://worldpeace.org.au/virtualelection.asp

If you're NOT in the US, VOTE NOW!!!

[Rex]

http://worldpeace.org.au/virtualelection.asp

If you're NOT in the US, VOTE NOW!!!

[nacktman]

Rex, hopefully we will actually elect a president this time.
As you know the person elected the last time we did this is not the one that is "serving" now.

[missouriboy]

GRRROOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNN !!

[nacktman]

Couldn't agree more..........Grrrrrrrrrrroooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaa nnnnnnnnnnnn! indeed. Just want the person that gets the most votes to serve. Unfortunately the highest vote getter one named MICKEY MOUSE has been "elected" every time for the past 50 years but never allowed to serve...then again?!?!

[Nude\'n\'happy]

I think it is time to push for election reform to eliminate the electorial college and let the popular vote decide the outcome. The way it is now, a large state such as California can vote 51% for canidate x and 49% for canidate y and all the electorial votes go to canidate x. While a small state like Nevada could vote 99% for canidate y and only 1% for canidate x and all of their electorial votes going to canidate y doesn't really make any difference when measured against the votes of California even though the combined popular vote would have been for canidate y. An example of this happened when Clinton was re-elected. By the time I got off work at 3p.m. and went to vote, the annoucement that Clinton had already collected enough electorial votes in the eastern and central states to win made the votes from people in the Mountain and Pacific time zones, as well as Alaska and Hawaii meaningless. I saw no reason to vote for any presidential canidate and left that part of my ballot empty.

[Trailscout]

Gary, the electoral college prevents large states from dominating the government more than they already do.

We also need to abolish direct election of senators and have them appointed by the governor of each state.

[Nude in the North]

I don't see much wrong with our election system the way it is.
The real problem is with the Media.
They treat the election like a Horse Race. Everyone trying to be the first one to call the winner.
Nobody needs to know by 8pm on election day who is leading after 2% of the returns have been counted.
There is no need for any news reports or "exit polls" to try to guess who is actually winning.

My proposal for election reform would be to ban media from election sites. No "exit polls". No reports about election results on election day untill EVERY poll in EVERY state is closed. This includes Alaska and Hawaii !

WE can wait untill Wednesday to find out the results. We don't need 18 hours of listening to News reporters GUESSING who might win or why they might not.

That whole florida thing came about because somebody projected a winner before the votes were all counted. The dangling chads and all the other problems were just political crap to try to change the results. If the media would have left florida alone to count the votes and report the winner when they were done the results would have been the same without all the problems that resulted from all the media attention.
The media was embarrassed because they projected the winner too soon and were wrong. So they went looking for excuses , so they could put the blame on someone else.

Let the candidates stay home (except when they go to vote) on election day. They can find out if they won in the morning.

Steve

[Qikdraw]

Whats wrong with US political system is not the media, but the fact that is is incredibly corrupt. Both parties are corrupt. Legalised bribing (lobbyists) needs to stop.

We have big business bribing politicians to make policy that benifits them, not the people. Government for the people, by the people, and of the people does not exist.

Take money out of politics and then the political system will be better.

Qikdraw

[Naturist Mark]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trailscout:
[qb] Gary, the electoral college prevents large states from dominating the government more than they already do. [/qb]

---

You've got that exactly opposite. The Electoral College makes the small states irrelevent.

It is the Senate's composition of two Senators from each State regardless of size that prevents the large States from completely dominating the small States.

The electoral college on the other hand awards an entire State's electoral votes to a single candidate (with a few exceptions). This means that a large State with a slight majority for one candidate swamps the few votes from small states, even if the opposing candidate won there by a landslide.

Under the Electoral College system, the only votes that really count are those from States where the presidential vote could go either way -the so-called Battleground States. None of the others count, they will get only token attention during the campaigns -except for fundraising efforts. There is no reason for a candidate to pay attention to a state where his campaigning isn't going to change the electoral count. If the candidate is assured of winning that State, he has no reason other than tokenism to pay any attention to it. If the candidate can't win there, it would be throwing precious campaign funds down a rathole to pay any attention to it.

Since almost every small state is dominated by a single party, small states are seldom 'battleground' states. But if there were no electoral college system it would be worth it to candidates to cultivate votes from small states, because even if that candidate can't even come close to gaining a majority in that State, every addtional vote gained would have an equal impact on the outcome of the election.

But under the present electoral college system, your vote in the presidential election doesn't count for squat unless you live in one of the handfull of 'battleground' States that could go either way.

I live in Ohio, a major battleground State, so my vote counts this year.

Will your presidential vote count? Here is a list of the probable 'Battleground' States. Your vote counts if your live in one of these 17 States. If not... sorry, but you can still vote with your pocketbook by donating to your candidate. Or temporarily moving to a Battleground State:

Maine
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Florida
Ohio
West Virginia
Michigan
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Missouri
Arkansas
New Mexico
Arizona
Nevada
Oregon
Washington

-Mark

[Frank R]

The electoral college on the other hand awards an entire State's electoral votes to a single candidate (with a few exceptions). This means that a large State with a slight majority for one candidate swamps the few votes from small states, even if the opposing candidate won there by a landslide.
-Mark [/QB][/QUOTE]

Just to set the record straight, the electoral college does not automatically give all the votes to a candidate winning by a small amount. A state may (as Nebraska has) award votes by Congressional Districts with the extra two votes going to the candidate with the most votes statewide. This will probably never happen since Bill Clinton would have lost both times if this method had been in effect.

[Trailscout]

Frank, if every state adopted the Nebraska model of awarding votes by Congressional district rather than the state at large, would this inherently favor one party over another? (Clinton cannot run for re-election)

[hm0504]

Hey Rex, I voted. Looks like Mr. Nader is the popular choice among the votees with 53.5% while Mr. Bush lags considerably at 4.4% (Mr. Kerry is at a respectable 42.0%). Somehow, I suspect the actual American results will be quite different.

On the subject of electoral models, I'd like to see more opportunities for proportional representation in our systems (American and Canadian).

[Naturist Mark]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frank R:
[qb]Just to set the record straight, the electoral college does not automatically give all the votes to a candidate winning by a small amount. A state may (as Nebraska has) award votes by Congressional Districts with the extra two votes going to the candidate with the most votes statewide. This will probably never happen since Bill Clinton would have lost both times if this method had been in effect. [/qb]

---

Yes, Nebraska is one of the few exceptions, as is Maine. This type of awarding electoral votes is a big improvement. It does run the risk of duplicating the problems of the national electoral college system on the state level though, since gerrymandering of congressional districts to favor one party can also predetermine electoral college outcomes.

The States have the authority to determine how their electoral votes are apportioned, they can do so on a strict proportional basis if they wish, this would approximate the outcome of a direct election. But it would not give large states any additional clout like the winner-takes-all system does, and it doesn't automatically reward the majority party in non-competitive states. It is unlikely to appeal to the vested interests.

-Mark

[hm0504]

quote:

---

The States have the authority to determine how their electoral votes are apportioned, they can do so on a strict proportional basis if they wish, this would approximate the outcome of a direct election. But it would not give large states any additional clout like the winner-takes-all system does, and it doesn't automatically reward the majority party in non-competitive states. It is unlikely to appeal to the vested interests.

---

I didn't know that, thanks Naturist Mark.

While I favour implementing proportional representation to some degree, I also want a system that (almost always) enables the party with the largest number of seats to govern the country effectively.