BS: Election of the US President

Subject: BS: Election of the US President
From: GUEST,Beachcomber
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 05:39 AM

I would love for somebody who knows and understands it, to explain just exactly how the American people's votes are used in electing their Preswident. There was a programme on TV last night that purported to explain the different layers of voting procedure but I still don't understand fully about "popular" vote, Electoral Colleges etc ? How is the ballot paper laid out and what does it seek ? Can someone set all this out as simply as possible please ?

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 05:45 AM

The popular vote is a feelgood, meaningless waste of time. The elitist Electoral College picks the president. Simple enough?
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: sciencegeek
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 07:33 AM

the USA was set up to be a representative democracy... our founding fathers were distrustful of excessive goevernment control - as in the monarchy & parliment that they had just rebelled against. but they were also concerned about letting the common folk just decide on their own. you need to understand that the foundling fathers were decidedly upper class members who did think less of the ability of the little guy to make good decisions.

and quite frankly, elections can easily turn into popularity contests even today... rather than selections of the best qualified candidate.

so to answer your question... every citizen who is eligible to vote can do so and the total number of votes cast is known as the popular vote. but each state has a fixed number of electoral votes that is based upon the total population of each state. so a small state with a small population get a small number of electoral votes and vise versa for larger, more populous states.

the total number of electoral votes ( the Electoral College) for each candidate is what determines the who wins or loses the election.

considering that monarchies go to either the oldest son or male relative that can fight ( with weapons) off his competition, this is much less violent way to chose a leader.

it can happen that the overall vote by citizens goes to the candidate that has fewer electoral votes... but in this race Obama came out ahead on both counts.

three cheers for the middle class!!! hurrah!

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: sciencegeek
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 07:39 AM

ooops ... foundling fathers??? dyslexic fingers strike again... :)

or maybe I was thinking about good old Ben?

and ignore the elitist crap...   back then voting rights were a lot more restrictive, but despite the Right, we are much better at including citizens these days. As proven by the voting record of women, blacks and hispanic folks who were denied the vote at the start of our nation.

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 09:07 AM

Elitist pigs. The common folk deserve better. Like having their vote count.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 09:12 AM

What about the Two Houses? Are they part of the same vote, when the President gets in? Or do they happen at different times, or by different systems?
Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: saulgoldie
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 09:27 AM

Make you a deal, BC. You 'splain cricket to me, and I'll 'splain our (convoluted) electoral process. Deal?

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 09:39 AM

We aren't fit to pick our leaders. We need rich people to do that for us.
=(:-( 0)

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 09:40 AM

the vote for the US House of Representative (somewhat akin to the House of Commons) and Senate ( somewhat akin to the House of Lords) is a separate issue from the election of the President. At first the role of President went to the winner of the most votes & the Vice President went to the runner up... that got changed eventually.

You should note that the terms of office differ for each office... this was done to provide more stability and continuity from year to year.

Representative 2 years
Senate          6 years - staggered elections for 1/3 each election

President       4 years - and a maximum of 2 terms


the system was set up to have checks and balances to prevent any part of the government from going rogue ( though the Tea Party is doing their best to muck that up). the idea behind it all is that the founding fathers wanted a system of government that was responsive to its people. the Government is to be the servants of the country, not it masters. of course, politics is power and there is always elected officals who want the power and not the responsibilities that go with public office.

so the system was designed to prevent human nature from mucking up the country - at least give a good try.

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 09:43 AM

Couple things to add to what sciencegeek posted, beachcomber... The number of electoral votes per state is equal to the number of members that state elects to the House of Representatives which, in turn, is based on population...

Second, each state makes it's own laws about elections... So things like early voting, absentee voting, provisional ballots, etc. are left up to each state as long as they don't violate federal anti-discrimination laws...

Third, re-districting is highly political... When a party takes over a statehouse it usually tries to re-draw the districts to benefit itself... These districts can look very strange and sometimes entire areas of a district are connected with other areas a hundred miles away with a very narrow thread... This is why here in North Carlina The Dems got over 45% of the state wide contests (Governor & President) yet control 10 of the 12 House of Representative districts...

Hope this, with what sciencegeek has posted helps...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 09:44 AM

X-posted with sciencegeek...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 09:57 AM

Duck, there are two Houses (or "Chambers") of Congress: the Senate and the House of Representatives.

As provided for in the Constitution, each state gets two senators. Each senator now serves a six-year term.

The House of Representatives (whose members are often confusingly called "Congressmen" even though senators are equally members of Congress) is made up of elected officials who each represent a legally defined "district" within their state. Unlike the number of Senators, the number of Representatives per state is not fixed: it is based on the size of the state's population and occasionally changes.

Representatives serve a two-year term.

Senators and Representatives can run for re-election as often as their party will nominate them.

Since a Presidential election is held every four years, it will always   be accompanied by Congressional elections for senate, house, or both.

The Senate is often called "the Upper House" and the House or Representatives "the Lower House." Bills have to pass the Lower House before they are ratifed, amended, or rejected by the Upper House. Amended bills get kicked back to the House of Representives (called "the Hous," for short, to add to the confusion) for their ratification or rejection.

Once a bill is approved by both houses, it goes to the President for his signature. Then it becomes law. The President, however, can reject a Congressional bill by refusing to sign it (this is his "veto power"). That doesn't happen often, but when it does, Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds majority. Without that, the law is rejected.

Not quite as complicated as it sounds. The whole setup, plus the Supreme Court, was created in the 18th century to prevent any one person (like the President) or any coalition (like some Congressional clique) from gaining dictatorial power.

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Arkie
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 10:03 AM

The Electoral College, as I understand it was intended to provide a sense of balance in Presidential elections. I make no claim to understanding it. But the Electoral vote works both ways. Republicans may be screaming now, but in 2000 Al Gore actually won the popular vote and lost the election due to the Electoral College vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 10:07 AM

thank you, Bobert for the assist.

and to be honest, I fact checked using Wikipedia before posting responses to try to avoid errors... and launch even less productive tirades on this thread.


Thomas Jefferson championed the agrarian society... but in this industrialized nation that we have become, that role is now played by the middle class. A strong middle class is what will keep this nation viable. A strong middle class is vital to the democratic process.

Call it enlightened self interest, but I believe that world peace (or at least less violence) is dependent upon the fair distribution of wealth ( and justice)within a nation.

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: pdq
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 10:16 AM

Each state chooses how it will select the Electors. That is the job of that state's legislature.

The number is derived from the number of Senators (2 per state) and that state's House members which are apportioned by population. DC gets three based only on population, It isn't a state.

100 Senators + 435 Reps + 3 for DC = 538 electors

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 10:19 AM

It might be good to mention that Obama this time won the Electoral College with 303 votes (270 were needed and he can probably add Florida's 29 votes to that total). He also won the popular vote by more than 2 million, which some conservative pundits seem still to be ignoring (hey, they are just numbers!).

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Bob the Postman
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 10:22 AM

"The number of electoral votes per state is equal to the number of members that state elects to the House of Representatives which, in turn, is based on population..."

Actually, the number of a state's Electoral College votes equals the total number of her federal legislators—Representatives PLUS Senators.

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Bob the Postman
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 10:24 AM

The dreaded cross-post.

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: GUEST,highlandman at work
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 10:30 AM

Electoral votes are the number of Representatives allocated a state PLUS TWO representing the Senators. So the count is a bit skewed to favor the less populous states, at least from the proportionality perspective. In California your individual vote is worth about 1/600,000th of an electoral vote, 1/500,000 in a smaller state like South Carolina, but as much as 1/200,000 in the least populous states like Wyoming.

Of course no campaigns spend a lot of time in Wyoming because it's still just 3 electoral votes.

Little-known to people who haven't actually worked inside this system, the electors are real people. Once upon a time their names were on the ballot and not the candidates. Eventually they began to announce pledges ahead of time to cast their votes for a particular candidate. It wasn't too many years ago that the ballots were changed to show only the candidate the electors are pledged to, which misleads people to think they are actually voting directly for the candidate.

The way this works today is that a party who successfully qualifies a candidate for the presidential ballot in a particular state must designate the names of the electors to represent them. Typically these are awarded to state and county party faithful in exchange for a written pledge to cast their electoral vote for the party's candidate.

48 of the states award all of their electoral seats to the party/candidate who wins the plurality of votes cast in the state. Two divide the seats proportionally to the vote.

On a day set by Congress (currently in December I think) those electors who are seated according to the results of the vote are supposed to meet, physically, inside the boundaries of their respective states, and cast their electoral ballot. There is supposed to be only one ballot to avoid horse trading at this point in the process.

The state is responsible for certifying this vote and transmitting it to one of the houses of Congress (I think the House but I'm not sure) by the opening of the next session. When Congress reads these votes into the record it becomes official. If there is a tie, the House of Representatives votes to break it.

There have been a few cases of designated electors going "rogue" and actually casting their Electoral College vote contrary to what they pledged to the party that designated them. That's usually a party-career-ending move.

I don't believe the electoral college disenfranchises individual voters the way the popular view seems to believe now. I think it protects the influence of the small-to-medium states' voters. The main result of abolishing the college would be to allow supermajorities in large population centers (states wouldn't matter any more) to override the interests of more widely spread people whose interests may be quite different. If you think the campaigns are too concentrated in a few "swing" areas now, it would be much worse then. Campaign in New York City, Los Angeles, Baltimore and Atlanta and you're about done.

Cheers
-Glenn

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 10:45 AM

Remember that the electoral college system was set up in the 1790s. There were various reasons for the system, and many problems getting it adjusted:
(See long discussion here)

But it is also difficult to keep in mind just how distant and loosely organized the early states were in those days. It was days or weeks by horse to get voting results to Washington. It was just easier to vote by state and have a few 'electors' go for the final vote. The states in those early years really WERE pretty independent areas, and the idea of voting for president as a unit was not only awkward, but demographically almost unthinkable.
   Times change... but old habits change much slower.... as the discussion in my link shows.

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 10:51 AM

You'll love this!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 10:58 AM

thanks to Bill D for the historical perspective...

I think of my grandparents who were born in the 1880's and then lived to see 2 world wars, flight to the moon, radio, television etc.

then I think of what I would have given to have the world wide web when I was a kid...

the America of the late 1700's was a far cry from anything we know today... unless we have spent time in a third world country. Even today's Amish have access to better infrastructure than our early colonists.

one thoughtful thing that was done by our founding fathers was to build in some flexibility in the system... allow it to change with the times... if slowly.

the system has a negative feedback system/ checks and balances that helps it to maintain a steady state instead of spiraling out of control.

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 11:08 AM

There's a lot in common between the American and British system - both are set up in a way that ensures that there is no direct relation between the popular vote and the result, so that from time to time the winner nationally gets fewer votes than the loser, and that most people vote in contests where their vote doesn't really make any difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 11:10 AM

It seems confusing, but if you look at it like it's a board game,(like we do) it's simple:

1) A State can be either red or blue,

2) When the Democrat candidate wins a state, it becomes blue, when the Republican candidate wins a state, it becomes red.

3) Each state has a point value(based on it's population)

4)At 11pm on election night(when the polls in California close) we add up all the points and who ever gets 270 or more wins!!!!

It is a lot easier to understand than a lot of other games, like cribbage, for instance.

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 11:31 AM

a board game... sounds like the origins of chess or go....

and there is always someone who's looking to cheat...

the Super pacs thought to control the vote through the use of $$$ for character assasination in the media

and the Right thought to control the vote by trying to disenfranchise anyone they thought would vote against their agenda

and it would have worked if the voting public had been as apathetic as it was in previous years...

what prevented the Right from succeeding was the accumen of Axelrod and others to see that the winning strategy was to get out the vote... even that of those who wouldn't vote in their favor, because only by making as many a possible shareholders in the fate of the election could a party that is touted to be responsive to ALL Americans prove its point.

grass roots organizing by its nature has to understand the issues and the people it wants to engage. the only ones that the 1 percenters understand are other 1 percenters.

I'm a 99 percenter that grew up alongside recent immigrants and multi generational Americans. We also were the kids whose immediate families had just gone through the Great Depression and a World War. And we grew up in the Cold War. I cannot relate to the sense of entitlement held by the 1 percenters, anymore than I can relate to the blind bigotry of the Conservative Right. They are as un American as I can imagine. Ad the sooner they die out the better in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 11:36 AM

This "red state"/ "blue state" business is fairly recent and is just shorthand for how the state has voted or is likely to vote. It has nothing to do with how votes are counted.

It's simply the result of polling. That means in a real election (when, for example, Tuesday night New Jersey was "blue" or Democratic) or in opinion polls. (Alabama is reliable "red" or Republican).

Obviously the colors can change. And "purple" means a state whose voters seem evenly divided.

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 12:05 PM

"Jefferson championed the agrarian society"--but did no manual work himself.   And his most reliable profits in Monticello were by slaves in a nail factory he set up--"farming" did not work out.

Also, he opposed federal power --- until he became president.

Championed freedom of the press--until he became president.

And while he was secretary of state, hired a man, supposedly as a translator , but actually to put out a newspaper attacking the Washington administration, which Jefferson himself was working for.

As president, told Napoleon it would be easy to starve out Toussaint L'Ouverture--since Jefferson, like other Southern planters, was deathly afraid of the contagion of slave revolt.

In many ways Burr was responsble for the Democratic-Republican success at the polls in 1800, but when Burr would not categorically deny that he would accept the presidency if offered it by the House (that's another story, which does in fact involve the electoral college as it was then), he froze him and his followers out of power and made it plain that there was no chance for Burr even as VP in 1804.

Not to mention Sally Hemings, etc.

In some ways, Jefferson was not really a nice guy.

Talk about thread creep.

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 12:06 PM

"responsible"

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 12:19 PM

Jefferson was no saint and he had some awareness of how he fell short of his ideals...

and many of his failings were nothing to be proud of....

but he did have a number of good ideas and those are the ones that I try to support.

his shortcomings do not diminish his accomplishments, only puts them in a perspective that acknowledges that human beings are not even close to perfect, but we should take the best and try to move forward from there.

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Stringsinger
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 01:07 PM

All that needs to be said is the voting process on American Idol. That should give some insight. Other than that, luckily, the demographic is changing from the white voter to African-American/Latino/and other what used to be called minorities.

There is a new voice out there and it ain't Romney's.

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 01:12 PM

Jefferson was a disgusting man. But I said that before.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 01:35 PM

""We aren't fit to pick our leaders.""

Since the only one whose fitness you are in a position to judge, Henry, is yourself, I'm sure nobody here is going to disagree.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 01:42 PM

The alternative is to have leaders who pick themselves.

Very popular in parts of the Third World.

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 01:51 PM

I can judge any goddamned body I want to, Don. I've already judged you as unfit to keep your mouth shut and your ass wiped.
=(:-( D)

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 02:11 PM

But then again, Don, you picked Reagan and the Bushes.
=(:-( P)

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: GUEST,Beachcomber
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 07:10 PM

I knew I would get comprehensive data from all you guys and thanks. I will now print out all the relevant postings and study them. [By the time the next election comes around I should be able to comment with some relevance myself. :) Thanks again .}

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 08:01 PM

Yup, the basics are there, beachcomber... The politics are more complicated and tend to drown out the reality of how things are supposed to work...

Voting is a major problem now... Republicans are out to enforce Draconian laws that make it harder... They have pushed Voter IDs... Sounds great but...

...when you strip off the difficulties in getting these "official" voter ID cards they are very stinky...

Let me give you a personal example... In 1985 I moved from Virgina, where I had had a driver's license since 1963, to West Virginia and then moved back to Virginia in 2005... I went to get my driver's license, took both my *original* "birth certificate" and my *original* "certificate of live birth" but was turned away because I didn't have a "certified birth certificate"... Huh???

That's right!!!

"Well, how do I get one?" I ask...

"Fill out this form and send $35 to __________ (private company)...

"What??? I gotta send money to a private company to getting a f'n driver's license in Virgina where I have already had a driver's license???"

I was pissed... So I fired off a letter to Governor Mark Warner and told him that I was pissed... He made a couple calls and I got exempted and got my license without having to fork over money to a ****private f'n company****....

In many of these Republican states this is what they are trying to do to voters... In South Carolina, for instance, they were trying to take away the votes of 80,000 elderly black people for the crime of being born at home???

This is going to be a major problem, beachcomber, in future elections... Big, big problem...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 10:55 PM

From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 09:39 AM

"We aren't fit to pick our leaders. We need rich people to do that for us."

Adlai Stevenson, (Democrat, ran for President four times in the '50's and 60's):.....

"By the time a man is nominated for president, he is no longer fit for the job!"



You mean we're ALL MAD?????...


.....May be......but Me??..I'm a guest from Sanity!!..I'm clear!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Nov 12 - 10:59 PM

It's actually amazing how few accomplishments Jefferson had. The more I read about him the more obvious that becomes.

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 02:25 AM

I voted with my conscience. Our present system is too far gone. Capitalist greed is destroying us. No integrity. Pigs at the trough wanting their share and yours too.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: GUEST,Beachcomber
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 06:04 AM

Bobert, your frustration , at the time, is still palpable. Is it because enough people like you do not make their voices heard that these officials are allowed such licence themselves ?

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 06:48 AM

Should America be run by a council of Native Americans? Should Australia be run by a council of Aborigines? Should New Zealand/Aotearoa be run by a council of Maoris? Is imperialism wrong? My poem on "Land Rights" - http://www.myspace.com/walkaboutsverse/blog/476693050

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 08:47 AM

Beachcomber,

My mama raised me to stand up... I mean, I was about 13 or 14 when she was first arrested for participating in a civil rights demonstration...

I do what I can these days...

Mostly drumming at rallies and let the youngin' give the speeches and lay down in the middle of the street..

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 09:07 AM

I voted with my conscience. Our present system is too far gone. Capitalist greed is destroying us. No integrity. Pigs at the trough wanting their share and yours too.
=(:-( ))

well here's another slogan from the 1960's... if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

your vote had absolutely not effect on the outcome of the system... why even bother to waste the gas to get to the polling booth? and posting on this thread has been equally ineffectual.

instead of being smug, why don't you do a little soul searching about what your real motivations are?

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 09:24 AM

I must confess that I am partly responsible for Bush becoming president but, looking back, probably would have done it again... Yes, I was not only a Nader-ite in 2000 but I also was part of the campaign as a precinct caption...

Our goal back then was to capture enough votes nationally to get the Green Party into the debates in the '04 election... We fell short of that goal and in or failings opening the pathway for Bush, his lawyers and his daddy's Supreme Court to steal the 2000 election...

This election, however, was much different... The Green Party, or what is left of it, had no overall goals... Sciencegeek is correct... Voting Green was a wasted vote and wasted energy to get there...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 10:17 AM

Bobert, as a kid whose father was a union worker & growing up in a blue collar, lower middle class area - I learned the truth in that old adage, united we stand, divided we fall.

Why do you think the Republicans keep selling out to the Conservatives? It's a numbers game. And it's what is keeping them viable in the House.

In 1980, I opposed Reagan... but also was pretty sure that my state would go with Carter, so I cast my vote for Anderson - hoping to ensure that federal $ would go to the Independent campaign.

We need a Supreme Court that will support the rights of all Americans and understand that multi national corporations are neither citizens nor voters.... that "personhood" is a fiction for tax purposes alone... and not a justification for letting big money bully the real citizens of this nation. There may well have been a good candidate in the Republican Party who would work for the good of all... but that person never had a chance to even be considered for the chance to run thanks to the insane primaries. We can only hope that they are just biding their time in wait for a more rational party to emerge.

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 07:30 PM

Although Glenn mentioned it above, we don't think it has been made clear that ALL of the electoral votes in each state are (generally) awarded to the candidate that gets the most votes in that state. So, if one candidate gets 51% of the popular vote in a state, he gets all of that state's electoral votes.

The reason this is so important is that most states traditionally vote for one party or the other and can be counted on to be "red states" or "blue states". For example, California, New York and Massachusetts can be relied upon to go to the Democrat while Texas, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama consistently vote for the Republican.
So, very little effort is spent campaigning in those states because the outcome is nearly certain.

On the other hand, there are a few states (about 10) which are considered tossup or battleground states. These include Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia and maybe a couple of others. Nearly all the effort is devoted to winning these states because that's where the action is. If you live in one of these battleground states, you will see hundreds of political adverts on TV until you are utterly sick of them. There is a TV station in Las Vegas, Nevada which stated recently that it had run more than 20,000 political ads this year and that was a few weeks ago.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 07:51 PM

Yo, science...

I come from the exact same background... My dad worked for Ford... He didn't have a high school diploma... He was a UAW union man... My mom??? High school diploma... Secretary...

I understand politics...

The Dems of the 80s and 90s lost their way...

No one was talkin' about globalization or the fact the fact that the US government had joined the goons to bust unions... Ronald Reagan used the full force of the federal government to bust the Air Traffic Controllers Union and signaled that it was open season on unions... George H.W. Bush didn't change anything...Bill Clinton didn't change a thing... We are now in our 30th year of federal government union busting and wondering why our middle class is shrinking and the working man's wages have been stagnant since 1982???

Duhhhhhhhhh???

In the words of the late (and great) Waylon Jennings, "We need a change"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Charley Noble
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 08:21 PM

I much prefer this kind of debate after we defeat the Republicans!

Now we can hopefully stiffen the backbone of Democratic leadership.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 08:40 PM

Bobert: "I understand politics..."

LOL!...Only what they want you to believe!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 08:50 PM

No, I do understand "politics", GfinS...

I just about hit the mark on the election and this was mine... I don't read blogs... Okay I missed by a couple House seats...

I was Jim Elam's campaign manager when he was elected the first black president of the Student's Union at Virgina Commonwealth University when VCU's black enrollment was 15%...

I worked for Bobby Kennedy... I worked for Jimmy Carter... I worked for Ralph Nader... I've worked for Obama (twice)...

I can name every president (in order)... I have degree in History and Poli-Sci... I have taught American History...

No, GfinS... I fully understand politics... Fully...

Not this is about "I" but...

... I understand politics and elections and stuff...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Nov 12 - 09:39 PM

Bobert - "The Dems of the 80s and 90s lost their way...

No one was talkin' about globalization or the fact the fact that the US government had joined the goons to bust unions... Ronald Reagan used the full force of the federal government to bust the Air Traffic Controllers Union and signaled that it was open season on unions... George H.W. Bush didn't change anything...Bill Clinton didn't change a thing... We are now in our 30th year of federal government union busting and wondering why our middle class is shrinking and the working man's wages have been stagnant since 1982???"

Right on, Bobert. I remember when Reagan arrested the Air Traffic Controllers for striking. Unbelievable! As far as I was concerned, that was the day when fullblown fascism came to the USA, and it's been a disaster ever since. Thatcher was basically doing the same kind of union-busting in the UK. The 80's was a very ugly era in western politics, and what followed wasn't much better.

We were all promised a "peace dividend" after the end of the Cold War in 1989. Remember? Well, that never happened. Just another big lie. The next great war (the War on Terror) was already being planned, in my opinion. As for the Russians, their society was utterly trashed after '89 by the corrupt drunk Yeltsin and all the carpetbaggers and Mafia who came forward to loot the place after Communism fell. The Russian public were lied to as well. They were promised "freedom" and prosperity by demagogues like Yeltsin...what they got was poverty, humiliation, betrayal, and corruption.

They know that now, Putin is busy restoring their strength, and I don't think they will be fooled again.

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 06:37 AM

""But then again, Don, you picked Reagan and the Bushes.""

No wonder you're so inarticulate, every time you open your mouth you stick both feet in it.

You dozy halfwit, I didn't pick Reagan and the Bushes. UK citizens don't vote in US elections.

If they did, people like Raygun and Geedubya wouldn't even get to be candidates, so don't judge us by your standards.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 07:58 AM

I'm also part of the 99% I was raised by a single mother didn't have much growing up but we made the best of it . I grew up in Boston.I'm also gay and far from being Christian so I can't relate at all to the 1% . My mom taught me to stand up and fight for any injustice directed at anyone even if it doesn't effect me personally I should stick by my fellow man/woman because I might need their help someday
-Shep

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: GUEST,Beachcomber
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 10:06 AM

There are some good people on this forum, there's no doubt,Bobert being one, but it is somewhat depressing to read about how ineffectual such people feel. I despair of my political system too, democracy is a joke.

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: sciencegeek
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 10:18 AM

Beachcomber, democracy is not something that you push a button & it takes care of itself. self government means that everyone has stake and needs to take care of their part of it.

If you don't want to participate, there are plenty of totalitarian regimes that would love to take over... but do you really want to live like that? ask a Syrian who is fighting for their basic rights what they think...

the conservative right wants to turn our democracy into a oligarchy, but they lost out ... this time... don't think that they don't hope to ultimately undermine the constitution...

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: number 6
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 10:29 AM

Well ... now that the ridiculous Amerikan elections are over it's good to see that things are now back to normal.

biLL .... ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 01:54 PM

You mean back to abnormal, don't you? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Amos
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 04:23 PM

The electoral vote allocation for each state is not based only on population, but on total representation, House and Senate, in the combined Congress. The method for selecting the President of the United States is laid out in Article II, Sec. I of the Constitution. Two amendments also deal with the Electoral College; the 12th, which fixed an embarrassing flaw in the original Constitution that had allowed Thomas Jefferson to tie in the College with his running mate Aaron Burr, and the 23rd Amendment, which gives Washington D.C. electoral votes.

The Electoral College is composed of 538 electors chosen by the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Each state receives a number of votes in the Electoral College equal to its total representation in both Houses of Congress. For example California, which has 53 representatives in the House and two in the Senate, casts 55 votes in the College. Since the passage of the 23rd Amendment, the District of Columbia also receives a number of electoral votes (currently three) equal to the number it would cast if it were a state. No other U.S. territory has any voice in the election of the president.

Every State has two Senate representatives and a number of House representatives based on population. This provides a dampening or buffer to counter any impact of excessive enthusiasm on a purely popular front, which can (as we have seen before) be subject to mass delusions, fads, and other problems of the flesh.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: number 6
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 06:44 PM

LH .... no, I meant "normal" ... e.g. same old, same old as before the election, and as in, will continue after the election.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 10 Nov 12 - 07:23 PM

The War on Drugs came before the War on Terror. We are always at war here
=(:-( /)

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: GUEST,Beachcomber
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 11:29 AM

Yes, Sciencegeek, I agree that true democracy should be nurtured and cultivated but, can you tell me of a place where it flourishes uncorrupt ? {I'm in a mood to emigrate :) }

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: sciencegeek
Date: 11 Nov 12 - 11:32 AM

LOL... I believe the place you are looking for called Utopia... but it's not on any map I've seen yet....

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: GUEST,Beachcomber
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 09:55 AM

Oh well, that's it then, stay home and grouse. Over and out.

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 12:35 PM

For better or worse, and as undemocratic as it may be, the Electoral College is probably here to stay. The electoral system can only be changed by constitutional amendment. An amendment proposal must be approved by 2/3 of both houses of Congress before it's sent to the states for ratification. There's no way that 2/3 of the House of Representatives is going to approve a direct popular vote amendment. Having influence over large blocs of electoral votes gives congressmen from more populous states more power when it comes to dealing with the executive branch. They're not giving that power up. If the delegations from only the five most populous states unanimously voted "No" on such an amendment proposal, that would be more than enough to keep it from going forward.

Subject: RE: BS: Election of the US President
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 12 Nov 12 - 12:56 PM

Bastards
=(:-( 0)