The American Politics thread

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Cevno

Do the electoral college votes of each state change each election or are they constant?

I don't get why they have this system in USA where the second place votes in states don't count. Is there supposed to be some sort of advantage to this system over counting actual votes?

Yes they change. The total is the same but how many each state gets changes based on their population.

Some states do split their electoral votes, but only a couple. It's like this because of historical reasons and some states don't want to lose their oversized power. The same reason that Wyoming gets the same two senators as California.

[Fusion]

Aside from the fact that the founding fathers wanted to ensure smaller States don't lose influence, they also didn't trust the general public to always make the right choice for President. The Electoral College was supposed to act as a safety net against a complete **** being elected. In theory, the electors can overrule the results of the elections and vote for someone else. This will never happen today, but the possibility does exist.

[grecian]

Originally Posted by Fusion

Aside from the fact that the founding fathers wanted to ensure smaller States don't lose influence, they also didn't trust the general public to always make the right choice for President. The Electoral College was supposed to act as a safety net against a complete **** being elected. In theory, the electors can overrule the results of the elections and vote for someone else. This will never happen today, but the possibility does exist.

Failed rather with Nixon, amongst others.

Senates against Parliaments, both are flawed but what's the cricketweb consensus?

I must admit I find it interesting that the "land of the free" system goes back to a Roman time when most were slaves, but then it was probably apposite for their early days.

[silentstriker]

Many states have laws forcing them to vote a certain way.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by grecian

Failed rather with Nixon, amongst others.

Senates against Parliaments, both are flawed but what's the cricketweb consensus?

I must admit I find it interesting that the "land of the free" system goes back to a Roman time when most were slaves, but then it was probably apposite for their early days.

I find a fair few things from the parliamentary system to be awfully irritating.

[Spark]

BarackObama: The campaign and combined committees raised over $114 million in August to the Romney campaign's $111 million.

lawl

e1: becomes even more lawl when you consider that this included the GOP convention... but not the DNC!
e2: 80.7%, btw. Substantial convention bounce.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by grecian

Failed rather with Nixon, amongst others.

Senates against Parliaments, both are flawed but what's the cricketweb consensus?

I must admit I find it interesting that the "land of the free" system goes back to a Roman time when most were slaves, but then it was probably apposite for their early days.

The Senate is the product of a federal system. Same as it is here. Essentially ours is a House of Review, but each state has the same number of Senators - it was originally meant to the be the States' House, effectively combining the role of enshrining states' rights with the role of your House of Lords.

In that sense I don't know that it's an either/ or arrangement between a Senate and the Westminster system, though the American model is a far more bastardised Westminster model than ours.

Personally I think our Senators are unrepresentative swill, as one of our former Prime Ministers described them.

[wellAlbidarned]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

I find a fair few things from the parliamentary system to be awfully irritating.

You just hate America!

[Sanz]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

North Carolina? He isn't winning that again.

Obama isn't winning Florida, North Carolina and Virginia. His only hope is winning Ohio. He will have a chance only if he retains Ohio.

[Top_Cat]

Paul won’t believe Obama’s cuts - Salon.com

Fair stunned by this.

Really hilarious is America's treatment of blokes like Krugman, though. In the US he's a pundit, in Europe he's serious academic. Paul just point-blank saying the opposite of what Krugman said (which is provably incorrect, incidentally) is just mind-bending. The guy's a Nobel Laureate, FFS. This doesn't confer upon him expert status in everything he says (Kary Mullis, rambling, incoherent conspiracy-mongering, Jew-hating nutjob won a Nobel for inventing the Polymerase Chain Reaction) but when you're playing in his area, you better know your **** before speaking or know you're **** and shut the hell up.

[Cevno]

Originally Posted by wellAlbidarned

You just hate America!

America doesn't have a Parliamentary system.....

[Cevno]

Originally Posted by Burgey

The Senate is the product of a federal system. Same as it is here. Essentially ours is a House of Review, but each state has the same number of Senators - it was originally meant to the be the States' House, effectively combining the role of enshrining states' rights with the role of your House of Lords.

In that sense I don't know that it's an either/ or arrangement between a Senate and the Westminster system, though the American model is a far more bastardised Westminster model than ours.

Personally I think our Senators are unrepresentative swill, as one of our former Prime Ministers described them.

Similar to India. We also have a Another house which is supposed to be the Council of states and each bill has to go through both houses.

The American model is completely different though being a presidential democracy where the executive is seperate completely from the legislature. I like it better for a bigger and more diverse country than the model India took from the British where it just leads to smaller sub division upon sub division of voters.

There are far more regular checks and balances of authority in the American system too.

[Samuel_Vimes]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Paul won’t believe Obama’s cuts - Salon.com

Fair stunned by this.

Post-truth politics.

[silentstriker]

FDR "Let Me Warn You" (1936).m4v - YouTube

Haha FDR laying the smackdown on Republicans of all eras....

[Fusion]

Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson Stands To Get $2 Billion In Tax Cuts If Mitt Romney Is Elected

Just so you know, Sheldon is planning to contribute $100 million to the anti-Obama campaign effort. Money well spent I'd say.