Schwarzes Hamburg > Politik & Gesellschaft -Archiv-
Tränen am Ground Zero-haben es diese verf***en Amis verdient
schneeball:
Whether 50% of Americans voted (that number is pretty high, usually the total number of people voting is less than half in most elections...34% to 44% from last election I think) or 100% of them did, it still wouldn't change the fact that:
A) The electoral college decides who is elected, not the voters.
B) Each member of the electorate is under no obligation to vote for the candidate they intend to elect on the slate you have chosen on your ballot.
C) Each state sets its own voting requirements and is under no direct federal supervision on election day. This was one of the reasons why Bush won Florida.
D) Each district's party sets up the voting booths and counts the ballots. Again, this is another reason why Bush won Florida.
E) State results would still be known ahead of time, as the dominant party in a state would always capture all the electoral votes of that state.
F) If no candidate received a majority, the house would choose the winning candidate. Therefore, the election would depend on the dominant party holding power in the house.
I can go on, and on.....but the point I'm trying to make is this; Real change will not come until the system is changed. Voting in America is a sham. You can go to the booth on election day, but your vote won't necessarily count unless you live in a contested state, and even then it may not get counted.
Drachenkind:
This all or nothing system certainly hampers enthusiasm to vote.
But if you see you're state as bound to the to Republicans, and everyone other Democrat see this also and don't go for election, then you loose the chance.
Things that worries me is that John Kerry hasn't made an clear statement.
Will his politics continue being Unilateralistic or not.
How is his solution to solve the Iraq dilemma, the Israel-Palastina conflict, gun law (current is the best joke for me)...
An candidate which highest archivment is summarised in "anybody but Bush" don't give me much thrust.
But at 30.9. the Bush-Kerry Discussion comes.
Bush isn't the best in free speach, and hopefully Kerry gives a bit more about his future politics. I wish that Kerry would be brilliant.
But Bush is not such an big desaster for me, should he re-elected.
schneeball:
--- Zitat ---But if you see you're state as bound to the to Republicans, and everyone other Democrat see this also and don't go for election, then you loose the chance.
--- Ende Zitat ---
Good observation, but here's the problem; If you're a Democrat, and you live in a highly Republican district, you're voting booth will be administered by the republicans in that District. Also, the votes in your District will be tabulated, not by an independent body, but by the republicans living in your district. If you happen to live in a state with a Republican governor, he or she will appoint Republican election officials to monitor the state's voting procedures and requirements. What makes the problem worse is that each district in a state is drawn and redrawn by the politicians in power at the time. So, if a Republican feels he or she is at risk of losing an election in his or her district, they'll just redraw it to include more of their own party's members and less of the opposition's. They do it all the time. In chicago, the democratic party that runs the election committees there still include the names of the deceased voters taken from cemetry graves in their voting tabulations. These are just some of the reasons why incumbents are so difficult to unseat. On top of all this bullshit, the electoral college allocates electoral votes disproportionally between states. So if all 19 million people in the state of New York voted democrat, capturing all 31 of that state's total electoral votes, those votes could be completely offset by less than 13.5 million votes from the states of Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada (33 electoral votes). Even if the western states received only 7 or 8 million popular votes for the Republcan party's candidates, the results wouldn't change and New York's 100% (over 19 million) democratic majority would be offset by an aggregate 51% republican majority (6.9 million popular votes)/49% democratic minority (6.6 Million popular votes) in only six less populated western states. That's 6.9 million Republican voters deciding an outcome for 25.6 million Democratic voters. Does this sound to you like what a Democracy was intended to do?
Drachenkind:
No independant election comitee??
Wow!
In good ol' days of the communist East Germany it was the same.
Your example for New York is horrible.
Haven't thought that the votes can be so asymetrical.
Tabulation, what a bad joke!
If I wouldn't know that you write about the United States, I would guess for practice of the Chinese Communist party.
Either you should allow OEZD observers,
call for UN Troops,
or support Native Americans to reclaim the land and help them build a new state.
No serious,
Japan had some similiar proportion problem.
In this case between votes for people in the city and in the county.
For an shugiin (Congress) seat you needed 50.000 votes in rural areas, and 400.000 in Tokyo. This proprtion came from the people census after WW2, as many people lived in rural areas to flew the bombardements of the cities. The LDP keeped this voting proportion, as they have a firm grip in the Farmer/rural area.
But they made an reform a few years ago.
Is there no movement to reform your outdated election system?
I have often the impression that the US-constitution and some institutions are treated like an pseudo-relegion in America. The constitution fathers have writen it, so it must be the ultimate truth and is nearly divine. A bit like the bible.
Der Uhu:
Jesus!
And I thought that voting means to give your vote, than count all the votes together and the party that gets the most votes gets the jackpot!
You guys love it obviously complicated, right? If I have a look at your measurements: feet, yard, inch, eightth of an inch, sixteenth of an inch, pound, ounces, stone, gallons, litres, miles
I really wonder how you managed to get a man on the moon by using that system! (http://www.mainzelahr.de/smile/unsortierbar/div128.gif)
But thanks for telling us! That was really enlightening! I think that only a few of us knew that. We only knew that the US have a complicated voting system. And now I can only agree with Drachenkind to call for UN troops to observe that election!
Another question: In Germany the parties get money from the state for every vote they got. I think that that are ~25 cents per vote, but I am not sure (someone may correct me if I am wrong). There are also donations and membersip fees. That is how Parties in Germany finance themselves. How is that in America. Are the parties really only privately financed. I am asking because I notice that only super rich people become president in the USA. In Germany none of our Chancellors was very rich. So there must be a difference. What is it?
Is there actually a movement to change the election system in the US and what are the reasons why this complicated system was established?
Der Uhu
Navigation
[0] Themen-Index
[#] Nächste Seite
[*] Vorherige Sete
Zur normalen Ansicht wechseln