General discussion

Locked

Help !!!!!

By jardinier ·
I would be most grateful if some person or persons could explain to me the procedure for electing the President of the Unites States.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

17 total posts (Page 1 of 2)   01 | 02   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Short Answer

by TomSal In reply to Help !!!!!

Basically it works like this...

Disgruntled, power-hungry,most often ego-centric, super rich people decide they can and should be leader of the US so they announce their running, set up a campaign along with a campaign manager (after all you need someone with crudentials to manage all the lies of a political campaign, not the root word "CRUDE"(ntials)). :)

They go around to places to talk their BS to a few other self-involved rich types with some kind of clout in their respective industries or sometimes it just matters that they are super rich, then they say "hey we'll nominate you for president"...blah blah this is called the primary, it decides who is on the presidential ticket.

So now the morons, oh I mean the candidates are watered down to a couple choices from what starts out as several choices. That is when the major BS season starts known as the election campaign of each candidate.

During this season we , working class types, are sold the idea that these RICH candidates, who have pampered lifestyles with or without a successful bid for presidential office actually are really just "one of us" and that they "truly care about the "middle class" of america". Sadly many folks buy into this crapola and then others just like the entertainment value of it all so we have forum debates on the Internet, around the watercooler at work, at family gatherings etc. talking and sometimes arguing who is the best candidate. We foolishly pretend we each are genius political strategists and if the US really elected us we would surely fix things.

That's nice and all but I hate the part of being the #1 assassination target for countless crime and terrorist (oops I said the "T" word) organizations from around the world...

But anyway..yada yada

Election day comes....everyone is charged by the political drama leading to this day so we race to the polls to do "make a difference" or "exercise our american civil duty"...we vote.

The clencher after all this stuff? Guess what the vote of the people (aka the "popular vote") doesn't truly mean anything to electing the president.

There is something called an Electoral College, the members of the electoral college cast their votes, each state having a different number of votes that is population dependent to the number of representatives per state.

The votes of the EC are what truly elect the president.

Ahhh...democracy....the voice of the people, well some of them anyway.

Collapse -

Electoral College

by tomh In reply to Help !!!!!

Simply put, the election is really by the states. Each district within a state has a certain amount of electoral delegates that are appointed according to the popular vote of district. This delegate is supposed to vote according to to will of the majority that appointed him, but does not have to. After the election the delegates meet and cast their ballots for President. This determines who wins. All other elected officials are by majority vote. So the Electoral College determines the winner.

Collapse -

Here ya' go

by maxwell edison In reply to Help !!!!!

.
First of all, we do not have a "national" election for president. In fact, we don't have a "national" election for anything.

The United States is, by design, a republic of 50 independent, but equal and "united", states. Each state's citizens elect their own representatives who represent their state in Washington D.C. - And Washington D.C. is, also by design, a separate district, not given the status of an independent state (to avoid conflicts of interest).

Each state has 2 Senators who represent that state in the U.S. Senate, while the number of State Representatives who serve in the U.S. House of Representatives, is dictated by that state's population. California, for example, a state with a large population, has 53 House seats, while Colorado, a state with a much lower population, has only 7.

So how do we elect our president? In short, each state has its own election to determine how that state will cast its vote (or votes) for president. So we don't really have one election for president, but rather 51 individual state elections. (The extra one is for Washington D.C., although not really a "state", so that city's citizens can have an equal voice in the matter.) Whichever candidate receives the most votes within each state is said to have "won that state". John Kerry, for example, will, most likely, "win New York", while George Bush will, in all probability, "win Texas". The ones that are pretty much equally divided might be called the "battle-ground" states - ones that could go either way.

So why don't we have a one state, one vote system? Well, because we needed a system that would make the states as equal as possible in determining the national outcome, as population considerations could otherwise make many of the states insignificant. In 2000, for example, George Bush actually won 30 of state elections, while Al Gore only won 20 (21 counting Washington D.C.). But the population of Al Gore's 20 states was, generally speaking, much higher than the states that went to Bush. So to level the playing field, the states are "weighted" according to the number of total representatives they have in Congress. (Congress is both the Senate and the U.S. House.) My home state of Colorado, for example, is "weighted" at 9 - so it is said that we will cast 9 electoral votes, while California will cast 55. (By the way, the number of each state's Representatives - and electors - might change from year to year, depending on population shifts, but the total number will remain the same. California, for example, lost one seat two years ago, while Colorado picked up one.)

The outcome of the 2000 election was actually 271 to 267 in favor of George Bush. So if Al Gore would have won Colorado in 2000 (we had only 8 votes in 2000), the outcome would have been 275 to 263 in favor of Gore. According to our U.S. Constitution, each state has the right to decide how it will cast its electoral votes - either winner take all or divided proportionally. All but 2 states have decided to cast their votes in a winner take all system, and the two that could divide them (Maine and Nebraska), have not done so in a long time.

So there ya' go.

And to anyone who says that the citizens don't elect our president, don't fall for it. Yes we do, but they just don't understand how - or why.

Collapse -

won't that all change ?

by Oz_Media In reply to Here ya' go

IF and a VERY BIG IF, Colorado decides to split it's vote will it no longer be a 9 electoral votes? will other states follow?

Collapse -

Thanks guys ...

by jardinier In reply to Help !!!!!

Well you have more than satisfactorily unravelled this mystery for me.

I could say for sure that I have never met an average Australian who would have a clue as to how your presidential election system works.

No doubt SOME/MOST journalists and SOME/MOST politicians and SOME/MOST academics and SOME generally well informed people would know, but the vast majority of Australian citizens I'm sure are just as much in the dark as I was until it had been explained to me.

In case you are not familiar with the Australian system, it goes something like this.

All the country is divided into electoral divisions, known as "seats." The electoral boundaries are changed from time to time to ensure that each contains roughly the same number of citizens.

There is no separate vote for the Prime Minister, so we vote for the candidates offered in our own particular seat. However the choice of Political Party is selected by each individual primarily on his/her assessment of the leader of the party -- in this case John Howard representing the coalition of the "Liberal" and National parties (equivalent to your Republican Party), and Mark Latham representing the Labor Party (equivalent to your Democrat Party).

A big difference to the American system I think is that the candidate's personal wealth does not come into the equation, although the amount of money available for the campaign does.

Otherwise it's much the same -- the candidate who is most successful at convincing the electorate that his BS is better than that of his opponent, usually wins and become Prime Minister for another three years.

We do not have fixed terms of office -- the Prime Minister can call an election earlier than three years if he sees it to his advantage to do so -- and there is no limit to the number of terms a government/prime minister may stay in power.

I doubt very much if John Howard gives a s**t about what is best for Australia and Australians -- his campaign predictably was based primarily on lies and personal smears about the Labor contender, Mark Latham.

Because Latham announced during the campaign a large number of innovative policies that were quite distinct from Howard's policies, Howard squandered the very large budget surplus he had achieved by issuing catch-up polices to counter Latham's.

And guess what !! Just five days after being re-elected, Howard has announced that because of rising oil prices (and I cannot see the connection) he may have to plan for a deficit budget or drop some of his election promises.

But he wanted to get into the Guinness Book of Records, which he has pretty well done.

He has matched Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke in being elected for four consecutive terms, and come December he will have served as Prime Minister longer than Bob Hawke.

The record for the longest term in office of any Prime Minister is held by Bob Menzies, who founded the "Liberal" Party in 1949 and was Prime Minister for a term of 16 years.

Collapse -

No sweat mate

by Oz_Media In reply to Help !!!!!

First of all you ***** and argue with your fellowman for 3 1/2 years. Then you ***** and argue about the opposition for 6 months while detailing thier every move since childhood and call you fellowman everyname you can conjure up in an attempt to gain superiority.

Then you simply go and spend 2 minutes in a voting booth and making your vote.

Then you do it all over again for the next four years, much like washing your hair; 'lather, rinse, repeat!'

The election procsses in most other countries means, as I am sure you kow, you quietly leave work sometime on election day, go and vote, return to work. Nobody will ask how you voted or who you support, it doesn't matter to anyone, nobody cares as they are too busy living thier lives. The next day some people will say "REALLY? There was an election yesterday? Hmmm, who won? is that good? Oh well, who cares?"

Collapse -

Not so in Oz, my friend ...

by jardinier In reply to No sweat mate

Re your comment:
"The election process in most other countries means, as I am sure you kow, you quietly leave work sometime on election day, go and vote, return to work. Nobody will ask how you voted or who you support, it doesn't matter to anyone, nobody cares as they are too busy living thier lives. The next day some people will say "REALLY? There was an election yesterday? Hmmm, who won? is that good? Oh well, who cares?"

Australians are VERY POLITICALLY CONSCIOUS and follow EVERY MOVE of the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader continuously, as well as cabinet and shadow cabinet ministers.

And we TALK about politics. Our recent election campaign effectively commenced from the time Mark Latham was elected Opposition Leader almost a year ago.

As a newcomer to the scene, the public was interested to see what he would come up with.

Even though I live in the third safest Coalition seat in the country, almost everyone I talk to HATES Howard.

Labor supporters especially, but also the Greens (which are rapidly gaining strength in Australia) were dumbfounded when Howard won the election with a swing of 2 per cent.

The media is pretty much impartial and will run any story of interest whether it is pro or con the Government or the Opposition.

The Sydney Morning Herald made the remarkable announcement just before our election on October 9 that it would break from 170 years of tradition and NOT endorse any candidate.

Collapse -

But Jules the Media didn't mention

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Not so in Oz, my friend . ...

That the Tampa was approaching AU waters again but this time caring higher interest rates so it was again prevented from reaching mainland AU.

I really don't think Mr John Wilson Howard actually tells lies but more likely he BS so much he just looses touch with reality and believes his own BS. But he is an extremely proficient PM and has learned his political lessons well from his mentor Menzies if you have nothing constructive to say use scare tactics. This erection was increasing Interest Rates and Border Security.

With the last I'm at a loss for words as we have not had any so called "Boat People" since the last erection but within a week or so we will begin to see what his core erection promises actually where and what was just BS.

Currently I'm betting that the only people to benefit will be the politicians who will be awarded a massive pay raise {again} and all the other erection promises will be forgotten. Now that it appears that the Collation has complete control of both houses it just may be their undoing but in the meantime we will all suffer.

Col

Collapse -

The visual caused by a "typo"

by maxwell edison In reply to But Jules the Media didn' ...

.
You said, "This erection was increasing Interest Rates and Border Security."

Oooooooookay.

Thanks for the laugh, Colin.

Collapse -

I noticed that..

by maecuff In reply to The visual caused by a "t ...

And I must say, that must have been one **** of an erection.

Back to Community Forum
17 total posts (Page 1 of 2)   01 | 02   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums