anything you wanna say about US presidential election?

OREADback: actually i'm not a big fan of politics, so i myself wouldnt write any essay on politics in the first place. but assignment is already here...so i'm asking for all your help
you can write down anything you want to say about US presidential election. like...you dont trust those politicians and that their promises at the campaign are mostly empty. or maybe you think this 2-party thing leaves hardly enough place for a third party to survive. basically just anything, i simply want to know what concerns you the most after all, i'm always an outsider here

thanks for your time and wish you all well there

Ł Ą Ť Ę: Presidential election! it really is nothing the electoral college is presidential election where dose our vote come in?

davidk14: .

OREADback,

The following site will give you all the information you might need to understand the electoral college and why it is needed:

www.
archives.gov/federal-register/
electoral-college/about.html

.

chronology: Guys. Don't expect David to slamm the Electoral Collage. The System works well enough, but every State gets at least three Collage Voters, (who are chosen to stand anyway each State wants to choose them). The system therefore favours low population States, States with more Raccoons than people. Now Guys, which Party do you think the Raccoons, (sorry Low Population States like the Dakotas etc) vote for, yup, you got it, Republican. So do not expect change any time soon. The last President to be chosen by the Electoral Collage was George W Bush, over the Popular Vote. Ironically Mr Bill Clinton also profited from the Electoral Collage vote, like Mr Bush he was elected with a lesser popular vote.

davidk14: .

With the major population centers in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles which are all Demorcatic strongholds, presidential elections would be decided by these few cities. Perhaps Chorno needs to read a little more about the subject before making comments. If this eletorial system is so bad, I'm sure someone, anyone, would have tried to change it by now, or at least bring to the floor a bill to change it. Again, go to the web-site I posted and read up.

.

OREADback: thanks guy for mentioning electoral college. and i actually learned about that in my course.
maybe i've misled you all, but i was thinking about how you guys think about this system. obviously, david agrees that it's good or good so far. and i agree with him myself. but i didnt quite get it why robert commented like that? like you dont like this system?

and what makes you think that the system favor those low population states more? i think it's pretty fair when it comes to the vote coz it's decided according to the population of the states, isnt it?

OREADback: actually another friend just mentioned the ads when the candidates are running for the president. he thinks it too much. what do you guys think? are you for this all-over-the-world campaigning ad or you think it somehow annoying?

also, about the promises those candidates make. my friend called them liars for not actually putting them into practice. what you guys think of this "empty promises"? is it really that bad over there?

chronology: David, a quick lesson in English; 'the system works well enough', now how can you interpret that as me saying the system is bad?

As for getting rid of the Collage, no chance, you have as much chance as getting rid of the House of Lords in England. The problem is the old system of Collage and House of Lords is so entangled in Legal Requirements to abolish them it would take unprecedented circumstance for any U.S. or British Politicians to have the enthusiasm to reform either System. Most Americans do not see the basic flaw in the Collage system; it will always favour Right Wing solutions whenever they are called upon to judge disputed Election. However the 'Direct Democracy' system would also have drawbacks. Not the drawbacks David sees, i.e. the majority of American voters choosing their own Government, but drawbacks in emotionally driven, uninformed voters choosing expedient candidates in times of national turmoil.

Wampum6: Chrono -

In my opinion, your comments about the American Electoral College are laughable, and out of touch with the way it actually works, and, in fact, contradicted in your own words written in the last day or so. If you are going to comment on something, you should indicate that it is purely commentary, and shouldn't be be taken by anyone as fact, necessarily. You are entitled to that opinion, just not the blatant distortion of facts.

Outbackjack: Its a crooked corrupt two party dictatorship.

The U.S needs a proportional and preferential voting system.

oldtimeracer: There is a septic cleaning company here in my hometown. On the back of all of his septic trucks, he has painted "Hauling Political Promises". I guess you can't get any closer than that.

chronology: Wampam. Thanks for taking the trouble to read my Post and comment. Frankly am puzzled by your comment. The actual paperwork for reforming the Collage system of voting I understand to be a major and long drawn out procedure in American Political and Legal process. If I have got it wrong there, please correct me so other folks will not be misled.

Outbackjack: What do you reckon Chrono?

Time to get rid of the house of Lords eh?

A bunch of unelected pompous snobs!

chronology: Mr Outback. Maybe it would be progress of a sorts, but is it worth the endless debates and reading of speeches that would be needed? Like reforming the Collage system in America, seems like too much messing around to me.

Do you not think Jack, the House of Lords is a check on 'direct democracy'? like the Collage is in the States. As someone said, if British voters had their way, there would be no Welfare System, Hanging would be back on the Books, immigrants would be thrown out of the country, child molesters would be crucified in Public having privates ripped off. This is not my opinion Jack, this is what the Polls say.

Outbackjack: I find it sad that you seem to think that the house of Lords is some kind of check on direct democracy.

The whole world talks about the Westminister system yet blatantly ignores the fact that the house of lords is in effect a bunch of unelected out of touch snobs who dictate what laws get passed.

I believe that you are going way over the top by saying that it would be the end of the world if the people there were elected.

Its called a Senate and we have one in Canberra where its members are elected by a proportional/preferential system.Its not perfect but it keeps the major parties in check as decided by the voting choices of the people of Australia.

And guess what?

Its more of a democracy than Britain.

OREADback: well...i may sound silly but...can anybody explain to me in plain english...what's the House of Lords

Morsy: Presidential campaigns seem to last on average two long years and millions of dollars spent...........in that time and all the hooha that goes with it, it would definately be open for all sorts of corruption. Don't really get it at all.

chronology: Mr Outback. Yes you are correct, Australians are a more Democratic Society, their Government reflects their public. England is not Australia. The standard of education in England is the lowest in Europe. The English people are the most unorganised, impulsive and changeable in Europe, (they generally do not belong to Churches or Trade Unions etc). Look, this is not a put down it is a fact. What sort of Government would be 'Democratically Elected' in England. Some of the Surveys taken in England are surprising to say the least. Most people know who top soccer players are going to bed with, which Celebrity enjoys C%x@w*x, but they cannot tell you what NGO means, or what the Popes name is, (most of them have no idea who the Archbishop of Canterbury is).