"McCain's defeat divides Republicans"

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by fatty

Not that I have any business involving myself in American politics, but have you ever thought to confirm these things independently, preferably from primary sources? You may find your view of the world will change when you stop being spoonfed with information filtered through a source with an obvious agenda.

Here's something to get you started: a (rather depressingly) brief article from Obama's platform on hunting and sports shooting

You mean like Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, otherwise known to his friends as Joe the plumber.

Good post by the way Fatty.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

I have to ask... what is to be gained by this?

Nine points? I am not familiar with bowling rules.

[Quillan]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Strange that suddenly this argument is allowed this way, but was turned down when it aimed the other way around, four and eight years ago.

The argument wasn't turned down 8 years ago. Nobody said Bush had a clear mandate. In fact, the argument 8 years ago was that "Gore won the popular vote, he should be President!" Well, that's not how the system works. I don't agree with it, but that's how the system works. If 70% of the people voted for Obama, then you have a clear mandate. As it was, it was around 51% to 47%, which means nearly as many people (only 3-4 million difference if I'm not mistaken) don't feel he was the right choice.

Well, the election is over and the choice has been made. We'll see how he does. Personally, I think he is the wrong choice. I may be wrong. Ask me again in 4 years.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Strange that suddenly this argument is allowed this way, but was turned down when it aimed the other way around, four and eight years ago.

I certainly would not say that your voting system is en par with the intentions of your constitution. It can only be understood as a system designed like it is by reacting to the needs and circumstanbces of the world in which it was created. But these factors all have changed. A system where it is possible that a majority of voters vote for this candidate, but the other one wins, has some very serious flaws designed into it. such an outcome is nothing else but a total distortion of a democratic legitimiatio0n procedure.America should not allow itself anymore to afford this sub-standard voting system, and fundamentally change it (oh hear the traditionalists yelling...). It reminds of third world niveau, that simple, and is not adequate procedure for values and standards as formulated in the constitution. I mean, every four years the world is both wondering and laughing about it. The needs that influenced the design of the system, are no longer there. Nothing speaks against replacing it, then, without violating the spirit of the constitution and the country a single bit.

A quick history lesson on the American Electoral College:

The US Constitution was created by representatives from the thirteen new states, and organized by a handful who recognized that the current government - The Articles Of Confederation - weren't working. For the most part the realized they needed a stronger central government, but most of them also didn't want any such thing. But they had to make it work.

The reason the 'States' in 'The United States' are different from most countries' provinces is just that - the states were there first, and the 'United' part came second. The lower house of Congress - the 'House of Representatives' - was meant to represent the people in the new government. The upper house - the 'Senate' - was supposed to represent the States themselves, so they were not elected at all, but appointed by their respective state legislatures. This was changed by the 17th amendment in 1913; for what reason I don't know, but probably because the people started demanding it.

The whole point was to create a Federal system that would A) Give the central government the power to arbitrate disputes between the states, B) Give the central government the power to raise a military for defense of the whole, and C) Answer the foreign powers (at that time Britain, France and Russia) who refused to sign separate trade treaties with thirteen individual 'nations'. The President was supposed to be the decision-maker in those departments, and as such they really didn't envision him having too much power, or too much to do. So they also didn't believe the people would care too much who the President was or what he did, so long as it didn't interfere with their daily lives and business.

So they created the Electoral College, and gave the State legislatures the power to appoint Electors "....in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." It wasn't long before some of those State legislatures thought it would be a good idea to let the people nominate the Electors, and that brings us to where we are today, with people arguing about Popular versus Electoral Votes. In fact, way back in 1824, Andrew Jackson won both votes, but not by the specified margin, so, as the Constitution dictates, it was decided in the House of Representatives. By judicious campaigning in the House, John Quincy Adams managed to become the Sixth President. I don't know if there was a huge outcry about him "stealing the election", but it looks like that is certainly what happened.

Is it time to do away with the Electoral College? As usual I don't know that either. It truly is up to the people, and if that change does occur in my lifetime I'm sure I'll live with it.

[goldorak]

What is wrong with adopting a system where the voters vote directly for the candidates as is the case in France for (and only for) the presidential election ?
And of course partial results/exit polls would not be discussed until all polling stations closed (in all the states).
Wouldn't that be more "democratic" than the dual system you have now ?

[Quillan]

I had that question answered by a political science professor way back when: it allows the least populated states to have some say in the process. In the US, we have 100 senators (two for each state, so if Puerto Rico ever asks and is granted statehood it'll be 102) and 435 Representatives. The Reps are divided by the population ratios of the states. Each state has Electors equal to the total numbers of Senators and Representatives it has. The least a state can have is thus 3 electoral votes. If it was a strictly popular vote, a candidate who won the super-populated northeast and west coasts wouldn't even need to campaign in the midwest.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Quillan

I had that question answered by a political science professor way back when: it allows the least populated states to have some say in the process. In the US, we have 100 senators (two for each state, so if Puerto Rico ever asks and is granted statehood it'll be 102) and 435 Representatives. The Reps are divided by the population ratios of the states. Each state has Electors equal to the total numbers of Senators and Representatives it has. The least a state can have is thus 3 electoral votes. If it was a strictly popular vote, a candidate who won the super-populated northeast and west coasts wouldn't even need to campaign in the midwest.

I don't really agree with this assessment. If the president had "monarch type" power then yes, a representative system via electorial college would have sense. Every state has a say in who the next president will be.
But the situation is different, the us president doesn't have free reign, he needs approval of congress to wage war, to make peace, or to make international treaties etc... He can't have laws enacted without the approval of congress. So in a very practical sense the president is limited in his ability to exercise power.
And the men and women elected to congress are elected on a state by state basis.
So every state is represented in the legislative branch.
I honestly see nothing wrong with doing away with the electorial college system ONLY for the presidential election.

[Sailor Steve]

Good points Quillan. I'm not sure I totally agree, but I'm not a trained expert either.

@ goldorak: There's nothing wrong with wanting change, but major changes are deliberately made difficult in our system. First one house of Congress or the other would have to propose an amendment to the Constitution, or two-thirds of the state legislatures would have to propose it. Then it would have to be debated. Then it would have to be voted on in that house, and pass by a two-thirds margin. Then it would have to go through the same process in the other house, and pass by a two-thirds margin. Then it would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states before it could become law.

The original first two Amendments were not ratified by all the states, which is why we have 10 instead of 12 in the original Bill of Rights.

This is also true of the Equal Rights Amendment, guaranteed women equal treatment under the law. It was first proposed in 1923, and not passed by Congress until 1972. It was only ratified by 35 states, with 38 being the three-fourths required for it to become law.

Good luck getting an amendment that allows Arnold to be eligible for the office of President, or getting the Electoral College thrown out.

I'd like to see one repealing the 16th Amendment and doing away with the Federal Income Tax, but I don't think it's going to happen any time soon.

[MothBalls]

Originally Posted by goldorak

I don't really agree with this assessment. If the president had "monarch type" power then yes, a representative system via electorial college would have sense. Every state has a say in who the next president will be.
But the situation is different, the us president doesn't have free reign, he needs approval of congress to wage war, to make peace, or to make international treaties etc... He can't have laws enacted without the approval of congress. So in a very practical sense the president is limited in his ability to exercise power.
And the men and women elected to congress are elected on a state by state basis.
So every state is represented in the legislative branch.
I honestly see nothing wrong with doing away with the electorial college system ONLY for the presidential election.

Here that's referred to as "the system of checks and balances". In theroy it prevents any one branch of the government from becoming too powerful. (Just don't tell the DoD or the CIA, checks and balances don't apply to them. It inspired Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy)

There has been discussion about making some election procedural changes, but the only time everyone talks about it is right before the election. It won't come up again for another 3 years and 6 months.

One thing I do think needs to be changed, voting on Tuesday. It should be a one week process, 7 days, so everyone can fit voting into their schedule.

[JHuschke]

Originally Posted by August

What that says, I think, is that most of America remains as conservative as it ever was, and that voting in a candidate doesn't mean automatically mean accepting all of his political parties agenda.

Re the NRA Card Check this. (and get rid of that jeezly nazi sig)

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...ets_obama.html

I think the NRA is overdoing it some but there are some things to consider. Obamas denials are usually couched in terms like "not politically practicable" and "I just don't think we can get that done". That doesn't mean he wouldn't try it if he thought he could get away with it politically.

Wonder why they are attacking him in the first place? Many do not like him, plus he made a speech on the radio saying he will take down companies in Ohio and make the electricity prices skyrocket. Obama will raise taxes, on all of us. Anyway, Biden will be president soon. So I might as well forget about all that.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by MothBalls

One thing I do think needs to be changed, voting on Tuesday. It should be a one week process, 7 days, so everyone can fit voting into their schedule.

They have early voting. I went to our local county complex and voted almost two weeks before the election. Then I found out I could have also done it at the Student Union building at the local University.

[fenian]

First I am PROUD military veteran and btw a PROUD liberal. I am also white, male, 49 and a Proud voter of our next President. McCain if he was NOT the grandson and son of Admirals would have not a long career in the Naval Air Service bottom of the academy, near bottom of flight school and how many crashes prior to his final claim of glory "getting shot down"!....... Then what little respect I may have had for mim went away these last many months as he sold his soul to the far right flag draped holding a bible nut jobs.

But the one item that slipped by many in the "mainstream" media was a 2 hour event on C-Span showing a panel of Gold Star Mothers, retirees officer and senior enlisted along with other military family groups as our new first lady went to various military bases. opend the doors to local auditoriums and invited spouse and children in and then with little "politics" stated she and her husband feel that they are the true backbone of the foward service member is their family and then she say down and listened as they told their stories of bad housing, moves, lost household goods, difficulties in finding work, health care off post for disabled children, support, pay issues as the spouse is deployed.

Never have I seen a politician do that with a serious view they always want that "flight suit moment" but he was a person listening about daily concerns that do affect the deployed member. As a now civilian DoD employee let me tell you the phone lines were burning throughout MEDCOM as talk became action.

If he continues with that concern as mich for the service people he does have concern for as with the country then may he have another four more years.

[SteamWake]

Yea that whole POW thing... what a feint.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...n-account.html

[MothBalls]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

They have early voting. I went to our local county complex and voted almost two weeks before the election. Then I found out I could have also done it at the Student Union building at the local University.

Not all. Every state has different rules and procedures. In some states you have to have a valid excuse, notarized letter, etc.

More than half the states--31, to be exact--offer some sort of early voting.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismg...bsentearly.htm

I'd like to see one set of rules, same for everyone, across all states and have the locations available for the entire week. Not so many that it creates too much of a burden or expense, and of course more on election day, but enough [like some states already do] to make it an easier process for more people to participate.

[fenian]

So that excuses 5 aircraft lost by him, and do they still not show that great damage control movie at boot camp? You know where a certain pilot wet-started his aircraft possibly causing the worst aircraft fire since WWII. The USS Forrestal or as the SCPO who was showing us the film then called it the USS Forest Fire... While the only pilot uninjued flown out for "R&R" was later a POW then a Senator from Arizona. Strange that to my understanding those Naval records have never been fully released. But 168 plus men died that day.

BTW he was onboard that day.............. And I for one unless proven otherwise always believed my CPO's.