![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Obligatory Merkin election commentary
Whoo, check this out - I like the "Past Elections" tab. I find it fascinating that some presidents (like Nixon in '72 - not only winning the support of every state bar one, but also winning most of those states by a ratio of 2:1 or more) have won so very decisively. It's also interesting how often the map flip-flops between 90% red and an equivalent amount of blue. Though, that said, it seems to have been mostly red since about '68 (save a 50/50 split in '76, electing Jimmy Carter who - the Simpsons tells us - was one of history's monsters, and then near half-and-half again for the Clinton administration).
I find the US voting system, at least at first glance, somewhat flawed. The logistics were clearly derived in the days when communicating across country was a nontrivial feat (elect a voter who gets in his horse-drawn carriage and travels to Washington in your stead), but even so it seem very poorly thought out. I can understand giving, say, Texas more votes because there are more people there, but then giving every single vote to whatever candidate the majority of those people select (as appears to happen, based on that BBC presentation) almost seems to defeat the object. Surely it would make more sense to split the state into 34 regions, or assign the votes as a proportion of the "popular vote" or whatever. Out of interest, has a president ever won on states despite losing on the actual (popular) votes cast?
Wait, never mind, I remember now - that happened last time. Duh.
This is the most thought I have put into anything political for about five years, NWO aside. What can I say? The pretty map speaks to me.
I find the US voting system, at least at first glance, somewhat flawed. The logistics were clearly derived in the days when communicating across country was a nontrivial feat (elect a voter who gets in his horse-drawn carriage and travels to Washington in your stead), but even so it seem very poorly thought out. I can understand giving, say, Texas more votes because there are more people there, but then giving every single vote to whatever candidate the majority of those people select (as appears to happen, based on that BBC presentation) almost seems to defeat the object. Surely it would make more sense to split the state into 34 regions, or assign the votes as a proportion of the "popular vote" or whatever. Out of interest, has a president ever won on states despite losing on the actual (popular) votes cast?
Wait, never mind, I remember now - that happened last time. Duh.
This is the most thought I have put into anything political for about five years, NWO aside. What can I say? The pretty map speaks to me.
As a fat scouser playing a Manc would say....
Re: As a fat scouser playing a Manc would say....
"democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" - Winston Churchill
no subject
IIRC some of the states have ammended their state constitutions so the electors have to spread their college votes based on the proportion of the popular vote. It isn't unknown for an electoral college voter to vote the "wrong" way although rare.
More detail than you can shake a stick at
no subject
Seriously, they acknowledge that Texas has more people in it, and accordingly make it more powerful, but then reduce it to a majority vote. Everyone's vote should be equal, but if you're a democrat live in texas you're basically screwed 34 times over. If that makes sense.
Beers, Steers And ... Electioneers
Re: Beers, Steers And ... Electioneers
no subject
I'm pro PR as well, but only really for STV, I hate list based systems as they favour organised parties and central control and remove the representative nature of our system. Hopefully we wouldn't end up with a system as broken as Isreal's
no subject
no subject
Represent!
I imagine a few people were silently hoping that we'd see a repeat of the last election (Bush losing popular vote but winning electoral vote), with the idea of bringing the electoral college under even more intense scrutiny than before. I certainly wouldn't mind it. Then again, at this point, I wouldn't mind seeing Eminem [censored by the Network] the White House while [censored by the Network].
And, of course, everybody else has their own opinion.
Re: Represent!
Secondly, how are things in England? This country fucking blows, and I hate with the fire of 1000 suns every person ruling it. I need to find a better one.
no subject
no subject
Re: Represent!
Re: Represent!
Re: Represent!
The results of the election and the reasons people voted seem to indicate you live in a very polarised country.
Is it really that way? Do you think the population of the US is at ease with itself?
Re: Represent!
no subject
Though, I don't know, maybe everyone else in the country that I don't know really is a stereotype.
Re: Represent!
The other problem is that Americans are too comfortable. We want people to act for us, think for us, and do for us. I can't tell you how many people love Bush's actions in Iraq "because of 9-11". I try to tell them that the two are completely unrelated, but these people are blinded by media and country music and this false sense of patriotism. There are quite a few who feel that patriotism means blasting the hell out of anyone who is different.
The reason you have met cool Americans, darling, is because IMO the Americans you would be meeting and conversing with are probably of the intellectual/student class. The population of twenty somethings here is really an underestimated group. Still, there's a vast majority of people who believe everything that they are spoonfed by the pretty picture boxes in their living rooms. In that way, we are no better than the Iraqi and Afghani people who believe us to be evil because the only thing pumped into them every day is anti-American programming on Al-jazeera.
Our politics are corrupted in a system that, as Andy pointed out, is archaic and flawed. We don't do anything to change it because we are, comparitive to our status as the world superpower, lazy and self-indulgent. I think we are too secure in our position, and we need to be knocked down a few pegs. There is no dearth of compassionate, vibrant, intelligent people here who have the means to change this world. The problem is, we are stuck in an icky system consumed by ignorance and greed.
Fie! Out damned spot! (When I get mad, I get Shakespearean...sorry!)
Re: Represent!
As for the archaic and flawed nature of the US electoral system, I read a US university paper not so long ago, regarding suggestions on change, and also read the "counter-arguments" against it. The paper was well thought through and would give more meaning to the individual votes cast, but the retorts were really very rabid and furious, saying that it was "un-american" and "an insult to the founding fathers' ideals".
Archaic and flawed are here to stay, it seems. We gave up on the Whigs a century ago - now to get rid of the Tories...
Re: Represent!
Re: Represent!
Re: Represent!
Re: Represent!
Re: Represent!
Re: Represent!
Re: Represent!
Re: Represent!