US Presidential Election 2012

Destructo wrote:I had already learnt dat doe

this is why I'm trying to make it fun and accessible for all. D:

YOUR TEARING US APART!

Destructo wrote:

MikuHatsune wrote:I can't take you seriously then if you don't do research, this is why I don't want this thread open

this was supposed to be fun :T

Like zpectre said, religion and politics can't be fun, for one thing politics is a serious issue and can't be messed around with especially when were dealing with something like voting, hell it can be compared to something like deciding on the life of someone when you're on jury duty

It's a choice between a pile of shit, and a smellier pile of shit.

I'll go for the pile of shit that doesn't smell as bad. Sure, they're both shit but at least I have the choice in choosing the one that doesn't smell as bad.

I couldn't help but laugh at that, noble the ice breaker lol

MikuHatsune wrote:

Destructo wrote:

MikuHatsune wrote:I can't take you seriously then if you don't do research, this is why I don't want this thread open

this was supposed to be fun :T

Like zpectre said, religion and politics can't be fun, for one thing politics is a serious issue and can't be messed around with especially when were dealing with something like voting, hell it can be compared to something like deciding on the life of someone when you're on jury duty

It can be fun, but I understand where you're coming from.

NoblePhantasm wrote:I don't see how that makes any sort of sense. Only one of 'em is black.

either lick the black dog shit or the moldy white dog shit.

Spoiler:

Im taking advantage of my korean citezenship and getting da fuck outa hur

Zpektre wrote:Im taking advantage of my korean citezenship and getting da fuck outa hur

I wouldn't want to be near Korea when 8 million north Koreans pour through the DMZ

either that or stay here and face the 1 billion chinese when they ask for their money

Nah man we create a new country of AF

And noble as president

I'm goin with that Gary guy. Yea, I'm happy and all for a brotha to be president, but
he's really getting jerked around by the House. And dont get me started with republicans...Anyway this is another chance to make history...Have the first 3rd Party candidate to land in the Oval Office. and to be honest this pic sums up my views :

Wish Ron Paul was still in it

If I had the choice to elect my Head of State, it would be Obama but not because I am in favor of his propositions but because Mitt Romney, while not a very good politician, is a fantastic economist but I do not favor his socio-conservative views.

Sadly, I don't have the luxury of being able to elect my Head of State.

Romney.

Dealwithit.jpg

I'm in Canadia so I don't really give a damn.

but this election is fun to watch from the sidelines i'll tell you that much.

A question from a non US American

Is it possible to vote for a third party without wasting your vote? I know you vote a electoral delegate who votes for the president. But how is the parliament formed?

The US's form of "parliament"? That would be Congress, which is split up in two (Senate and House of Reps). As for voting for the 3rd Party without wasting your vote, I don't think you can.

But I feel like that's not what you're asking lol.

technically everyone wastes their vote anyway since most of the time the electoral college decides on who is president

lets say the 300 million or so americans voted and they all vote for obama, he gets popular vote, but if most of the electoral college votes for romney then its game over folks (some electors from the state have to vote for the candidate who won popular vote from said state, but not all states are like this)

im just pulling out random info here

"Two major parties have long dominated U.S. politics—Democrats and Republicans. Third parties are any other parties that challenge them. Every presidential election involves several third-party candidates. Most have few followers, and they rarely impact the popularity of major-party candidates. However, sometimes third-party candidates drain important votes from major candidates. In 2000, the Green Party’s Ralph Nader was credited with taking away critical votes from Democrat Al Gore in Florida. Gore lost Florida’s Electoral College votes, and some argue that the loss cost him the election."

pulled this article from yahoo

"The myth that the American people elect their own President is persistent, but undermined once you really begin to understand the full significance of the Electoral College. Each state is endowed with the right to determine its own method of choosing members of the Electoral College, and most of those electors are not just average Americans; they are established members of the two political parties. To put it another way, when you cast your vote what you actually voting for are the electors in the party of the candidate of your choice. With the ratification of the 12th Amendment, the Constitution was changed to allow these electors to vote separately for the Presidential nominee and the Vice-Presidential nominee.

With two exceptions, the winner of the popular vote in a state is awarded all electoral votes, regardless of the margin of victory. That means that whether a candidate wins by a million votes or just one single vote, he gets the entire share of electoral votes. Once all the electoral votes are counted, whoever wins a majority is elected President; again, regardless of the margin of victory in the overall national popular vote. If no candidate is capable of achieving this majority and instead is only ahead due to capturing a plurality of electoral votes, things get more complicated.

This bizarre system that certainly ranks as the second biggest mistake made by the founding fathers (allowing slavery to continue being the worst, of course) has not always worked perfectly. Prior to the 12th Amendment, it only took a handful of elections to reveal the extraordinary flaw in this system. The election of 1800 ended in a tie, meaning it was up to the members of the House of Representatives to finally agree on who would become President. Since then, there have been a number of elections that have not gone smoothly. In 1824 Andrew Jackson had won the popular vote with a plurality that was still managed to be a landslide over even his closest competitor. Since no candidate had won a majority of electoral votes, however, it was again up to House of Representatives who instead handed the Presidency to John Quincy Adams. The most egregious flaw in the Electoral College is that it so often has allowed the will of the people to be overridden by politicians. In 1876 Samuel Tilden won the popular vote but still lost to Rutherford B. Hayes. In 1888 Grover Cleveland won the hearts of the people, but lost the election anyway. And, of course, there is also the 2000 election when the will of the majority was not just destroyed by the Electoral College, but utterly ignored by Supreme Court justices who just so happened to have been appointed during the Vice-Presidential and Presidential terms of the father of the candidate who had been rejected by the American voters.

Overall, then, the Electoral College represents a distinctly undemocratic and hopeless outdated method of electing a leader. In fact, the Electoral College has the effect of making the American process of electing its chief executive perhaps the single most ridiculous in the modern world. And yet, there is an aspect of the Electoral College system that is ripe for manipulation that could bring about the viability of a third party in America. The way that the Electoral College is split among the states is by population. As a result, California alone has more electoral votes than the fourteen least populated states combined. In other words, even if a third party candidate never even got on the ballot in those fourteen states, but could pull off a win in California, the result would be greater than having won those fourteen states while losing California. To extend further, if a third party could succeed in siphoning away California, Texas, Florida, Ohio and Illinois and New York, it would have the effect of throwing the entire election into turmoil. Since the problem with a third party today is all about money and exposure, it would solve the first and force a confrontation with the second. The only way a third party candidate even has a chance is if it financed by someone using his own money. By focusing on just the five or six biggest states, with a concerted effort to win those and hope the rest comes along, the money issue becomes less overwhelming. If, as an example, a third party candidacy of Michael Bloomberg and Ron Paul used this template, with Bloomberg's money and Paul's ability to generate excitement among those sick of the indistinguishable front-runners in the GOP and Democratic Parties, there exists just the slightest possibility that they could do an end run around the mainstream American media's orchestrated and so far effective plan to stifle any fringe candidate who doesn't form policy to meet the desires of their advertisers.

The idea is not the dream of a third party President. That simply won't happen under present circumstances. But if a third party campaign could so successfully manipulate the flaws inherent in the Electoral College it just might be enough to result in two desirable consequences. One, it could lead to such far among the two prevailing parties that they would see the danger it presents to their stranglehold of the election system. And two, it might just be enough to force the television networks to open up the debate system and overall coverage to viable third parties in the future."

Destructo wrote:The US's form of "parliament"? That would be Congress, which is split up in two (Senate and House of Reps). As for voting for the 3rd Party without wasting your vote, I don't think you can.

But I feel like that's not what you're asking lol.

As stated by Zuly I think many people vote for the lesser of the two evils. the last election turnout was 56% with is really sad if half the citizens gave up on voting. It would be better if every vote actually has a weight to change the composition of the Congress. For instance you don't like both of them vote for a third candidate/party and punish the others. I think that way more people would vote. Of course a president without the majority would be pointless but if he had to cooperate with other parties that would force him to compromise.

^the only problem is that government controls the media, in almost all instances when ron paul was being such a hit with the people and almost winning majority of delegates in states(and in some instances winning most), the media totally blacked him out, theyre afraid of him, but of course if the people dont hear about him, they dont have to worry, if the media actually covered everything and told 100% of the truth we wouldnt be having this problem

Voter turnout actually increased in 2008 from 2004 lulz.

And as miku said, that's why the plurality system (or winner take all) and electoral collage gets a lot of flak nowadays.

stupid system is flawed ever since it was conceived, now russia....they got a good thing goin on where the people actually vote for the their president....however.....its easy to rig votes *cough*140%*cough*