Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

American elections 2004

Discussion in 'The Members Lounge' started by Ricky, Jul 12, 2004.

  1. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    6
    via TanksinWW2
    Where do you come up with this stuff? In the founding fathers day, everyone lived in the rural areas. the electoral college was to acocunt for 19th century communications and give the small states some chance to compete politically with the large states.
     
  2. Ricky

    Ricky Active Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,716
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Just a couple of points:

    Surely States with more people in should have more power - I always though that was the point of 'democracy'.

    Roel - good essay! Tell your friend he should be a columist...
    Either written by somebody with a dry sense of humour, or this is a translation! :grin:
     
  3. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Well I could tell him be he didn't write it. A certain Charles Reese did, and I don't know any Charles Reeses. He just got it from somewhere, presumably the internet, and sent it to me via email. A long time ago.

    I don't know anything that would translate to "Scarlet fish". Scharlaken vis? Rote Fisch? Poisson rouge? Anyone?
     
  4. Ricky

    Ricky Active Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,716
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I heard on the radio this morning that Kerry has probably lost, but it will take them around a week to count all the votes in Ohio!

    The phantom strikes again...

    btw - I assumed 'Scarlet Fish' was a referance to 'Red Herring' (ie: a distraction).
    This kind of thing could well be translated as it has been by somebody who is not 100% on their English idioms.
     
  5. Ricky

    Ricky Active Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,716
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Just to clarify in my mind how the American system works -

    Who ever gets most votes in a state wins that state, and thereby gains all the 'electorial college' votes from that state, regardless of how much - or how little - they won by.

    Is this correct?
     
  6. Ricky

    Ricky Active Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,716
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Going back to earlier comments on the Electoral College system:

    My big problem is that it allows people to win even though they gained less actual votes than their opponent.
    For example, Bush vs. Gore:
    Bush: 271 Electoral College votes, 50,456,002 popular votes
    Gore: 266 Electoral College votes, 50,999,897 popular votes
    (source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/a ... efault.stm )

    I know no electoral system is perfect, but surely the point is that he who gets most votes wins?

    To my mind, it would be fairer to award the Electoral College votes based on the proportion of votes a candidate wins in a State.
    For example, Texas, Bush vs. Kerry:
    Texas has 34 Electoral College votes.

    Bush: 4,458,711 votes (61.2%)
    Kerry: 2,786,016 votes (38.3%)

    The Republicans still ‘win’ the State, but Bush gets 21 Electoral College votes, and Kerry gets 13.
    This would be a much fairer system, IMHO.
     
  7. Notmi

    Notmi New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Suomi Finland Perkele
    via TanksinWW2
  8. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes, I too find this system very strange. By allocating all electoral votes to one president, a certain percentage of votes is simply "lost"; those who have not voted for the winner of the state might as well not have voted at all. It doesn't sound like an encouragement to see your state estimated as a "Bush" or a "Kerry" state; you know your vote to the opposite won't matter. Only if it's hanging in the balance (like in North Carolina), which means that an even greater share of votes will eventally have been for nothing.
     
  9. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    6
    via TanksinWW2
    The individual states decide this. IIRC only Maine and Oklahoma distribute their electoral vote in proportion to the popular vote.

    Again one of the main reasons for the Electoral College system was an attempt to give the less populous states some chance of influencing things.
     
  10. Notmi

    Notmi New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Suomi Finland Perkele
    via TanksinWW2
    Found a nice picture :D
     
  11. Ricky

    Ricky Active Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,716
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Again, a quick *bump* as the 'Electoral College' has been mentioned elsewhere. See above.

    Feel free to debate away! :D
     
  12. David.W

    David.W Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    Devon. England
    via TanksinWW2
    Ooooooooooooooh this thread is soooooooooo last year! :wink: :grin:
     

Share This Page