|
........are you going to bother to vote? There don't seem no point if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
|
I've lived in what I refer to as a "shaved monkey" constituency all my life, but still go out to vote.
Shaved Monkey Seat: A constituency where the incumbent party could let a shaved monkey in a suit become its candidate and still win the election.
There is more chance of the ghost of Jimmy Savile getting elected in my constituency than a Conservative Party candidate
====================================
Transvestites - Roberts in Disguise!
====================================
|
|
|
|
|
Besides politics, there appears to be a preference for shaved monkeys in many higher positions. So how do we get the monkeys to sign some kind of non-discrimination law?
|
|
|
|
|
Does the monkey really have to shave?
|
|
|
|
|
Only in Conservative safe seats
====================================
Transvestites - Roberts in Disguise!
====================================
|
|
|
|
|
There are many things on the ballots in addition to President, so yes, I shall be voting after work this evening.
BDF
I often make very large prints from unexposed film, and every one of them turns out to be a picture of myself as I once dreamed I would be.
-- BillWoodruff
|
|
|
|
|
TPFKAPB wrote: if you ask me.
We didn't.
If I ever offer an opinion about specific foreign politicians, candidates or elections... please shoot me.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
|
|
|
|
|
I know you redneck, gun toting redneck zealot will probably vote for that firetrucktard bag of daddy monies*, but still: you got my 5.
*) 
|
|
|
|
|
You know me too well! 
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt this is reassuring, but just in case: I am pretty certain your country did not make the wrong choice. 
|
|
|
|
|
I'm convinced that we made the wrong choice... if I wanted to live in Europe I would have moved there.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
|
|
|
|
|
They actually aired a radio programme today (Radio 1) where they asked British people if they would be voting and who they would be voting for. It was shocking how many people replied obviously believing they could vote in the American Election. I blame it on the amount of coverage it's getting over here. I hope 
|
|
|
|
|
TPFKAPB wrote: It was shocking how many people replied obviously believing they could vote in the American Election.
And yet only 17 people in the whole of Britain know they can vote for the police head bloke thing a week on Thursday.
Half of those standing for election don't even know about it.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
Shed Petition[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
I knew I could vote for it. I also knew I could stand for it too, which is frightening.
|
|
|
|
|
TPFKAPB wrote: I blame it on the amount of coverage it's getting over here.
I'd bet 99% of Americans could not name the UK's current PM. In fact, I'd bet 99% of Americans could not name the PM of any country.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
|
|
|
|
|
That is actually understandable though, considering the sheer geographic size and clout that America carries. I think if I was American I wouldn't give a sh*t who was the British PM either, in fact I would probably wonder why they needed a PM as they have a Queen.
|
|
|
|
|
This Electoral College system is entirely antiquated and is the sole reason for my vote here in California not amounting to spit.
But yes, I voted this morning. As Farang said, there's more to voting than the Presidential race.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
I always hear and read a lot of clamoring about the electoral college being antiquated yet I don't get it. Maybe the failure is that people think the U.S. is a democracy and it isn't, and it never was. It is a hybrid between a democracy and a republic in order to address the short-comings of each and highlight the strengths of both.
If I were to address the flaws in the electoral college, I would suggest, that instead of it be winner take all as it is in most states, that the vote be broken up by district. Then there would be no more battleground States and every State and every district would be important. Imagine, how some States feel because they just don't matter in an election. Or worse, imagine living in Florida and having the entire region shut down repeatedly during elections because of "Presidential Security".
|
|
|
|
|
I agree.
I live in CA, and my vote doesn't amount to spit, even though it has the #1 economy in the US, and Ohio's is 8th. yet because of population per capita, someone from Ohio's vote has more weight than mine.
If the presidential election were decided by popular vote, then all these factors wouldn't matter.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin Marois wrote: If the presidential election were decided by popular vote, then all these factors wouldn't matter.
Then candidates would concentrate even more heavily on densely populated regions, safely ignoring huge swaths of the country. It would make election corruption even more enticing in those areas. Moreover, if you've lived long enough, you know that what state has what influence changes drastically. A further analysis can show that many "contested" elections wouldn't have been so had the candidate done more in, and won, another state.
|
|
|
|
|
Possibly, but the flaw in the current system is that we're forced to leave it up to 'electors' to decide who's going to be president. It's a system designed in the beginning because the government thought you & I were to stupid to decide who should be president.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, it was a system designed to prevent corruption. Moreover, the electors are randomly chosen. They don't simply get together and decide who will be president regardless of what the vote was.
Kevin Marois wrote: It's a system designed in the beginning because the government thought you
Not true. Read the federalist papers and about Madison and the founding fathers. "the government" didn't think anything; the people created the government and did so understanding the very real flaws of direct democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin Marois wrote: It's a system designed in the beginning because the government thought you &
I were to stupid to decide who should be president.
No that is not why it is designed that way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Woodbury wrote: Then candidates would concentrate even more heavily on densely populated regions, safely ignoring huge swaths of the country. It would make election corruption even more enticing in those areas.
Ummm... since the number of electoral college votes each state gets depends entirely on population I don't see how it changes anything. It's the all or nothing BS that most states practice that is just plain wrong. I live in central Illinois and due to Chicago's sickening corruption and devotion to the Democratic party I am completely disenfranchised when it comes to my vote for POTUS.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
