VOTE

[Hofstadter]

Just a friendly reminder since I just barely miss the cut off age by a few months.

Maybe this is a cheeky question, but who are you voting for and why?

[redcloud]

Oregon voting is all done via mail-in/drop off ballots. I sat down with my ballot this morning and filled it in. On my way to watch the Browns game tomorrow I'm going to drop my ballot off at the Elections Office.

Big election here in Oregon. Not just the obvious Presidential vote but also voting for congress, Portland mayor etc. and several local tax bonds and measures (including the legalization of marijuana) are on our ballot.

[Hofstadter]

(including the legalization of marijuana)

I'm well aware. Just out of curiosity, what does support for it feel like in Portland? Statewide? Has organization of the movement in support of it been good? That was a major problem here in California a few years ago that definitely contributed to the proposition not passing. What has the movement in support been like - have they taken a pretty rational, well educated route in campaigning for it? When it comes down to it, do you think it will pass? I feel like if any state is going to do it, Oregon is a great bet. Washington is also voting on a similar proposal, as is one southern state I believe. This could easily be another domino (and a pretty important one at that) to fall leading to the end of prohibition.

[redcloud]

(including the legalization of marijuana)

I'm well aware. Just out of curiosity, what does support for it feel like in Portland?

I think it is only a matter of time before it is made legal. That said, I'm not sure if it will pass this time around. Outside of Portland and Eugene, which are both very liberal and progressive the rest of the state is quite poor, rural and conservative. As over 60% of the state population reside in Portland and Eugene these two cities sway Oregon Democratic. Four years ago medical marijuana passed but two years ago dispensaries didn't. So, the legalization for personal use may not win this time around. But, I do think it's not too far in the distant future when the USA will end its prohibition on marijuana. The more liberal states will start the movement and the rest will soon follow.

Who knows...the poor, conservative farmers in the state may all vote for it as they will have a new crop to grow. We'll see what happens in Oregon on Tuesday.

[Dreamweapon]

Maybe it's just me, but I've always found it hard to understand the sheer fervour that seems to envelop US politics. It's a whole world away from the UK. The way people really gather at these rallies and have so much hope in their politicians as well as almost treating them as if they were film stars. I'm genuinely not being derogatory here. It's just somethinig I've noticed. We just seem to have a mentality here of do we go with a 'better the devil you know' approach and then feel let down once again whoever wins the election. Your guys seem to care far more about their electorate too.

[spzretent]

Maybe it's just me, but I've always found it hard to understand the sheer fervour that seems to envelop US politics. .

Its sickening. An incredible amounts of money pissed away with tv ads, internet ads, robo calling and junk mail. Now we have these "super pacs" raising their own money and pissing that away. Never has this country been more polarized. I have blocked any friends who constantly post political messages on FB. So many people are so happy when the election is finally over so we dont have to see any more ads.
I can think of way better places to spend the gazillion dollars wasted on our elections.

[semisynthetic]

I had quite enough of this election some time ago! I agree that the enormous waste is regrettable. But, what is truly being bought - Enormous Power! Power which, when used AGAINST the citizenry is a hell of a lot more dangerous AND annoying than waiting for the cable guy or the telephone company.

I dislike centralized government immensely; others seem to need it, want it, crave it, and will rationalize the overreach of a few "experts" to interfere with almost every aspect of our lives. I won't. There has been a TERRIBLE change in this country over the last few decades; too many times, those who disagree with one another simply ignore them. Once upon a time, there was more healthy debate; Alan is absolutely right about the Polarization of America, and it is something that we can change, one person at a time. I have lived a fun-filled life; worked hard, too; and I do NOT like being dictated to by some technocrat with a stamp and an ink pad who cannot restrain the urge to tell YOU and ME what to do.

The media have essentially resigned from journalism. It was interesting to see some of the "old guard" of liberal journalists begin to turn on the current administration; and frighteningly Orwellian watching others simply parrot what they were told by a fumbling Whitehouse, instead of asking the tough questions. I was terribly disappointed by the manner Benghazi, Libya was handled, or, more appropriately, mishandled. Nanny Lies, and the media is at the teet of the government for the main commodity, the Power they hope to buy and "redistribute". I wonder why CBS (finally) released cutting-room floor tape of
questions about Libya, and what the REAL story was; Guilt? I don't know, but matters of import, such as "did the POTUS
stand up in front of the People and lie for 2 weeks plus"? need asking. Terribly. Was the narrative of the campaign (ergo, keep Power) kept in check at any cost? Did these people never hear of Richard M. Nixon? His coverup was much worse than the crime, but no one died.

Well, I voted this morning.

No matter WHAT happens now, I still feel like an American. Not a Subjugant; nor a drone-bee.
But, a Citizen; who can, in theory, take a look at the job the politicians have done and keep them in office, or let them go.


Have a GREAT WEEK.

[spzretent]

Well, I voted this morning.

No matter WHAT happens now, I still feel like an American. Not a Subjugant; nor a drone-bee.
But, a Citizen; who can, in theory, take a look at the job the politicians have done and keep them in office, or let them go.


Have a GREAT WEEK.

Yep. So did I. 2+ hour wait. Good to see so many neighbors out in line.

[semisynthetic]

Since I live in the middle of "NowHere", there was no line; but there were Donuts and coffee; (I don't like coffee),
so I voted, said hello to "#28", the next person who drove up to vote, (I was #27).

I do wish the winner of the Presidency, in particular, something much greater than just "luck". THAT ALONE, with this mess, is insufficient. The problems are growing and the list would be long. Goodwill alone can go a long way; but an adroit and determined leader is necessary now more than ever. Even so, somehow, I still remain Optimistic.

HAVE A GREAT WEEK!

[redcloud]

I can think of way better places to spend the gazillion dollars wasted on our elections.

Imagine if it went to schools and the difference it might make!

[redcloud]

Oregon is completely on postal ballot and I love it! About 2-4 weeks before the election we receive a voters booklet with all the candidates in local and national elections plus all the various measures and issues as a state and city that we are voting on. The booklet itself is pretty thick and has arguments in favor/against on every measure (paid for by those in support or against). The booklet is only there as a final reference because by the time most get their ballot they have already made their minds up on candidates and issues. I like being able to leisurely sit down with a cup of coffee and vote in my own house. I then leisurely put it in an envelope, signed the back and then dropped it off at the Elections office this past Sunday afternoon. People have until 8pm PST tonight to drop their ballots off and the entire block around the Elections Office has a huge team of volunteers with large boxes allowing people to pull up and drop off on their way home from work. There are also large metal post box style ballot drop offs on many street corners that people can access.

Very easy and I'm surprised the rest of the country has not caught on to this.

[jadams501]

Watching these election results is too nerve-wracking! I need a drink.

[spzretent]

I must admit it was a bizarrely fantastic communal feeling waiting in line today. I'm hearing this was happening all over the country. Every election I swear i'm going absentee ballot and never get around to it.
Just finished my first bottle of wine and its not even 10pm.

[redcloud]

Well...at 8:17 Pacific Time CNN called it. They were waiting for Nevada to come in and once it did it was mathematically out of reach for Romney.

Have to admit, I expected it to be much closer than this. Once again the north east, the industrial union stronghold of the northern midwest, and the west coast all go blue. The middle and the south (and Texas) go red. Definitely divided but also predictable. Where the majority of people live (the large cities) we are still clearly Democrats. It seems obvious to me but I think the liberal, progressive city I live in would feel like a different country to somebody from the conservative, religious bible belt of the south.

Iowa always surprises me....a farm state that sits on the edge of a red sea leans blue, again.

[semisynthetic]

OK.
The POTUS was re-elected.
Congratulations, Mr. President; now, I hope, once again for the Citizenry, that you earn your salary.

A shrewd Politician; many clever Politicians have gained Power.

They are judged by History with what they actually DO with it.

We shall see, shan't we?

[Hofstadter]

Watching these election results is too nerve-wracking! I need a drink.

Really? I feel like there was never really a chance for Romney to win - if you took

Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvannia, Arizona, and North Carolina

to be the "undecided states" in the election, you could sorta see that there was almost no way to cut the cookie where Romney wins... no matter what it was going to have to be a major underdog performance.

I was doing this the other day, trying to see if there was any way Romney could win.

All the fully red states would put Romney at 191. Let’s just throw him North Carolina and Florida, the swing states where by far he had the best chance of winning. He is now at 235, meaning he needs 35 votes to get to 270. It’s an uphill battle from here.

Let’s just say Romney wins Virginia, which out of the remaining swing states he probably had the greatest chance of winning.

He is now at 248 – he needs 22 more.

How can he get these?

These are what we have left after giving Romney pretty much all the reasonable states for him to win.

New Hampshire – 4
Nevada – 6
Iowa – 6
Colorado – 9
Wisconsin – 10
Michigan – 16
Ohio – 18
Pennsylvania – 20

Michigan is pretty much off the board because of the auto-industries come back, and Nevada's off because of the Latino population.

So now we have

New Hampshire – 4
Iowa – 6
Colorado – 9
Wisconsin – 10
Ohio – 18
Pennsylvania – 20

Romney needs to somehow put together 22 votes out of these guys. Even if he won NH IA and CO, he would still only be at 19. This means that it is essentially mandatory for him to win one of those big three.

Wisconsin – 10
Ohio – 18
Pennsylvania – 20

It would be essentially impossible for him to win the election without winning at least one of these three. Let's say he wins Wisconsin but not the other two - he would still have to win all THREE of New Hampshire, Iowa, and Colorado, which was HIGHLY unlikely.

So that means it comes down to Ohio and Pennsylvania. If Obama could win those two, the election would pretty much be sealed.

Both those states would be LONG shots for Romney this election... not impossible, but very difficult - and the problem is that even if he won either of them, he would still have to pull of a large number of upsets/tossups (all of Virginia, Florida, North Carolina + at least a few of the sub-10 elector tossups) - the probability of all this happening had to be super low.

I should amend what I said at the start of this post to be - didn't it seem like there were far far FAR more ways to cut the cookie where Obama wins than where Romney wins?

Sorry, even though the election is over already, I just like doing this stuff and did some of this thinking last week, felt like sharing now that I know Obama has won and I won't come off like a fool predicting that and being wrong!

[Hofstadter]

They are judged by History with what they actually DO with it.

We shall see, shan't we?

What I'm hoping is that we see "the real Obama" - people always say "where's the real Romney" - well I feel like we haven't seen the real Obama these past four years, for obvious, political reasons - for instance, do you believe for a second that his views on equal rights for all sexualities were "evolving?" Of course not! Maybe his views on the political risk/value of SAYING his real views had evolved, but c'mon, we all know there's no way Obama hasn't always been for equal rights. What I'm hoping is that now that he doesn't have to worry about being re-elected, the President that was voted for four years ago finally comes out and does all the things that he should be doing. I would bet there are so many things that he has wanted to but had to restrain himself for political reasons... I hope this election means those restraints are gone. Sure it will be difficult with a Republican House but still. I want the principled, passionate, active man that was elected four years ago to replace this dood who seems to have had the life sucked out of him by the office, and I want the full-on progressive, liberal leader to finally surface.

[redcloud]

OK.
The POTUS was re-elected.
Congratulations, Mr. President; now, I hope, once again for the Citizenry, that you earn your salary.

A shrewd Politician; many clever Politicians have gained Power.

They are judged by History with what they actually DO with it.

We shall see, shan't we?

Blue/Red, Democrat/Republican, Liberal/Conservative....I think we all have one thing we share - we would all rather see America succeed than Obama fail. Right? I hope so.

I too am optimistic but I am also realistic. There is a lot that needs doing to steer this ship in the right direction but in my opinion tonight was a step forward.

[redcloud]

Marijuana legalization in Washington state passed but it's currently not passing in Oregon. I think it was also on Colorado's ballot.

[Hofstadter]

Marijuana legalization in Washington state passed but it's currently not passing in Oregon. I think it was also on Colorado's ballot.

Passing in Colorado. MA passed medical. Unsure about Arkansas+medical. Either way, I think it doesn't even matter anywhere else at this point. Now that there is just one state with it legalized, there almost has to be a direct battle re: federalism stuff soon. I can't imagine there not being a supreme court case within a year of the Washington legislature finishing up deciding how to tax it. A supreme court case could lead to a nationwide end of prohibition... or extend it even more... or just leave it to individual states I guess, but I imagine it being one of the two first things.

As much as I am happy about that, the real thing to be happy about is marriage equality. Passing in Maine and Maryland. The ban in (Minnesota?) is being rejected. I believe the first openly LGBTQ Senator has been elected in Wisconsin. Good stuff.

[redcloud]

Arkansas voted no.

Medical passed in Oregon last election. But, dispensaries were voted against. The full on legalization though is still a few years away in Oregon. But, with Washington voting yes means it's only a matter of time before Oregon follows. Similar populations between the states but Seattle/Tacoma/Olympia and Spokane and Vancouver, WA are all decent sized cities that will propel the state. Oregon has Portland and Eugene that tip the state but not enough on this particular issue.

All good stuff with marriage. These issues highlight the country leaning more and more progressive while the Republican party seems completely out of touch.

[jadams501]

Congrats to all of you who are cheered by this decisive victory! I feel that there are important truths often ignored by Democrats, but hope that those nuances can be explored with mutual respect rather than the bitter discord of recent years.

I often struggle to be optimistic, but do hope for the best.

[johnnyboy]

I must admit to not really understanding American politics, especially with how the elections work, house of representatives and so on, college votes? It may be simple but comes across as a head mangler to us Brits.....well, maybe just me anyway. The sheer 'showbiz' of it all, the campaigning and rallies and celeb endorsements, and gushing sickly sweet adverts and so on. It's bizarre yet at the same time it does feel a hell of a lot more glamorous than our own downbeat version over here with all the pessimism and general air of yet another suit wearing a red or blue (or yellow) tie telling us more crap.

I've had Hunter S Thompsons "Fear & Loathing On The Campaign Trail" on my bookshelf for years but have never read more than a few pages because I get the impression the ins and outs will be lost on me.......though I should just enjoy it for the Gonzo ride and his wordplay.

So, Obama rules again. From over here that's very good news, so is it a congrats and a big well done to America? I get the impression he's not done amazingly well the past 4 years but he's much better than the right wing alternative and all that entails.

Enjoy your day America. Will Sgt Brody ultimately ruin it............(Homeland is real right?)

[Dreamweapon]

I REALLY hope yo guys in the US get a positive 4 years out of this election. Saw a brief snippet on BBC news today that showed Romney even in defeat pledging to work with Obama for the good of the country.

[moop]

I REALLY hope yo guys in the US get a positive 4 years out of this election. Saw a brief snippet on BBC news today that showed Romney even in defeat pledging to work with Obama for the good of the country.

aye, I'm really relieved to hear the result and hope it translates into some real improvements for you guys.

[spzretent]

I REALLY hope yo guys in the US get a positive 4 years out of this election. Saw a brief snippet on BBC news today that showed Romney even in defeat pledging to work with Obama for the good of the country.

That was a gracious concession speech. Lets hope Washington decides to work together instead of the same old bs that happened the last two years after the republicans won Ted Kennedy's seat in Mass.
What we have is a democratic president, a democratic Senate and a republican House Of Representatives. This is a recipe for gridlock again.
Every election, after the republicans lose(and thats 3 out of 4 because they stole at least one), they pledge to work together and then dont. They make the american public, whom elected them, sweat with these "financial cliffs" and agree at the last possible moment.
Sorry if I am a bit cynical but this is what I have learned to expect from the current Republicans in office.
And then you have that asshole Donald Trump. Who called the Obama win A Travesty! A Sham! We need to start a revolution! The whole world is laughing at us! That every American being able to cast a vote, and not vote for "his" guy is the end of democracy.
All this just to stay in the headlines. What a douchebag.

From what I can see, the whole world wants to give us a gigantic high five! Except Pakistan.

[Laz69]

This maybe old, but i only saw this for the first time today...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4

[Shinesalight]

It was lovely waking up this morning to find that Obama had won. If only our country could have voted in a more left of centre government in the last election too (though, saying that, the political parties in this country are all becoming as bad as each other to be honest). Now, despite being up to season 6 of the West Wing, I really struggle with US politics and how it all works. For instance:-

* some reports say Obama won by a considerable margin, though it appears he only won just over 50% of the total vote? I realise this has something to do with the US's completely strange, unfathomable (and, according to some news channels over here, out of date and unfair) voting system involving electoral colleges?!

* even taking the whole electoral college voting system into account, how come Obama's 303 vs 206 victory is not reflected in the number of seats held in government (the senate?)?

* why does it always seem that Florida are the last to announce their result?

* am I right in saying that in spite of spending approx £2bn between the two parties, that nothing has really changed politically speaking? i.e. Obama's still in charge but won't be able to get any groundbreaking legislation passed because of the Republican controlled House of Representatives (this I kind of know about as they go on a lot about this in the West Wing!)

* I know this is really stereotypical but, having watched quite a bit of coverage of your election, is it really a case that the majority of Republicans are either farmers, religious lunatics, rich, male, old, white or a mixture of all of these?!

[runcible]

* I know this is really stereotypical but, having watched quite a bit of coverage of your election, is it really a case that the majority of Republicans are either farmers, religious lunatics, rich, male, old, white or a mixture of all of these?!

I find American politics very confusing beyond the 2 main parties at elections. All the congress, representatives and senate stuff is baffling.

[sunray]

The sheer 'showbiz' of it all, the campaigning and rallies and celeb endorsements, and gushing sickly sweet adverts and so on. It's bizarre yet at the same time it does feel a hell of a lot more glamorous than our own downbeat version over here with all the pessimism and general air of yet another suit wearing a red or blue (or yellow) tie telling us more crap.

Perhaps we're just more realistic and know we're being lied to repeatedly.

I find American politics very confusing beyond the 2 main parties at elections. All the congress, representatives and senate stuff is baffling.

I always thought it was like the House of Commons and House of Lords?

[Shinesalight]

Brilliant explanation on the Channel 4 news as to why the Republicans couldn't manage to defeat Obama when the US is in one of the worst economic downturns in decades.

"They're (the Republican Party) simply running out of angry, white male voters"

[Hofstadter]

I just spent an hour writing a post explaining our Congress and the Electoral College and then it all got deleted when I was trying to preview it. Fuck. I will try to re-write it tonight.

JUST KIDDING RECOVERED IT WOO

[Hofstadter]

I find American politics very confusing beyond the 2 main parties at elections. All the congress, representatives and senate stuff is baffling.

I always thought it was like the House of Commons and House of Lords?

Not really, because I have always been under the impression that the House of Lords has very little power, mostly just symbolic - I could be wrong though.

The Senate and the House of Representatives both have roughly equal power.

The Senate has 100 seats, two for every state. Each senator serves a 6 year term, and can be re-elected indefinitely. Senate elections occur every two years though because all the seats' terms are staggered - i.e. 33 seats are up for election every two years, while the other 67 remain the same. Each senator is elected on a statewide basis, so they are sort of a big deal. Because of the long terms, Senators often serve to very old ages and become titans of our political world. Think Ted Kennedy recently, or Henry Clay and Stephen Douglas in the previous century (although you probably don't know those names).

The House has 435 seats. Each seat corresponds to one of 435 districts across the country. Essentially, the country is divided into 435 districts of equal population (note, the shape of the district does not have to be regular - as such, when the district lines are redrawn after the census every 10 years to account for the changes in population, people can draw the district lines such that they play into one party's favor - this is called gerrymandering, more on that later if you are interested). California for instances is divided up into 53 districts because it has a large population - states with small populations might only have one district or two. Each district individually elects its own representative to the House of Representatives. Even though "Congress" refers to both the Senate and the House, We usually call that representative our "congressman" because he/she doesn't have a fancy title like Senator. The house of representatives grows when new states are added.

The entire House is subject to election every two years. So yeah, your congressman is like your locally elected representative serving at a national level.

The Senate and the House have roughly equal power - for something (a Bill) to become law, it must be passed by both houses of the Congress and then be signed by the President into law - the president can choose to veto it though, and not sign it - in this scenario, the Congress can override the President's veto if a 2/3rds vote can be achieved.

Legislation can and does originate in both houses. Right now, Republicans are in control of the House but Democrats in control of the Senate.

Interestingly, the Vice President's ONLY actual duty, as ascribed to him by the constitution, is to serve as a tie-breaker if the senate votes 50-50 on anything.

* some reports say Obama won by a considerable margin, though it appears he only won just over 50% of the total vote? I realise this has something to do with the US's completely strange, unfathomable (and, according to some news channels over here, out of date and unfair) voting system involving electoral colleges?!

* even taking the whole electoral college voting system into account, how come Obama's 303 vs 206 victory is not reflected in the number of seats held in government (the senate?)?

Now, for the big doozy - the electoral college. This is what is confusing if you don't know it already.

The electoral college is THE ONLY THING that determines our President... it is not the election we just had yesterday, but when the electoral college meets to cast its ballots in December. Each state gets a set number of seats in the electoral college - this number is equal to the total number or representatives in congress (i.e. 2 for the senate + the proportional representation in the house) - this means that California has 55 electoral votes and that there are 538 total electoral votes. To become President, a simple majority in the electoral college is needed to win - so these days, it's 270 votes. A plurality (i.e. If I were to win 268, another candidate 267, and another candidate 3) would not be enough - in this case or in the case of a tie, shit gets weird but I won't go over that yet.

So who are these mysterious "electors"? The only thing the Constitution says is that they are to be appointed by the state legislatures (not sure if you know, but our country is based on a system of Federalism - each state was originally sort of like its own country, and really still is - that's why we are in the constitution these United States not the United States. Originally, the point of the electoral college was to have smart people coming together to figure out who should be our President, a role that initially was not supposed to have very much power. Originally, the state legislatures would just appoint the states' members of congress to be the electors. All these people would come together, discuss who would be best to lead our country, and choose who it should be. Campaigning was strictly looked down upon. It was said (by maybe John Quincy Adams?) that he who sought the office was not worthy of it... very different these days eh? There was no such thing as parties for the beginning of our nation's history!

Quickly though, the question of how the electors were to be determined shifted to the idea of putting it to the people. Instead of just sort of being virtual representations of the people, each state decided that instead of just having the (elected) legislature appoint random people to be electors, they would have the state vote - whichever candidate won the statewide vote, they would just appoint electors who would all vote for that candidate. This shift crystallized in 1824/28 with Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and the "Corrupt Bargain"... look it up if you are interested. Now, when you vote for president, you are actually voting for a set of electors who have pledged themself to that candidate.

So yeah, instead of the electoral college discussing and then casting their votes for who would be president, it became electors just voting for whoever won their state.

Now, here are the two kickers: 1) there is nothing that says an elector has to vote according to how the state voted. This means that you could have a "faithless" elector, somebody who promised to vote for one candidate and then either abstains or votes for the other. This has never played a significant role in an election though.

2) You can win the popular vote without winning the electoral college, and thus, the presidency. This is possible because of the fact that for some reason, most states stuck to a "winner take all" approach to their electoral votes. For instance, you could have a huge victory in lots of smaller states and then in states with tons of electoral votes just lose by thousands of votes - you would be wracking up actual votes and building on that because whenever you win a state, you would win many by many more votes than when your opponent wins a state, but your opponent would be racking up ELECTORAL votes because even if he won a state by just 1 vote, he could still win a full 55 electoral votes if that was in Cali.

This has played a significant role in an election - Al Gore won the popular vote and lost the presidential election to Bush (I mean actually he probably won the electoral college too b/c of the Shenanigans in Florida, but that's a whole nother story).

People had been complaining about the electoral college for years, claiming it was stupid and all that. People felt that there just needed to be one election where everything went wrong with it and finally change would come... well that happened, and sure there was uproar, but... for some reason change didn't come.

The simple ideas to fix it are the following:

1) each state divvies up its electors proportionally according to the state wide vote

2) each state appointt its electors based on which candidate gets the most votes in each congressional district (remember those from earlier)?

3) Have states pledge to appoint their electors according to whoever wins the nationwide popular vote - if this one happens, then we would start having 538-0 victories!

4) get rid of the electoral college entirely


Oh, and as for why the electoral college doesn't reflect our congress - again, it's because of that winner take all system.

There are some aguments against revising the system, but I won't go into those. Hope all this has been helpful for you to understand our whacky system.

[Hofstadter]

Hopefully that all makes sense/makes it clearer than it was for you earlier. Ask questions and I will try to clarify. I could also talk about some of the weird things like "gerrymandering" or early electoral college stuff, which is cool just because our country was very different then.

[spzretent]

Florida? Getting wrong three elections in a row. Remember Florida 2000 . Bush didn't win the popular vote or the electoral vote. He won a Supreme Court case.
Whats killing the republicans is their nominees. What sank Romney was the whole auto bailout/let Detroit go bankrupt. The whole rustbelt(minus Indiana) voted for Obama. The big loss for Romney was Ohio.
That and Republicans are woefully out of touch with:
Women
Minorities
Young People

[redcloud]

* I know this is really stereotypical but, having watched quite a bit of coverage of your election, is it really a case that the majority of Republicans are either farmers, religious lunatics, rich, male, old, white or a mixture of all of these?!

Apparently 72% of people who voted Republican are white and 65% of 60+ years old went for Romney. If they are ever to win again they have to appeal to the minorities and the young. But, they also have to stop endorsing these cartoon characters. Thankfully Akin (the fuckwit who said "you can't get pregnant from rape") was defeated in Missouri! That's a good move for the party. They have to separate themselves from these dickwads if they are to be taken seriously.

Semisynthetic and I may differ in politics but we share a couple things in common....we are optimistic and we both truly want America to succeed. This desire for our country to succeed is much greater than wanting to see a President fail. Even if he is not your man (or woman when we finally break that final barrier down) your countries success and best interest is always more important than your support for who is in charge. I hope Jadams can find some optimism too because once cynicism settles in that's when the pioneer spirit that we were founded on breaks or disappears.

I must admit I also truly want a viable third party candidate who can help shake up/break the status quo. The Dems and Reps are both as bad as each other but politically and socially I align myself more with the Dems.

A good buddy of mine who is very liberal has been very disappointed with Obama and he couldn't bring himself to vote for him again. Obviously he couldn't bring himself to vote for Romney so he chose one of the fringe candidates on our ballot (Pacific Green Party) whose name only appeared on a handful of west coast ballots. This to me is not a "viable" third party. Only when they are allowed to debate and have their names on all ballots will we begin to see it potentially shake things up. It has to be good for democracy, right?

[natty]

I find American politics very confusing beyond the 2 main parties at elections. All the congress, representatives and senate stuff is baffling.

I always thought it was like the House of Commons and House of Lords?

Not really, because I have always been under the impression that the House of Lords has very little power, mostly just symbolic - I could be wrong though

The Lords' power is far from merely symbolic.

[Hofstadter]

* I know this is really stereotypical but, having watched quite a bit of coverage of your election, is it really a case that the majority of Republicans are either farmers, religious lunatics, rich, male, old, white or a mixture of all of these?!

Apparently 72% of people who voted Republican are white and 65% of 60+ years old went for Romney. If they are ever to win again they have to appeal to the minorities and the young. But, they also have to stop endorsing these cartoon characters. Thankfully Akin (the fuckwit who said "you can't get pregnant from rape") was defeated in Missouri! That's a good move for the party. They have to separate themselves from these dickwads if they are to be taken seriously.

I can't imagine the Republican Party as is winning another election for a few cycles to come. The party has to totally reinvent itself, especially as the old vote dwindles, as somebody else mentioned (running out of old white fogeys). Ya know how one thing that is unacceptable to one generation (for instance rock and roll) and seems like it may never be accepted by the mainstream eventually become the norm after not that long as generations switch? I feel like the Republican Party is on the losing end of that right now. The generation switch is coming nearer and nearer and they are about to get left behind...

Either the party totally reinvents itself, or something else rises from its ashes. (That came off super dramatic )

The Lords' power is far from merely symbolic.

Yeah just doing a little reading now, it would seem so - it seems like the main function it serves now is to prevent bad stuff from passing, even if it can't do so unilaterally? It seems like the House of Lords are supposed to be like the wise doods who are the last check... the council of elders so to speak (only much bigger). How do people feel about the fact that there are "Lords Spiritual" in it? Does (important) legislation ever originate in the House of Lords? Does the House of Lords ever reject very important legislation? For instance, take America's recent Health Care laws - would their be public outcry if unelected officials were the ones to reject that? Just curious.

[spzretent]

I wasn't old fogeys running out it was older angry white men they are running out of. Seems like they all have jobs at FOX news.
Watch the first 15 or so minutes of this. Up to the Nate Silver interview. Not only is it funny buts its pretty spot on.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episod ... ate-silver

[redcloud]

I can't imagine the Republican Party as is winning another election for a few cycles to come. The party has to totally reinvent itself, especially as the old vote dwindles, as somebody else mentioned (running out of old white fogeys).

Not sure if they are running out of old fogeys, yet. Keep in mind the largest generation in America, the baby boomers are now THE old fogeys. But, as spzretent says....you can't win it by relying on angry, old white men alone.

I agree though that the Republican party has to go back to the drawing board and completely reinvent itself. One thing that would help is to not try and appease the crack pots in their party. They need to severely distance themselves from these raving lunatics who come across completely ignorant and some whose politics are not that far off the Taliban.

[spzretent]

Blame religion. At least the far right lunatics who speak before they think.
Blame stupid racists like this one.
http://www.examiner.com/article/faceboo ... for-n-word
As some responded so succinctly. "Obama elected for another 4 years but stupid is forever".
These are the public faces of the republican party.
Kind of refutes the theory that any news is good news.

[Shinesalight]

Hopefully that all makes sense/makes it clearer than it was for you earlier. Ask questions and I will try to clarify. I could also talk about some of the weird things like "gerrymandering" or early electoral college stuff, which is cool just because our country was very different then.

Thanks for helping to explain though I must admit I'm now slightly more confused than I was before!

Obviously, in the UK, when we it comes to the national vote, we're not just voting for a leader of the country (the Prime Minister) but the actual party who will govern the country. From what you said it almost seems possible that a President can be voted in without his or hers prospective party being in control of either the senate nor the house...is that/am I right?

[Hofstadter]

Obviously, in the UK, when we it comes to the national vote, we're not just voting for a leader of the country (the Prime Minister) but the actual party who will govern the country. From what you said it almost seems possible that a President can be voted in without his or hers prospective party being in control of either the senate nor the house...is that/am I right?

You are absolutely right. One of the things that is silly about our system. For instance right now, the Democrats are in control of the House, the Republicans the Senate, and the Democrats obviously have the presidency. This is one of the reasons why the past few years in particular there has been such gridlock/stalemate in Washington and a lot of people have the feeling that nothing is getting done.

It is almost always the case that neither party controls those three things - when they do control all three, some people talk about what's called the "responsible party model" - the only times you can truly judge a party are when they have full legislative power. It is absolutely possible for the House and Senate to be under the control of the party the President does not belong to as well.

Your system makes a lot more sense... our system would be similar to yours if the electors were still essentially just the congressman and if the electors were the ones deciding who was president instead of the weird hybrid of direct and indirect election that the electoral college has become.

What did I confuse you more on?

[Dreamweapon]

Well, it's the morning after our UK elections for Crime Commissioners. Once again, I'm dismayed by the apathy and laziness of those that want our vote.

In the last elections we've had, whether this one, local elections, or national elections, we have again had nobody really campaigning for my vote. Nobody has knocked on my door, nobody has put anything through my letterbox, nobody has told me why I should vote for them, not even over anyone else, but AT ALL.

I may not be overly politically aware, but I work, I pay my taxes and would like a say in how my country is run. When no party member is bothered to campaign for my vote and tell me what they intend to do should they be elected, it's a pretty poor show.

I know other posters have said how much the US campaign has been hard to avoid and has been rammed into your faces constantly, whether on radio, TV or in the press, but we seem to go for the other option and do nothing.

Our political parties seem to spend so much time telling each other how useless they are, aportioning blame and getting embroiled in expenses scandals rather than looking after their electorate.

Aaarrrggghhh! (OK rant over!)

[redcloud]

I know other posters have said how much the US campaign has been hard to avoid and has been rammed into your faces constantly, whether on radio, TV or in the press, but we seem to go for the other option and do nothing.

Or maybe, unlike the US campaign that spent ridiculous sums of money (more than probably some small countries GNP), your politicians have decided while the country is broke and still trying to claw its way out of a recession/depression to not raise and spend it trying to win votes. Imagine what good all that money that was generated and spent on the campaign trail in America could have done? It was totally obscene how much was spent in this country especially considering how deep the budget cuts have been in education and how broke our public services are.

Rant over.