World Perspective of Barack Obama

hemoh

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
1,445
Location
NW WI US
Car(s)
Saturn SL2
Well, hopefully more people are like me this go around. I would have PREFERED McCain (by a looong loong ways) but I will not be bitter about this election. To be honest, I'm sort of excited to have somebody new and energetic in office even if I completely disagree with him. I'm hoping more people leaning right will feel the same. (I can't decide which way I lean, depends on the issue)


I'm in the same predicament...I lean right but prefer to stay Independent because the Repubs have done just as many stupid things as the Dems.

Part of me wants to show my respect for the office and the person holding it even if his political views are vastly different than mine. Yet, the other part wants me to give him the same respect that the current President has received for pretty much his entire two terms.

I'm pretty much sick and tired of politics anyways, and seeing as the US is going to hell no matter who got voted in, I don't think I'll be changing that view anytime soon.
 

Jay

the fool on the hill
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,280
Location
Aurora, IL
I'm a libertarian...because it makes the most sense to me, as an Ayn-Rand type thinker. So naturally I was for Bob Barr, and he didn't even win a single state.

Well, that makes two of us on the board. :lol: Keep spreading the word, if you can convince one person, you can convince ten. The more I truthfully explain Libertarian views to others, the more they realize how naturally appealing it is to them. Ignorance can abolished by fact, and for far too long, two political parties have had a monopoly, and have tried their damnedest to keep us silent.
 

Firecat

Politically Charged
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,730
I have to stay away from labels. For the most part i'm socially liberal and economically conservative, but then at times it's vice-versa. It really just depends on the issue.

I've been supporting Nader the last 3 elections because the Republicans and Democrats do not deserve our votes. I thought Badnarik was a great candidate as well (Libertarian Party 2004). He taught me about Liberty dollars (not that I have any). He also taught me something about how the government doesn't have the right to charge income tax (of course I still pay, and I doubt it would hold up in court...has to do with the 16th amendment)
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
Well, that makes two of us on the board. :lol: Keep spreading the word, if you can convince one person, you can convince ten. The more I truthfully explain Libertarian views to others, the more they realize how naturally appealing it is to them. Ignorance can abolished by fact, and for far too long, two political parties have had a monopoly, and have tried their damnedest to keep us silent.
The problem with most -ism's is that generally, they are too singlefiled to really be flexible enough to actually govern a state.

It's true of communism (or at a base, socialism), and it's true of liberalism, or libertarianism.
 

Firecat

Politically Charged
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,730
Any thoughts on why they would release the secret service codenames? Kinda defeats the purpose.
 

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i

phuckingduck

is awesome!
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
3,018
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Car(s)
'03 Volvo S60 AWD
I'm trying to decide if Tumbler is from his bouts with alcohol or a propensity for clumsiness. Or option c, completely random.
 

AiR

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
11,985
Location
Suecia
Car(s)
Bulgogi Knedliky 1.6 GDI (Hyundai i30)
I do not know a single person who is not happy that Barack won. After the last time, when Bush won again we were shocked. I still cant believe how he won twice.
 

Elvis313

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
976
Location
Germany
Car(s)
2013 Volvo V60 D6
I do not know a single person who is not happy that Barack won. After the last time, when Bush won again we were shocked. I still cant believe how he won twice.

What still strikes me most is that due to the rubbish inglorious US electoral system, in 2000 he won even though he had about half a million votes less than his opponent.

But I'm quite confident that Obama will change things for the better (could it get worse?)
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
Well, the type of electoral system that means you can win an election with less than the majority is a bad one to start with.

Thing is, it can happen. With parliamentarism, you vote for a person or a group of persons (a party) to represent you in the parliament. The guy/girl with support from the majority will be asked by the king/queen/president/by default to form a government. To take Norway as an example, the leader (usually) of biggest party, or the party with majority support, will be called to the palace to recieve the offer of the King to form government.

That's a system that needs sectioning the mandates. Like states in the US, we have 'fylker'. With a parliament, it makes sense to do it this way.

Seeing there is 369 representatives in the Storting, the Parliament, all parties would need to have e central list with 369 candidates. Then you would know very little about the majority of candidates of each party. Dividing it into lists for every fylke, or state, you can get a little better feel for the candidates.

To put it short, it's a practical sollution to a practical problem. There are times when it's not fair, but it can be made less and less of a problem by making the number of seats for every state a correct number to correlate with the number of people who actually live there.

But, when it comes to electing a person, as you are when you are electing a president, then the whole system is of no use at all.

So why keep it? Tradition? Tradition is good, but not at the cost of democracy. And especially not when it's not needed.
 

AiR

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
11,985
Location
Suecia
Car(s)
Bulgogi Knedliky 1.6 GDI (Hyundai i30)
The fact that it (the electoral system) can result in a draw is also quite interesting. Whoever designed it was not very good at math.
 

teeb

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
3,497
Location
Bordeaux, France.
Car(s)
old Saab 9-3 coup?
What still strikes me most is that due to the rubbish inglorious US electoral system, in 2000 he won even though he had about half a million votes less than his opponent.

It's possible in a few voting systems for someone to win with less votes.

It's possible (although statistically unlikely) in the UK's first-past-the-post system, for example.

And I'm not sure what the voting system is in Germany, but I could point out in your 2005 elections, Merkel became Chancellor despite her direct party getting 3 million less votes than the SDP. (yes I know coalition and sister parties and no overall majority; but you see my point)
 

Lupin_IV

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
3,876
Location
about 10 miles north of Carlisle, PA
Car(s)
'84 Pontiac Parisienne, '93 Chevy Caprice
Well, the type of electoral system that means you can win an election with less than the majority is a bad one to start with.
By that choice of words, anytime there are three or more candidates that have significant support, there should be no winner - I believe you mean a plurality.

However, the Electoral College exists as a way of ensuring the Presidential candidates must appeal to a wide cross section of the population, rather than just the single demographic that happens to be largest.

To put it short, it's a practical sollution to a practical problem. There are times when it's not fair, but it can be made less and less of a problem by making the number of seats for every state a correct number to correlate with the number of people who actually live there.
And that's how the Electoral College is set up; each state has an equivalent number of votes to their Congressional representation (the number of Representatives based on population plus 2 Senators per state).
 
Last edited:

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
Electoral College

Arguments for:
Prevents an urban-centric victory
Maintains the federal character of the nation
Enhances status of minority groups
Encourages stability through the two-party system
Isolation of election problems
Neutralizes turnout disparities between states
Maintains separation of powers

Arguments against:
Irrelevancy of national popular vote
Focus on large swing states
Discourages turnout and participation
Allows states to disenfranchise citizens without penalty
Favors less populous states
Disadvantage for third parties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Collage_(United_States)

I don't have a problem with the system.
 

phuckingduck

is awesome!
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
3,018
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Car(s)
'03 Volvo S60 AWD
The fact that it (the electoral system) can result in a draw is also quite interesting. Whoever designed it was not very good at math.
We didn't have 50 states or 538 electoral votes when the system was designed. The votes given to each state are re-appropriated every now and then, just like the distribution of congressional representatives.

Here's something interesting to look at:
Cartogram-2008_Electoral_Vote.png
 

tigger

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
5,737
Car(s)
'88 Vic Wagon, '92 Honda VFR
Well, the type of electoral system that means you can win an election with less than the majority is a bad one to start with.

So why keep it? Tradition? Tradition is good, but not at the cost of democracy. And especially not when it's not needed.
The fact that it (the electoral system) can result in a draw is also quite interesting. Whoever designed it was not very good at math.
The electoral college is an institution we've had since, iirc, our nations creation. It's from a time when states had a whole lot more power and we were still trying to figure out what the hell we were doing over here. Unfortunately, it's a relic that survived.

Arguments against:
Irrelevancy of national popular vote
"Irrelevancy of the national popular vote", that should be enough reason to kill off the electoral college. God forbid the election results actually reflect the exact margin of victory in an election. Take '00, when Bush lost and still became president. Our just in this last election. Obama won 53% popular vote to McCain's %46. A solid margin, but not the over 2:1 margin that the electoral college shows. It certainly increases apathy too. Kansas is a red state through and through, so what the hell is the point of me casting 1 vote for a Democratic president when I know which way my state will go?

We're not going to damage our federation, or hurt minority rights, or neutralize turnout disparities or whatever by ditching the electoral college. One person gets one vote. I don't see how anything less or more is fair.
 

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
"Irrelevancy of the national popular vote", that should be enough reason to kill off the electoral college. God forbid the election results actually reflect the exact margin of victory in an election.

The position of the president was never meant to be popularly elected. Those who created the Constitution feared the mob and their fear still applies.
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
So, a few prejudicial elitist's view of farmers is still relevant?
 

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
So, a few prejudicial elitist's view of farmers is still relevant?

Of course. Things really haven't changed. The majority of the people are still uneducated in politics and are usually uninterested in learning about them.

There is nothing wrong with elitism. Why not have the successful, educated, and wealthy in charge? Would you rather have an unsuccessful, uneducated, poor person in charge?
 
Last edited:
Top