Obama and Huckabee win Iowa Straw Vote

[Matty the Damned]

Matty the Damned wonders when Roddles was appointed the Almighty Arbiter of Racial Identity. 

MtD
(Who didn't get the email)

[RapidRod]

Matty the Damned wonders when Roddles was appointed the Almighty Arbiter of Racial Identity. 

MtD
(Who didn't get the email)

Probably the same day you was appointed god. 

[Matty the Damned]

It's "were" not "was" Roddles.

MtD
(Who is pleased to be a god to you people)

[manchesteruk]

Looking in from outside the US i'll be keeping my fingers crossed for Barack Obama that's for sure.  I don't agree with everything i've heard from him but I think he represents the prospect for some real genuine change in the US.  I just can't see that happening with someone like Hillary Clinton.

From an outsiders perspective, I have to say it's fascinating to watch this method of selecting candidates to contest public elections.

It differs so markedly from our process of selecting candidates, known as preselection, which is controlled by party heavy weights and involves a closed group of insiders.

Excellent stuff.

MtD

Nevermind being able to choose candidates Matty, you want to try living in country where you can't even chose your own prime minister!

Chris

[Matty the Damned]

Nevermind being able to choose candidates Matty, you want to try living in country where you can't even chose your own prime minister!


This makes no sense. You live in a Westminster system just as we do. Why can you not choose who governs your country?

MtD

[manchesteruk]

Well we chose the Labour Party but not Gordon Brown.  He was 'selected' without the british public having any kind of say in the matter.  That doesn't sound like democracy to me!

[Matty the Damned]

Same system works here. We elect a party, the parliamentary group elects the leader. Don't like the leader, dump the party, The Conservatives or the Lib Dems beckon babe.

 It's pretty straight forward.

And honey, don't think for a moment what the Seps are doing now is anywhere near as democratic.

MtD

[carousel]

I'm not sure having 650 elected MPs is any less democratic than the US system.  I wonder if we would really like to give more power to the PM to make decisions than we do at present.

[minismom]

OK, I have just gotten a very interesting lesson from my hubby that I never knew.  I've always considered myself an educated woman, but I truly never knew this.  I'm going to type as he explain:

When we vote and pick a candidate for president.  When we vote for Bush, we are not actually voting for Bush, we are voting for the delegates that will vote for Bush.  That's the electoral college people.  They are the ones that when a republican wins a state, they cast all their votes to that person.  Our state has 5 electoral votes (number of senators and representatives combined)  So, those 5 people cast their vote for Bush. Basically, the electoral college can vote for whomever they want, even if they don't win the popular vote in that state.  The delegates sign a paper that says that they will vote for whomever wins the popular vote for that state, but once they announce who gets the vote, they do have the power to change their minds.  Granted, just about 100% of the time, they vote for the person they are supposed to, but they have the power not to.  Hubby said that decades ago, a set of electoral delegates actually gave their vote to some cartoon charactor (he thinks it was Bugs Bunny).  He's researching when it was and what state the delegates were from.

I know about the electoral college and how it works.  I just never knew that they could decide not to cast their votes for the candidate who got the majority of the votes in their state.

Electoral college: "a body of electors that elects the president and vice president of the United States."  Webster's Dictionary

Mum (by way of her hubby)

[BT65]

Interesting, mum.  Thanks for explaining that.

[Robert]

The way it is set up now is that if a candidate wins a state, regardless by how many votes, he gets all the electoral votes from that state.  This is determined state-by-state.  Two years ago Colorado held a referendum to change it so each candidate would receive the same proportion of electoral votes as popular votes.  For example, if the democrat received 45% of the popular vote, then he would get 45% of the electoral vote and the republican would get 55%.  Vested interests don't like this.  In Colorado republicans hold the majority and do not want to share the electoral vote.   With their help, the referendum lost.

This year in California the somewhat same initiative is on the ballot.  Here the democrats are in power and hold the majority and they don't want to share so they will be pumping $$$$$ (millions) to defeat it. 

It's a shitty way to vote for the highest office in the land (if popular vote is good enough the school board, it's good enough for the god damn president) but, alas, it will never change.  Not in our lifetime.

robert

[bocker3]

The way it is set up now is that if a candidate wins a state, regardless by how many votes, he gets all the electoral votes from that state.  This is determined state-by-state.  Two years ago Colorado held a referendum to change it so each candidate would receive the same proportion of electoral votes as popular votes.  For example, if the democrat received 45% of the popular vote, then he would get 45% of the electoral vote and the republican would get 55%.  Vested interests don't like this.  In Colorado republicans hold the majority and do not want to share the electoral vote.   With their help, the referendum lost.

This year in California the somewhat same initiative is on the ballot.  Here the democrats are in power and hold the majority and they don't want to share so they will be pumping $$$$$ (millions) to defeat it. 

It's a shitty way to vote for the highest office in the land (if popular vote is good enough the school board, it's good enough for the god damn president) but, alas, it will never change.  Not in our lifetime.

robert

Actually, Maine and Nebraska do not have "winner take all" electoral votes -- I found the following information:

"Maine and Nebraska both use an alternative method of distributing their electoral votes, called the Congressional District Method.  Currently, these two states are the only two in the union that diverge from the traditional winner-take-all method of electoral vote allocation. 

With the district method, a state divides itself into a number of districts, allocating one of its state-wide electoral votes to each district.  The winner of each district is awarded that district’s electoral vote, and the winner of the state-wide vote is then awarded the state’s remaining two electoral votes. 

This method has been used in Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1996, though since both states have adopted this modification, the statewide winners have consistently swept all of the state’s districts as well.  Consequently, neither state has ever split its electoral votes.

Although this method still fails to reach the full ideal of one-man one-vote, it has been proposed as a nationwide reform for the way in which Electoral votes are distributed."

Although, it is interesting that it hasn't mattered -- the popular votes have sort of gone with winner take all anyway -- at least to date.

Mike

[randym431]

Its very strange how life works. I now feel Bush has so totally screwed this country up that everyone is now open to new changes. So I guess that’s a good thing, coming from having such a bad president. Another past 4 years of Bill Clinton couldnt have messed up the republicans as well as GW has in eight. Who would da guessed...

Also, I think I’m officially an older folk as of 2008. What I mean to say is Obama has opened up excitement and energized a new generation.
I like Obama, if I were his speech class professor, I’d give him an A+ on all his speeches. He is powerful!
Why I say I’m officially in the older folk league, is shame on me for not remembering that Obama is doing EXACTLY what JFK did for my generation.
He brought a whole new hope of change. People, especially independents and the younger, are coming back into the political world because of Obama.
And it took me a while to realize that.

With JFK, it didn’t matter what he said on the specific issues. It didn’t matter what he did in the past. It was that JFK energized a whole new generation.
JFK’s message was “the torch is passed to a new generation” and it was so true.

I’m am older thinking person. I’ll be 55 this year and that I use to think, was young-ish still. But missing the power behind the Obama electricity
makes me sit back and come to reality that in just 10 years, I’ll be retirement age. And in 15 short years, as old as my dad. I wonder if that means something?
In that I looked to Hillary more so due to experience and missed the Obama “change” message that so many huge crowds are following.

I do hope he can go all the way. It’s a growing process that needs to happen in this country, just and exactly like replying the JFK era.

However, I had really hoped when this “new generation” took over, they would do so without bringing along the old anti-Gay feelings with them.
With Obama, I’m not sure if he has gotten there, or shed that. And that will be very sad.

Myself, I have no issues with civil unions, as a starter and as a start. Yes, I want the world, we all do, but in a reality of life I could sure use the additional rights that civil unions would bring.
For now, that is.
But what worries me is that too often when the term “ I’m for civil unions”, is used by any politician, that is a total cop out. Because for “civil unions” to see life, someone with power MUST initiate the process. And that is the problem, no one ever will that has the power to do so.
Its like, once they come out for civil unions, the issue dies and is mooted.  Pat on the back. Applause applause. End issue.

If I heard Obama say “I will ask congress to start civil union legislation when elected”, then I would (at least for now) feel some hope. But I don’t hear that from any candidate, and mouthing "I support civil unions" can spell another end to the conversation with this potential  new president.

Other than that, I’m one of the old crowd (I guess) that likes to (as they say) open the hood and take a look. I actually like Mitt Romney’s health care approach. He actually did it in his state. And lets face it, national healthcare in this country isn’t going to happen in our lifetime (but it should).
And as for Huckabee, he does seem like a nice guy. Its hard to knock a nice guy who seems to like everybody. I’d expect his views on Gays are as most “normal non-fanatic” religious people. They think we are wrong, but still accept us and welcome us in as we are.
BTW, Pat Roberson is NOT one of those. 

McCain worries me. He’s just too out of touch with reality. And we already have one of those in the white house right now.
I do not get his appeal to republicans. Very strange. He's to be honored for his service, but president? Please.

1/8/08
And...
I've said it 1000 times. iOwa WAS and IS a fluke!!!!
Their caucus system is TOTALLY flawed.
I know first hand.