Obama Wins!! (moderator supported thread)

[sammyfreak]

WOHO!

 

[Archaeology Hat]

I love you again america. It's ok, you've come back and said sorry. We can be friends again.

Now back to work! Make more TV for me to steal!

And thank god Sarah Palin doesn't have a 1/3 chance of being president in the next 4 years.

 

[Serious_Stalin]

Jolly good! I'm sure he'll mix things up a bit. I really do hope he doesn't get assasinated and it gets blamed on some nut. Call me paranoid but the elite of America don't appreciate change such as this...
Some kenyan dude was banging on the news this morning hoping Obama would go help out Africa.. Which sounds interesting. I wonder whether it will happen it would be bloody as hell but apparently many africans "expect it".
I hope with the terrible situation he is dumped in he has the chance to prove he is worthy of a second term and he doesn't get blamed for the shit which he was dumped in.
Hoorah for Obama. Condolences for his nan.

 

[Vek]

Jolly good! I'm sure he'll mix things up a bit. I really do hope he doesn't get assasinated and it gets blamed on some nut.

THe nuts'll be the ones to do it, if it happens. They've already made multiple arrests for assassination plots just since July here in the US.

We have a nice system that just elected as far as I know the first black head of state/government of a country north of the equator.

About 60% of the African continent is north of the Equator. That would be an incorrect assumption.

 

[Elurindel]

What I find odd is that the celebrations are all "Yeah, Obama!" and not "Thank God, no more Bush!"

I think it's implied that by saying "Yeah, Obama!" you are also saying "Thank God, no more Bush!"

Also, he's in for another three months.

Ah, right. I wasn't sure how long it took between the decision on a vote and the actual appointment of the new president.

 

[Emperor Inferno]

Why, God.......Why?

 

[IrrelevantTangent]

w00t! Joy! Exuberance!

I am elated and overjoyed that Obama won. But then again, I think it was pretty obvious how this election was going to turn out in the end.

 

[SargentToughie]

And there was much rejoicing

*Yaay*

 

[Dele]

Go Obamanomic \o/ Now US can stop being a third world country medically wise and take some needed steps for introducing universal healthcare

 

[Serious_Stalin]

[Actually, the elite of America *do* like this. It's been the elites-who-pretend-they're-not who don't like this. We just went through eight years of the word 'elite' being about the worst thing you could call anyone.

I bloody hope so.

 

[beddo]

The voting system in America is institutionally flawed. The fact that you can have more votes than your opponent and still lose the presidency is an absolute mockery of democracy.

The system should be based on who wins the most votes overall. The seemingly arbitrary electoral college votes system is wholly undemocratic.

In my opinion you should have to vote by law but be able to formally abstain.

No, it's called Federalism. The more I think about it, the more I dislike the idea of a direct election of a head of government. It serves much the same function that building a coalition in Parliamentary Democracies does of insulating the selection of a PM from direct vote.

I mean, at least in the U.S. you can vote for members of the legislature from any party you want--you're not locked into having to vote for whichever person is running in your election district from the party with the proposed PM you want in power. That's not true in most countries. America works on a balance of power between the three branches, so a PM/coalition system wouldn't work either.

Democracy is an ideal to be reached by way of processes, not a specific process itself. That's why laws require only a majority and Amendments require a supermajority, the Judicial Branch gets the power of Constitutional Review, the President gets Veto Power, etc.

We have a nice system that just elected as far as I know the first black head of state/government of a country north of the equator. It worked this time around quite nicely--I think we'll keep it for a while.

I'm referring specifically to the vote for the president. It IS anti-democratic that you can have more people voting for you and still lose - 100% FACT. It is a widely used flaw where corrupt authorities actively skew the balance of voting which IS undemocratic.

Not to mention the methods of voting. Using machines which are not open to public scrutiny is in my opinion a violation of a person's right to a free vote. Then of course there are instances where people actively discourage groups from voting and alter ballots. In my opinion this should be treated as an act of treason and violation of civil rights.

Furthermore, the fact that not everyone is legally bound to vote is undemocratic. When in the last election only around 40% of people voted and Bush won, he only had the approval of 20% of the whole country!

As far as the senate, congress and the judiciary are concerned, well, I don't think that things like that should necessarily be up to public vote. To be honest these bodies do not seem fit for purpose as the consistently ignore their very own constitution when making judgements.

I remember that one member of congress did not believe they had the right to tell President Bush that he had violated an amendment of the constitution. If congress doesn't know its own role then things are very dire indeed.

 

[Nimbus]

Furthermore, the fact that not everyone is legally bound to vote is undemocratic. When in the last election only around 40% of people voted and Bush won, he only had the approval of 20% of the whole country!

That means that 60% of the country thought that both candidates sucked, right? Silence speaks louder than words.

 

[Geoffrey42]

No, it's called Federalism. The more I think about it, the more I dislike the idea of a direct election of a head of government. It serves much the same function that building a coalition in Parliamentary Democracies does of insulating the selection of a PM from direct vote.

I tend to agree with you that a pure-direct vote system would not be a huge step-up from where we are now. Especially given the structure of the Electoral College (like that of Congress) in that it provides slightly more power per capita to extremely small states, to prevent their being pushed around by the more populous ones. But! Any system employed that has a theoretical limit wherein one candidate could receive 21.6% of the popular vote, while the other received 78.3% (assuming equal voter turnout in all states, where the 21.6% represents 51% of the votes in the minimum number of states that add up to 270 electoral votes where College votes per capita are the cheapest [this is, of course, wildly unlikely, but I'm just trying to demonstrate the extremes the system is capable of]), and still have the 21.6% candidate declared winner is inherently flawed. My personal variation would involve forcing all states to split their electoral votes like Nebraska and Maine, except to actually do it by percentage, rather than congressional district, and let rounding do the rest. This does not eliminate the possibility that the popular vote candidate loses, but it does eliminate the possibility that they lose despite winning the popular vote by a landslide.

Unfortunately, both parties have their pet states where they enjoy getting 100% of the Electoral College allotment despite only receiving 51% of the popular vote (California, or Texas, for example). They like only having to concentrate their efforts in a few states where the margin is close, and the reward is high (Ohio, Pennsylvania). So, no party would support any form of law/statute/amendment/otherwise that would force all states to do this. The Republican party would much rather push the agenda in places like California, and the Democrats in Texas, and hope that they split their opponent's states while keeping theirs intact. Which, to say the least, is ridiculous, not in the best interests of their constituents (as it favors the party, which does not represent all of the constituents), and one of the many reasons I dislike the fervor everyone assigns to their party.

EDIT: To add, in my proposed system of forced splits, I estimate the worst a candidate could possibly do, and still beat the popular winner, would be to pick up only 45% of the popular vote. Also edited for my %'s above, as I corrected an error in my calculations.

 

[Eiseman]

That means that 60% of the country thought that both candidates sucked, right? Silence speaks louder than words.

You remind me of that old guy with Tourette's from The Boondock Saints who always mixed up his proverbs. The only thing silence says in this situation is that people will let someone else make a decision for them.

Now, on the other hand, if a majority "non-vote" somehow led to there not being a president at all for a whole four years... that would be interesting.

 

[nekolux]

I'm not living in the US currently but hey i'm glad that you guys over there made a good choice! Gratz guys