trish123: My pleasure - I dont really understand it either so it helped me too Ive just posted the vid of his acceptance speech if anybody wants to see.........
oooops - silly ole me - I posted the wrong video - sorry - but its a good speech anyway........
I voted for him for our country and for peace to our world. Let's hope he will be another Lincoln for us. Not just a poppet manipulated by the big rich corporations and the few wealthy powerful individuals.
DaisyChick: I'm going to ask a stupid question... I probably shouldn't for fear of being ridiculed I understand that part of it but what makes up the electoral votes? I mean some states have soooo many (cali) and some so few. I just don't get the whole "electoral" part... Okay, you all can laugh...
No need for ridicule from anyone, because I know that many of us don't even understand our electoral college system. The simple answer to your question ("what makes up the electoral votes?") is that the number is the total of our elected representatives (2 votes representing each Senator and additional votes equalling the number of House Representatives, based on the population of the state). So, a state with a greater population will carry more electoral votes than those with a much smaller population. As for the reason for the electoral college system, the following excerpt from an online article explains it fairly well:
The Framers of the Constitution wanted to make sure the people were given direct input in choosing their leaders and saw two ways to accomplish this:
1. The people of the entire nation would vote for and elect the president and vice president based on popular votes alone. A direct popular election. 2. The people of each state would elect their members of the US Congress by direct popular election. The members of Congress would then express the wishes of the people by electing the president and vice president themselves. An election by Congress.
The Founding Fathers feared the direct popular election option. There were no organized national political parties yet, no structure by which to choose and limit the number of candidates. In addition, travel and communication was slow and difficult at that time. A very good candidate could be popular regionally, but remain unknown to the rest of the country. A large number of regionally popular candidates would thus divide the vote and not indicate the wishes of the nation as a whole.
On the other hand, election by Congress would require the members to both accurately assess the desires of the people of their states and to actually vote accordingly. This could have led to elections that better reflected the opinions and political agendas of the members of Congress than the actual will of the people.
As a compromise, we have the Electoral College system.
Do we still need this system today?? My personal opinion is that we do not, but I would welcome other opinions.
congratulations america. this is a great moment in american history and it was wonderful to see the joy and hope on so many people's faces. as the last 8 years of fear, ignorance and isolationism are consigned to the dustbin the world shares your optimism that america will regain her reputation and once again become a beacon. welcome back america. we've missed you.
livinglargein a good place, Kildare Ireland5,879 posts
dillinger: congratulations america. this is a great moment in american history and it was wonderful to see the joy and hope on so many people's faces. as the last 8 years of fear, ignorance and isolationism are consigned to the dustbin the world shares your optimism that america will regain her reputation and once again become a beacon. welcome back america. we've missed you.
congratulations america. this is a great moment in american history and it was wonderful to see the joy and hope on so many people's faces. as the last 8 years of fear, ignorance and isolationism are consigned to the dustbin the world shares your optimism that america will regain her reputation and once again become a beacon. welcome back america. we've missed you.[/quote]
We've missed you, too. Like a black-sheep member of a big family, once ostracized, we want to re-join the family.
The reformers — well, they believe a lot of things, but most of all they believe that the GOP is intellectually exhausted and has to chart a new path to remain politically viable. But where should the party go? There is no clear answer — especially because in many ways the Bush presidency was supposed to be the center-right evolution away from doctrinaire Reaganism. But at least this bunch is asking hard questions instead of retreating into a self-justifying revanchism. Unfortunately, if the Tory party's example is any indication of the GOP's future, it will be years before the reformers find their David Cameron.
Of course, nobody knows anything. Four years ago, we were all contemplating the possibility of Karl Rove's permanent Republican majority, and now look. History has both political parties by the napes of their necks, and its all either will be able to do simply to hang on for a rough ride. Obama will be restrained in pursuing an activist agenda by the lack of money and the lack of military. And nobody knows yet how bad the recession is going to be. Neither Obama nor McCain gave any indication that he understands the magnitude of the economic crisis overtaking America.
Still, if I were a betting man, I'd put money on a Barack Obama-Bobby Jindal match in 2012. If Obama is the Democrats' Reagan, then the Louisiana reform governor has the potential to be both the Republicans' Bill Clinton — in that he could revive a defeated and demoralized party — and its Barack Obama, in that he is young, brilliant and widely appealing. Besides, there simply aren't any other Republicans left standing today who could unite the GOP's shards after this epic smashing.
One last melancholy thought: The modern conservative movement began with the decisive loss of Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater in his 1964 presidential race. And it ends with the decisive loss in the 2008 presidential race of the Arizonan who holds Goldwater's Senate seat. But also a hopeful thought, certainly for Democrats, but maybe too for Republicans on down the line: If you had to pick a time and place when modern liberalism destroyed itself, it would be Chicago's Grant Park in 1968, in the riots accompanying the Democratic National Convention. That would be the same place where neoliberalism, of a sort, was reborn last night with Barack Obama's victory speech. The wheel of history keeps on turning.
hamster330: I voted for him for our country and for peace to our world. Let's hope he will be another Lincoln for us. Not just a poppet manipulated by the big rich corporations and the few wealthy powerful individuals.
Fallingman: Obama will be restrained in pursuing an activist agenda by the lack of money and the lack of military. And nobody knows yet how bad the recession is going to be. Neither Obama nor McCain gave any indication that he understands the magnitude of the economic crisis overtaking America.
neoliberalism, of a sort, was reborn last night with Barack Obama's victory speech. The wheel of history keeps on turning.
Yet, with all the obstacles that are ahead for the President elect, many Americans (yes, including some Republicans) and the world, have been given a renewed sense of hope and optimism as this wheel of history, yesterday turned and made a stop at Barack Obama.
The dawning of a new era. And may this also mean less young men and women having to die in needless wars, as we look towards a more cooperative coexistence in this world.
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Jwl45 , Indy !!!!!!
you both will always be WINNERS to me !!