So it is pretty close, With Florida to come and some states, like California, haven't counted the postal votes yet. Postal votes are likely to be military personnel and therefore would expect to be Republicans.

Absentee voting has changed quite a bit in California. Years ago, yes, it was the elderly and military personnel who tended to vote absentee, and yes these two groups would tend to lean right. Now absentee ballots tend to include large numbers of crazy-busy people, especially those with nasty work commutes. It has been my experience, at least in the SF Bay area, that crazy-busy people lean left.

Edit: I'm sorry! I didn't realize Janice had already responded to this issue.

"So it is pretty close, With Florida to come and some states, like California, haven't counted the postal votes yet. Postal votes are likely to be military personnel and therefore would expect to be Republicans.
"

In California several years ago people were given the option of becoming a "permanent absentee voter". This means a great many votes are postal.
They removed the requirements that just about mandated either military service, physical handicap, or other reasons why someone COULD NOT make it to the polls.

While most in military more than likely do vote absentee, it is far from the majority of the absentee ballots in California.

---

Janice

The difference being people who live in the cities want to be close enough to their neighbor so as to be in their stuff and the people not in the cities want to be far enough away no one is in their stuff. Simple really.

I beg to differ, it seems to me more likely in small towns people can and will know a lot more about their neighbors stuff, as it's easier to keep track when there are so few. IMHO it's easier to be anonymous when there are a million people around you than when there are 10.

Bobby, you continue to describe a high density area, a city. Perhaps you haven't ever been to a real rural area. One where the neighbor is a mile away over a ridge line, not through the wall or across the driveway. In high density areas like cities the screaming match carries into the neighbor, it is in the face rubbed into the nose. True in a megalopolis you are less likely to go to the same coffee shop and church but the busybodies still gossip in a megalopolis.

---

The difference being people who live in the cities want to be close enough to their neighbor so as to be in their stuff and the people not in the cities want to be far enough away no one is in their stuff. Simple really.

I beg to differ, it seems to me more likely in small towns people can and will know a lot more about their neighbors stuff, as it's easier to keep track when there are so few. IMHO it's easier to be anonymous when there are a million people around you than when there are 10.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

It's not intended to. The college, being based on the number of congresspeople (both Representatives and Senators) a state sends to DC is deliberately skewed to favor low population states. As the President is executive leader of a federation of states, it's the states that decide who will hold the office.

Well that is one of your problems as I see it. Far too many State Governors think they are God Almighty and run their State like a private fiefdom or dictatorship. Whatever happened to democracy?

The USA isn't a democracy, it is a republic. Of course the liberal press wants everyone to think it is a democracy so they tout that.

Oh jeez, that old chestnut? As far as I can tell it dates to one of the Federalist Papers authored by James Madison, where he describes a democracy in terms that would today be used to describe a direct democracy, and a republic in what today would be a representative democracy. I prefer Machiavelli's definition of republic, it's widely accepted around the world, and refers to a form of government where the head of state is not a monarch. Under Madison's definition, the UK is a republic, which is clearly nonsense. [ETA]Further reading[/ETA]

Chris, my apologies, when I said the states decide who will hold the office, I didn't mean to suggest that it was the state legislatures or executive, only that the electoral college is defined on the basis of state representation (which, to a large degree, means popular representation).

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

central USA is full of low density people

Oh dearie me, is that why they vote Republican!!!

Very interesting map of the results in the USA though. Both the western and Eastern states went Democrat, whilst nearly all of central USA went Republican. Why is it that the Cities vote one way and the rural communities all vote the other?

The coasts are full of high density cities and housing projects and the central USA is full of low density people. The difference being people who live in the cities want to be close enough to their neighbor so as to be in their stuff and the people not in the cities want to be far enough away no one is in their stuff. Simple really.

---

It's not intended to. The college, being based on the number of congresspeople (both Representatives and Senators) a state sends to DC is deliberately skewed to favor low population states. As the President is executive leader of a federation of states, it's the states that decide who will hold the office.

Well that is one of your problems as I see it. Far too many State Governors think they are God Almighty and run their State like a private fiefdom or dictatorship. Whatever happened to democracy?

The USA isn't a democracy, it is a republic. Of course the liberal press wants everyone to think it is a democracy so they tout that.

---

It's not intended to. The college, being based on the number of congresspeople (both Representatives and Senators) a state sends to DC is deliberately skewed to favor low population states. As the President is executive leader of a federation of states, it's the states that decide who will hold the office.

Well that is one of your problems as I see it. Far too many State Governors think they are God Almighty and run their State like a private fiefdom or dictatorship. Whatever happened to democracy?

Clearly the Electoral College does not truly represent the wishes of the people.

It's not intended to. The college, being based on the number of congresspeople (both Representatives and Senators) a state sends to DC is deliberately skewed to favor low population states. As the President is executive leader of a federation of states, it's the states that decide who will hold the office.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

The cities are full of college educated liberals, the rural states are full of gun toting, country music loving Evangelists driving pickups.

OK that would explain it then :-0

The total votes so far are;

Obama 59,169,798 (51%)
Romney 56,729,542 (48.9%)

Majority 2,440,256 (2.1%)

So it is pretty close, With Florida to come and some states, like California, haven't counted the postal votes yet. Postal votes are likely to be military personnel and therefore would expect to be Republicans.

Why is it that the Cities vote one way and the rural communities all vote the other?

The cities are full of college educated liberals, the rural states are full of gun toting, country music loving Evangelists driving pickups.

It is an antiquated system that is badly out of date. But I doubt I will see it replaced in my lifetime.

Its the same with our "first past the post system".

Following the 2010 General Election, two thirds of the MPs elected lacked majority support, the highest figure in British political history.

To combat that, last year we had a referendum on the Alternative Vote system proposed by the Electoral Reform Society, but not surprisingly it got defeated. AV Vote The two major parties want to keep it as it is, otherwise they would both lose seats at an election, in favour of the smaller third party. Any voting system needs to take account of popular public opinion, such that the people elected genuinely represent the majority view. I don't think we have that over here at the moment. Regularly our smaller third party come a close second at local elections. You have the House of Representatives, that should give a clue as to what they should be.

It just seems to me at times that the UK and the USA both have electoral systems for the benefit of politicians and not the people, that are supposed to vote them in. They have learnt over the years how to manipulate those systems for their own best advantage. No wonder they don't want them changed. One of the big problems is low turnout on polling day, either through apathy, or the weather, or my vote won't matter. Turnout is usually about 60% in the UK. We have a postal vote system but it is open to abuse. I don't yet know what the USA turnout was.

Very interesting map of the results in the USA though. Both the western and Eastern states went Democrat, whilst nearly all of central USA went Republican. Why is it that the Cities vote one way and the rural communities all vote the other?



And with Florida yet to declare .....

Obama 50.2%, 303 votes
Romney 48.2% 206 votes

So what is the actual accurate feeling from the man in the street to President Obama? Percentages suggest he scraped in by the skin of his teeth, numbers say he won by a landslide. Clearly the Electoral College does not truly represent the wishes of the people.

French newspaper Le Monde

"The Republican electoral strategy did not work. The victory of Barack Obama, first and foremost, belongs to his strategists, who, under the complex electoral system that is in place in the US, managed to garner enough electoral votes without their candidate securing a decisive lead in the popular vote."

So are they suggesting a technical win? I think when it was fairly obvious that the candidates were pretty even, people went for the devil they knew. Either way, not a landslide victory by any means.

The actual numbers were a win by the total votes by a small margin, and a substantial electoral college count win. It is the later that elects the president, and something the Republican party is extremely reluctant to discuss replacing.

It is an antiquated system that is badly out of date. But I doubt I will see it replaced in my lifetime.

---

Janice

Also, back in high school I vaguely remember something in my history classes about only Congress having the power to declare war. Modern history seems to have bypassed this step. In light of this, I would say that who we elect for president matters quite a bit.

I thought The War Powers Resolution of 1973 sorted that out?

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a federal law intended to check the President's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Apparently not ....

The War Powers Resolution was disregarded by President Reagan in 1981 by sending military to El Salvador and later the Contras in Nicaragua, by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo, and by President Obama in 2011, when he did not seek congressional approval for the attack on Libyan forces, arguing that the Resolution did not apply to that action. All incidents have had congressional disapproval, but none have had any successful legal actions taken against the president for violations. All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional.

So it does matter quite a bit who you elect as President. Particularly one like George W Bush, who when informed that he didn't have a UN mandate to go to war with Iraq, famously said "No-one tells America what to do!". Not even the UN apparently.

French newspaper Le Monde

"The Republican electoral strategy did not work. The victory of Barack Obama, first and foremost, belongs to his strategists, who, under the complex electoral system that is in place in the US, managed to garner enough electoral votes without their candidate securing a decisive lead in the popular vote."

So are they suggesting a technical win? I think when it was fairly obvious that the candidates were pretty even, people went for the devil they knew. Either way, not a landslide victory by any means.

I voted also. Big deal we lose who ever wins. They both suck bigtime. If anyone thinks the President can do antyhing your wrong. Hes a figure headlike a king or queen. The senate and congress rule the roost. And its not an oversight that I didnt Capitalize the names.

Four more years of nothing gets done because this counrty is so split we hate each other.
Four more years that we have more stinking partisan politics.

I sure as hell hope im wrong. But I doubt it.

I disagree, Jim. Supreme court nominees matter. The president gets to nominate them. Yes the senate still has to approve, but the president gets to send nominees. That is huge. There is a lot to consider when you give a person a powerful job, and let him or her keep it for life!!!

Also, back in high school I vaguely remember something in my history classes about only Congress having the power to declare war. Modern history seems to have bypassed this step. In light of this, I would say that who we elect for president matters quite a bit.

So. Can we please get to working on the issues without huge partisan obstruction???

I hate to say it, but I think we will be stuck with stalemate. But.. it DOES beat moving backwards!!

---

Janice

So. Can we please get to working on the issues without huge partisan obstruction???

---

#resist

Those of you that thought you it bad at the polls today, Check this out

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/pennsylvania-voting-machine-switches-vote-obama-romney_n_2083015.html

According to MSNBC-- Obama 162, Romney 153. Romney has projected lost Penna. & Mich. Ohio is still too close to call but Obama is leading.

[edit] By the way the clip is from Penna. [/edit]

---

I don't buy computers, I build them!!