The US Election

[gingerjon]

Phew! I slept thrugh it all. Daley got it wrong!

gingerjon: The electoral college system may present problems, but I suspect they're not greatly different from the "problems" we have in the UK, where there are so many safe seats. You wouldn't expect campaigners not to exploit the system they work in, would you?

Re the representation of 1/4 to 1/5 of eligible voters, is that based on turnout figures? I've not heard yet.

Would you really want to live in a country (not the USA) where the president was "supported" by more than 90% of voters?

I'm not advocating change - I don't live in the US so it's not up to me to start lecturing them on how cracked their system is but I'm happy to draw attention to a couple of things that are relevant to the UK as well.

Talking about the result in terms of electoral college votes (or seats gained) cloaks the real popularity (or unpopularity) of those elected. As a UK example: the last general election was seen as good for the Greens but not great for Ukip as the former won a seat and the latter did not. In nationwide terms the Greens polled 220,000 and Ukip 919,000.

The other cloak is talking about percentages. The Conservatives polled 36% in 2010. People registered to vote who did not polled 35%. The trend is for turnout to decline and the headline figures of the winning party to be smaller as well. The proportion who therefore get a government they support is thus dwarfed by the many, many more who do not.

The UK system 'worked' of a fashion when there were high turnouts and two parties dominating. It works less and less well now.

[Hornspieler]

I'm not advocating change - I don't live in the US so it's not up to me to start lecturing them on how cracked their system is but I'm happy to draw attention to a couple of things that are relevant to the UK as well.

Talking about the result in terms of electoral college votes (or seats gained) cloaks the real popularity (or unpopularity) of those elected. As a UK example: the last general election was seen as good for the Greens but not great for Ukip as the former won a seat and the latter did not. In nationwide terms the Greens polled 220,000 and Ukip 919,000.

The other cloak is talking about percentages. The Conservatives polled 36% in 2010. People registered to vote who did not polled 35%. The trend is for turnout to decline and the headline figures of the winning party to be smaller as well. The proportion who therefore get a government they support is thus dwarfed by the many, many more who do not.

The UK system 'worked' of a fashion when there were high turnouts and two parties dominating. It works less and less well now.

A friend of mine who went to America to join the Minnesota Orchestra found himself tied into the US space programme (he had a Ist class degree in theoretical astronomy) He wrote to tell me that in America they don't vote for a candidate - they vote against the other one.
In reply to the question "who are you voting for?" they would answer "I'm voting against Obama!" (or Romney, of course, as their preferences may be)

So it looks as though to them it is a choice between two evils. Very appropriate in this year's case, I should think.

HS

[Simon]

Quote from yours truly, 11.21am, yesterday:

I'm for Obama this time, for many reasons, and I'm glad he looks as if he'll do it.

Shows how a good commercial organisation is so often ahead of everybody else with its information and analysis!

It occurs to me that most of us are happy and in agreement on here today about a political matter. Must watch that. I'll be getting myself a reputation as a lefty!

[Nick Armstrong]

Must watch that. I'll be getting myself a reputation as a lefty!

I doubt that, as I can only recall you using that term ... (mind you, I don't usually wade through the political threads here, maybe others use it...).

[Pabmusic]

I doubt that, as I can only recall you using that term ... (mind you, I don't usually wade through the political threads here, maybe others use it...).

No. The last known sighting (?hearing) was in 1957 in Richmond-on-Thames. Or so I believe...

(Mmm ... perhaps that was 'pinko'.)

[Mr Pee]

Barack says the next four years is going to be even better than the last four ...

Couldn't be much worse.......

[french frank]

Couldn't be much worse.......

Well, the BBC economic analysis was that, although it wasn't good in the US (especially in terms of unemployment), it was better than in Europe - and Japan.

I don't know why anyone expects politicians to be miracle workers . They have to cope with the situation/events they're landed with. The idea that if they go down one route >>> disaster, but if they choose a different/opposite route >>> success/prosperity is not really tenable. One could say more about the American right and the American 'left', but I won't ...

[teamsaint]

Well I for one don't expect them to be miracle workers.

Politicians who just for once didn't do the bidding of the Banks and the other assorted big interest groups would be nice.

But then so would Saints winning the Premier League.

[ardcarp]

I see I'm not the only one to have dipped in and out of the news all night to keep abreast of the results. In my case it was on R4. Much time was spent 'filling in' which is fair enough BUT as dawn broke we were promised that Obama would soon be making his live acceptance/victory speech. As Obama is, IMO, an intelligent man, I was rather looking forward to hearing it....live. What happened? No sooner had he started than the R4 news agenda kicked in. Obama was faded, and we were back to historic abuse in Wales by MPs. A sense of proportion is clearly lacking. The Beeb had all day to kick that story around, but a major 'now' event with consequences for the entire world, its conflicts and its economies was side-lined. Oh dear.

[Lateralthinking1]

Romney's speech was reasonably dignified. He still reminds me of a famous cartoon character. I can't think which one. As politicians go, he wasn't the worst. He never seemed wholly untrustworthy. He had an unusual air of appearing both genuine and not genuine. I believe that is him in actuality. His father was almost too nice for politics. Mitt himself is a devout family man with a strong belief in knowing what is best for the country. He also desperately wanted power and is a habitual user of tax havens.

The BBC noted that there had been exceedingly rich, as opposed to simply very rich, Presidents. All of them had faced major difficulties in their lives at a young age. Romney Jnr, 65, had never experienced that misfortune. To some extent, that makes him typical of an age in which most leaders haven't experienced war directly. Those of exceptional wealth are at a disadvantage, never having had the opportunity to connect with all classes and creeds. No amount of money spent on campaigns overcomes it.

Paul Ryan, standing alongside on the stage, suddenly looked like an angry young man. That hadn't been evident in the campaign. Fleetingly, an image of Rick Santorum crossed my mind. At one time, there was the possibility that he would have been the victor today. While some of us might think that he is not at all emotionally suited to the job, he could be the President in the future.



Obama left a suitable amount of time before appearing to claim his prize. It was Stevie Wonder again - "Signed, Sealed, Delivered, I'm Yours". Yours? Time will tell if this was ostensibly a banking reference. For the moment, he spoke about the need for the country to pull together and look to the future. The first priority will be to seek the views of someone called Romney. The speech was pretty good but never brilliant. It sounded like it had been written by Bill Clinton who the President had spoken with earlier.

Yes, he hyped up hope but without ever sounding like hope was rational in this climate. It was more of a case that we all must convince ourselves. Be unreal to make this thing into the reality. While the crowd inevitably went potty on autopilot, everyone by then was very tired and it all seemed to go on for too long. Back in London, our Prime Minister sent his congratulations on a Tweet.

Joe Biden, the "happy warrior", was pure second hand car salesman. Still, it was difficult not to like him for his evident joy and what appears to be limitless energy. Michelle was clearly excited but she's used to it now. The kids, of course, are now older.

There was no sign of Hillary. Some say that she still has ambitions to become President. Others are of the view that she wants to be seen as the heir apparent and at that point to walk away. Bill and Barack were not best buddies for a long time. Now they do the pals act well. The former might be motivated by his own view of an extraordinary woman who in January 2017 will turn 70.

[Nick Armstrong]

Romney's speech was reasonably dignified.

Apart from his sign off: "You guys are the best"... which I think belongs in the 'phrases which set your teeth on edge' thread...

[Resurrection Man]

....

Politicians who just for once didn't do the bidding of the Banks and the other assorted big interest groups would be nice.

......

Do you think that it might be possible, just for once, to have a thread without you chipping in with your old hobby-horse? It is tediously boring.

[Nick Armstrong]

I wonder how much humble pie is being baked in the US today. Probably not much... http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opi...rez_desperate/

Actually, it's surprising old Mittens ever had time for politics, judging by this Xmas photo of his family on this wonderful site: http://www.mitttheman.com/

[mercia]

bought a job-lot in the shirt department

[ardcarp]

...obviously from the store of latter day shirts....