StarGateWars Forums

Wooh elections.. where everyone gets to pick the lesser of two evils. Best part is, it isn't only in the US.

Yaaaaay.. "Democracy"...

Typical Democratic 'Oh look how bad he is' to try and make you forget how poorly this president performed so far. More of the same.


It is like having a clean pig and a clean owl, tossing a bucket of oil over the owl and berating it for being oily.



Really, this election circus is a multi-billion dollar industry. What is the price of an election?

the price? somewhere between too much and you don't wanna know

wahahaha awesome

Lol funny. Would be better if it were true

Juliette wrote:Typical Democratic 'Oh look how bad he is' to try and make you forget how poorly this president performed so far. More of the same.


It is like having a clean pig and a clean owl, tossing a bucket of oil over the owl and berating it for being oily.



Really, this election circus is a multi-billion dollar industry. What is the price of an election?

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

I truly hate how our electoral system is so undemocratic. There are so many other parties which should be included in the debates and media coverage, but they lack the funds which would enable their participation. Just look at Johnson; he was in the Republican primary and had some (not much) media coverage, and then he suddenly disappeared from the spotlight the moment he decided to become the Libertarian candidate.

Because our votes as a whole matter right?

http://www.archives.gov/federal-registe ... ulardiffer

The electoral college can vote someone in whether we voted for them by majority or not. Electoral votes are by popular majority, but most states are winner take all. So if you vote in a winner-take-all state for candidate X, and candidate Y has majority votes; then candidate Y gets all the electoral votes and your vote becomes meaningless. I would be very surprised if we didn't see sweeping government changes in the next 100 years or so.

[spoiler][youtube]w8KQmps-Sog[/youtube][/spoiler]

Sweeping government changes? You would need to have reached a point where the nation is uncontrollable for those in power; and since the USA's general population (not individuals, but the blind mass of population) is powerless and spineless (because dependent on government for a backbone).. not going to happen. Not in such a short time as 100 years anyway.

Nah, the world needs a Great Purge. Omelets, broken eggs, things like that. Progress. Perish the weak. Might is right.

Doesn't work on my browser, the button doesn't work.

Psyko wrote:

Juliette wrote:Typical Democratic 'Oh look how bad he is' to try and make you forget how poorly this president performed so far. More of the same.


It is like having a clean pig and a clean owl, tossing a bucket of oil over the owl and berating it for being oily.



Really, this election circus is a multi-billion dollar industry. What is the price of an election?

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

I truly hate how our electoral system is so undemocratic. There are so many other parties which should be included in the debates and media coverage, but they lack the funds which would enable their participation. Just look at Johnson; he was in the Republican primary and had some (not much) media coverage, and then he suddenly disappeared from the spotlight the moment he decided to become the Libertarian candidate.

Living in such country where you have more than ten parties running in elections, I can tell you it's not a good thing because you have to determine what amount of time each candidate should have available in the media for the campaign, and problem comes when you consider about half of these candidates will not reach 2.5% of the votes. If you give proportionally to expected results, "small" candidates will scream unfairness but on the other hand it's logical bigger candidates get bigger time because when you got a big and several medium/small candidates who are in a "coalition" against the other big candidate, you can see how the time in media is in the advantage of the coalition.
These problems, in the USA, you don't have as much as in my country. Having faced such a coalition in the last elections against the exiting president-candidate, I can tell the way it is here (multiple parties get less unequal amount in the media) is not as good as you believe it could be!

Legendary Apophis wrote:

Psyko wrote:

Juliette wrote:Typical Democratic 'Oh look how bad he is' to try and make you forget how poorly this president performed so far. More of the same.


It is like having a clean pig and a clean owl, tossing a bucket of oil over the owl and berating it for being oily.



Really, this election circus is a multi-billion dollar industry. What is the price of an election?

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

I truly hate how our electoral system is so undemocratic. There are so many other parties which should be included in the debates and media coverage, but they lack the funds which would enable their participation. Just look at Johnson; he was in the Republican primary and had some (not much) media coverage, and then he suddenly disappeared from the spotlight the moment he decided to become the Libertarian candidate.

Living in such country where you have more than ten parties running in elections, I can tell you it's not a good thing because you have to determine what amount of time each candidate should have available in the media for the campaign, and problem comes when you consider about half of these candidates will not reach 2.5% of the votes. If you give proportionally to expected results, "small" candidates will scream unfairness but on the other hand it's logical bigger candidates get bigger time because when you got a big and several medium/small candidates who are in a "coalition" against the other big candidate, you can see how the time in media is in the advantage of the coalition.
These problems, in the USA, you don't have as much as in my country. Having faced such a coalition in the last elections against the exiting president-candidate, I can tell the way it is here (multiple parties get less unequal amount in the media) is not as good as you believe it could be!

I'm not talking about equal coverage. I'm talking about ANY coverage. And despite having way more than 10 parties, there are 5 major parties with influence in over two-thirds of the country (Democrat, Republican, Green Party, Libertarian, Independent). More than 85% of the country this election has the ability to vote for the Green Party candidate, and I can assure you far more than 85% of citizens don't even know her name.

**Filtered** wrote:Because our votes as a whole matter right?

http://www.archives.gov/federal-registe ... ulardiffer

The electoral college can vote someone in whether we voted for them by majority or not. Electoral votes are by popular majority, but most states are winner take all. So if you vote in a winner-take-all state for candidate X, and candidate Y has majority votes; then candidate Y gets all the electoral votes and your vote becomes meaningless. I would be very surprised if we didn't see sweeping government changes in the next 100 years or so.

This is very true, but the members of the electoral college are supposed to consider the votes of the state citizens whom they represent.

As long as you are not racist.. (so do not listen to MSNBC, they make you out to be a racist if you care about the economy..)

[spoiler][youtube]txEvoHfQH58[/youtube][/spoiler]