Click to Translate to English Click to Translate to French  Click to Translate to Spanish  Click to Translate to German  Click to Translate to Italian  Click to Translate to Japanese  Click to Translate to Chinese Simplified  Click to Translate to Korean  Click to Translate to Arabic  Click to Translate to Russian  Click to Translate to Portuguese  Click to Translate to Myanmar (Burmese)

PANDEMIC ALERT LEVEL
123456
Forum Home Forum Home > Main Forums > General Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Presidential Campaigns - Thoughts?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Tracking the next pandemic: Avian Flu Talk

Presidential Campaigns - Thoughts?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Message
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 28 2008 at 8:37pm


Presidential Candidates can fail to get the most votes
 
in a presidential election

and

still win that election.


This occurred in 1876, 1888 and 2000.

Critics argue the Electoral College is inherently undemocratic and gives certain swing states disproportionate clout
in selecting the President and Vice President. Adherents argue that the Electoral College is an important and distinguishing feature of the federal system,
and protects the rights of smaller states.

Numerous constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress seeking a replacement of the Electoral College with a direct popular vote; however, no proposal has ever successfully passed both houses.

wikipedia
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 28 2008 at 8:41pm

Video Here-  click on
The Electoral College in US Elections


http://www.america.gov/multimedia/video.html?videoId=1691067575
.....................................................................................................



Electoral College  "A Quirky System"


Not simply a Popular Vote



An electoral college is a set of many electors who are empowered to elect a candidate to a particular office. Often these electors represent different organizations or entities,
with each organization or entity represented by a particular number of electors or with votes weighted in a particular way.

Many times, though, the electors are simply important persons whose wisdom, it is hoped, would provide a better choice than a larger body.

The system can ignore the wishes of a general membership, whose thinking need not be considered.

Hello... that's us.



Have a good long read... wow your neighbors


WHAT ARE THEY ALL DOING, ANYWAY?
an historical analysis of the Electoral College

by RICHARD E. BERG-ANDERSSON
"The Green Papers" staff
September 17, 2000


source
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/ElectoralCollege.html

Back to Top
endman View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: February 16 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1232
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote endman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 29 2008 at 7:28pm

No matter what each of the candidates say or promise the future events will always change these promises

J.Bush did not promise to invade Iraq or Afghanistan

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 30 2008 at 7:20am



If all you had was your God and your land, you would fight forever. 

The war on Terror, a forever war.

:/  (Russia figured it out)

Russia beefed up oil and gas production/pipelines along with their air force.

While we the US Govt. and Big Corps hand in hand ran our economy off the road.

They say Obama did not address the economy in his 3 million dollar infomercial.

All I saw was George Stephanapolis commenting after, on the fact that Obama went back

on a promise he made not to use private funding.

Obama, a candidate for the Presidency went back on his promise, that sounded trustworthy.

Back to Top
Evergreen View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Location: Washington

Joined: March 30 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 770
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Evergreen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 30 2008 at 11:22am
[/QUOTE]

I would hope that people are basing their decisions on something more than just healthcare!  At this point I am not even sure that it matters who gets elected.
[/QUOTE]

You might want to ask women and single mothers about whether it matters. D
235365 - Energy follows thought.   As you think, so you are.
Back to Top
cgh18 View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member


Joined: November 28 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 142
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cgh18 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 30 2008 at 11:26am
   Odd how things are getting twisted up in lies and mis information. I believe that Obama had just agreed to have a meeting to get the terms of the funding finalised with Mc Cain. And even if he changed his mind on campaign funding it turned out to be a smart poker play as it gave him a big edge. Mc Cain didn't have "hand " any ways as he could not get the stakes that Obama raised and had to settle for his losing hand.

   Mc Cain now raises issues with the PLO and Obama.   McCain also has ties to this guy, Khalidi, through a group Khalidi helped found 15 years ago. The Center for Palestine Research and Studies received at least $448,000 from an organization John McCain chairs.

    So It all sounds like sour grapes and dirty pool to me. I guess we all need to fact check as some sources seem to have an axe to grind to win at all costs.
cgh
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 30 2008 at 1:07pm

source

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/20/nation/na-campaign20




Friday, June 20, 2008

Obama rejects public financing for campaign; McCain attacks decision

The presumptive Democratic nominee calls the system ‘broken,’ reversing an earlier commitment made before he harnessed Internet fund-raising. The McCain camp derides his decision as politics as usual.

By Michael Muskal
June 20, 2008

Democrat Barack Obama today rejected public financing for his presidential campaign, changing an earlier stand and becoming the first major party candidate to drop out of the system since it began after the Watergate scandal.

In a prepared statement, Obama said his campaign would give up more than $84 million that would have been available for the general election because he believes the public financing system is broken.

"It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Obama said. "But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system."


Early in the primary season, Obama had said he would use public financing if his Republican opponent did. But that was before the presumptive Democratic nominee harnessed the Internet and became a fund-raising powerhouse.

His likely Republican opponent,  John McCain, has been in the forefront of campaign finance reform and has taken steps to accept public funds in the general election. He immediately attacked Obama's decision.

"Today, Barack Obama has revealed himself to be just another typical politician who will do and say whatever is most expedient for Barack Obama," McCain's communications director, Jill Hazelbaker, said in a statement.

"The true test of a candidate for president is whether he will stand on principle and keep his word to the American people. Barack Obama has failed that test today, and his reversal of his promise to participate in the public finance system undermines his call for a new type of politics,"

Republican National Committee Chairman Robert M. Duncan repeated that theme: "Clearly, Barack Obama is just another politician who is willing to do whatever benefits his own personal agenda.”

Obama's move also was criticized by Joan Claybrook, president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. In a statement, she said:


"Obama has been a champion of ethics reforms and campaign finance reform… . Now that he has decided to opt out of public funding, it will be more difficult for him to show that he has not abandoned the concept and will champion clean elections and ensure that Congress passes much-needed reforms immediately."


Obama blamed the McCain campaign for making it impossible to stay in the public financing system, which began in the 1970s when Congress passed laws designed to limit the power of private funds in shaping electoral politics.

"John McCain's campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special-interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations," Obama said.

He insisted his campaign still represented a new type of politics, even if privately financed.

"You've already changed the way campaigns are funded because you know that's the only way we can truly change how Washington works," Obama said. "And that's the path we will continue in this general election.

"I'm asking you to try to do something that's never been done before. Declare our independence from a broken system, and run the type of campaign that reflects the grass-roots values that  have already changed our politics and brought us this far," he said.

The Obama campaign turned the Internet into an electoral cash register, raising more than $265 million, a record, by the end of April. Of that, $10 million was earmarked for the general election.

McCain trails in fund-raising, taking in $115 million by the end of May. But the Republican National Committee has more resources than its Democratic counterpart.

McCain and Obama declined public financing during the primary season. But McCain has been in a dispute with the Federal Election Commission, whose chairman earlier this year said the Republican candidate needed commission approval to decline the funds.

The FEC has not had a quorum to act, however, because four of its six seats have been vacant.


 michael.muskal@latimes.com






Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down