US Election Day: Nov 6, 2012

69 posts / 0 new
Last post
janfromthebruce

ha ha ha - ty to both Smith and Slumberjack - Trump so mocked is the best

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture
Aristotleded24

California's Prop 37, which would have made labelling of GM foods manditory, was defeated. Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona also unfortunately won re-election.

jas

I admit I'm a little confused about the results because we know vote rigging does occur in the U.S. Daily KOS joked that Romney held off conceding because he was waiting for the vote-flipping machines to do their work. Which were my thoughts exactly. I can envision a scenario where Romney was assured the election by the real people who run America, the shadowy cabal, so I am left to puzzle over several explanations.

1) Vote rigging does not occur with any significance in the U.S. (I find this hard to believe, considering the U.S.'s inability to effectively handle their own electoral process, with still long wait lines and numerous different voting systems, manual and electronic, in place in different regions and permitting all kinds of inconsistencies)

2) Yes, vote rigging does occur and vote-flipping machines were flipping Obama votes into Romney votes, but this still did not help Romney in the end, which suggests that his actual vote was much lower than the reported results.

3) Yes, vote rigging occurs, but the Democrats have got wise to it and have counter-bugged the machines, or stealth bugged their own machines. 

4) Yes, U.S. elections are largely rigged, but the shadowy cabal either wanted or allowed Obama to win because they have other plans for him.  

4a) Re: other plans: allow conservative extremism to boil up, fomenting notions of revolution, civil war, and, no one will say it, but assassination. It is within the realm of believability that U.S. right extremists would consider assassination to be an "all's fair in war" solution. 

4a-1) If assassination is being planned, it is interesting that a new Steven Spielberg movie, "Lincoln" will be coming out next week. Many in the past have compared Obama to Lincoln in looks and in popular appeal. This idea that Hollywood prepaves the popular mindset to extraordinary events that are being conspired was also observed with the release of the movie "Pearl Harbour" two months before 9/11. 

Yes, these are conspiracy theories, and I do hope there is no truth in them. 

But how to explain the obvious vote rigging that occurred in 2000 and 2004, but not in this election?

6079_Smith_W

Just look at the coverage of the long lineups in Florida and other states, and the many people who had to walk away and not vote.

They DID try.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Canada should be embarrassed that two US states legalized Marijuana for recreational use before it did.

That infographic tells the more interesting story. I don't know why anyone should care that Obama is still in the White House: Enbridge, drones, labour-busting it's all continuing apace.

jas

Catchfire wrote:

Canada should be embarrassed that two US states legalized Marijuana for recreational use before it did.

Canada IS embarrassed. How is it that Americans have become more progressive than Canadians? That's what six years of the pasty faced dough-boy have done to us. 

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

California's Prop 37, which would have made labelling of GM foods manditory, was defeated.

Wow, I don't understand that at all. Frown

kropotkin1951

In Oklahoma they passed this piece of drivel.

Quote:

The Oklahoma Affirmative Action Ban Amendment, also known as State Question 759, was on the November 6, 2012 ballot in the state of Oklahoma as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. The measure would ban affirmative action programs in the state, and would prohibit special treatment based on race or sex in public employment, education and contracts.

6079_Smith_W

@ k

That sucks

State Representative Leslie Osborn claimed, “This proposed constitutional amendment makes clear that all men are created equal and should be treated as such by their government. If voters approve this constitutional amendment, state government will not be allowed to discriminate against Oklahoma citizens based on race or gender – period.”

Though actually their point of discrimination dressed up as principle only counts when it doesn't cost them federal dollars. If it means they'll lose federal funding for a project, then Affirmative Action is just fine.

Like a lot about this election campaign, I think some of these measures were brought up more to inflame division and hatred, and not so much thinking through how it is going to actually work in practice.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oklahoma_Affirmative_Action_Ban_Am...

It's like those electoral districts in Florida which have been under federal jurisdiction for 40 years in order to protect minority voting rights, because the state won't guarantee it.

 

Ippurigakko

I read USA election Atlas forum discussion about last night election:
Republican supporter said: "2016 will be a Republican and conservative year."

Yeah sure, USA will be Republican president in 2016, it is mean we will be non-Conservative Prime Minister in 2015 just reversed. Lol!

josh

Schadenfreude

 

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/C5Pa9YvAqLs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Aristotleded24

[url=http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/11/07/romneys_transition_site.htm... Mitt Romney has a transition website set up[/url]

DaveW

NorthReport wrote:

Now we will find out if Obama will push to end the Bush tax cuts on the 1% or 2%, and for once push to reward the people who supported him. 

he faces a majority Republican Congress in that negotiation; to push and succeed in pushing are not the same thing ...

NorthReport

Obama said he would go over the heads of the 1 per centers, and speak directly to the American people, but if Obama wants to have any kind of a constructive legacy, he needs to get going on this now as the Wall Street gang are already trying stampede him into capitulating. There are alternatives to the current situation. What's the point of campaigning and winning if you don't deliver to your loyal supporters.

http://www.thenation.com/article/171159/response-ben-adler-third-party-c...

 

DaveW wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Now we will find out if Obama will push to end the Bush tax cuts on the 1% or 2%, and for once push to reward the people who supported him. 

he faces a majority Republican Congress in that negotiation; to push and succeed in pushing are not the same thing ...

Ippurigakko

question... usa electoral system fptp:

President: 332 Obama and 206 Romney
HOR: 234 Republican, 194 Democrat and 7 undecided
Senate: 54 D and 45 R and 1 IND

what would they use proportional representative? what is it looks like?

Doug Woodard

Ippurigakko wrote:

question... usa electoral system fptp:

President: 332 Obama and 206 Romney
HOR: 234 Republican, 194 Democrat and 7 undecided
Senate: 54 D and 45 R and 1 IND

what would they use proportional representative? what is it looks like?

I would say:

President - elect the electoral college by proportional representation, say state lists. If possible have the members of the electoral college elect the president by AV/IRV (ranked transferable vote to fill one place)

OR

elect the president directly via AV/IRV. They might need a rule that preferences would not cross state boundaries.

Senate - Increase the number of Senators to 3 per state, elect them by PR-STV. 5 per state would be better, but I don't think the Americans would buy it.

House of Representatives - just about any good PR system with lists or districts contained within states (American tradition and constitution).

If list then open-list. If there is any state with 1 congessperson it could use AV/IRV. For 2 or 3 congresspersons per state, PR-STV would be best. 

PR-STV overall would provide consistency, with AV/IRV the fallback for 1 congressperson per state.

Doug Woodard

Ippurigakko wrote:

question... usa electoral system fptp:

President: 332 Obama and 206 Romney
HOR: 234 Republican, 194 Democrat and 7 undecided
Senate: 54 D and 45 R and 1 IND

what would they use proportional representative? what is it looks like?

I would say:

President - elect the electoral college by proportional representation, say state lists. If possible have the members of the electoral college elect the president by AV/IRV (ranked transferable vote to fill one place)

OR

elect the president directly via AV/IRV. They might need a rule that preferences would not cross state boundaries.

Senate - Increase the number of Senators to 3 per state, elect them by PR-STV. 5 per state would be better, but I don't think the Americans would buy it.

House of Representatives - just about any good PR system with lists or districts contained within states (American tradition and constitution).

If list then open-list. If there is any state with 1 congessperson it could use AV/IRV. For 2 or 3 congresspersons per state, PR-STV would be best. 

PR-STV overall would provide consistency, with AV/IRV the fallback for 1 congressperson per state.

Pages