Hmmmm... looks like Bush.

[Marlowe]

Originally posted by Scarlet Belle
Hi all! I am curious to know how you guys feel about not having to vote? In Australia it is compulsory for EVERYONE over the age of 18 to vote, with hefty fines if you dont. I guess there are good and bad points to both ways, but Im interested to know if your structure creates apathy or more of an interest in what the parties are offering.

Voter turnout in the U.S., even for Presidential elections, used to be abysmally low. It's a lot higher now. My attitude is that, in a democracy (or, like our system, a democratic republic) the voters get what they deserve. Or, to quote a rock song, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." (Of course, the song is about religion, not politics, but it's still apropos.)

 

[The_Edge]

Originally posted by Marlowe
Edge, you might also mention that your map shows county-by-county results by majority only. Therefore, counties that barely had a majority for Bush will be just as red as ones that were ding-nigh unanimous. (And vice-versa, obviously, for the blue counties.)

What part of "majority" don't you understand? Even if a county swings one way by one single vote it is still a majority and therefore a fair win.

Originally posted by Marlowe
Most of the red counties are, in fact, in rural areas having lower population per squre mile figures than Boston, New York, Miami, Chicago, San Fransisco/Oakland, etc.

Which is exactly why the Electoral college is so vital and more important now than ever. Otherwise urbanites in all those cities you mentioned would be deciding each and every election.

 

[The_Edge]

Originally posted by Scarlet Belle
Hi all! I am curious to know how you guys feel about not having to vote? In Australia it is compulsory for EVERYONE over the age of 18 to vote, with hefty fines if you dont. I guess there are good and bad points to both ways, but Im interested to know if your structure creates apathy or more of an interest in what the parties are offering.

America is about freedom. Freedom to vote or freedom not to vote. Even apathy is given a fair shake in our republic.

How free is an Aussie if he/she is forced by their government to vote?

 

[jamespowers]

I agree that forced voting just would not make sense for several reasons. First, and foremost, is the fact that the uninformed would just run in and vote for anyone without regard to the results of their vote. They would just be begrudgingly fulfilling a requirement forced on them by the government. Their votes are best left at home.
I prefer the self-selection process. It is not perfect but it does bring out those that are interested for country or party's sake. I actually think that voting should be more difficult. The process hould be very strictly scrutinzed. I do not want illegals, those not qualified, the dead, fradulent voters or fifty people registered at one house. The integrity of the process is determined by ourt ability to maintain it and assure that fraud is limited or our votes mean nothing. I just walk in and give them my name and address. That is not enough to deter fraud. They should ask for a driver's license or at least a bill from your address in your name like my cable company requires to start service! Do something to insure that the person voting is the person who they say they are. I could have walked in and voted for my wife for all they cared! Maybe I should have walked in and voted for my cat. She has a vested interest in the election---food. LOL
Let's just remember that voting is a responsibility and not just a right. Do not take it lightly. Do not vote for a person without knowing who they are----call them or email them on the local level. They will respond. I know I do.

Regards to all,

J

 

[jamespowers]

Originally posted by The_Edge
Which is exactly why the Electoral college is so vital and more important now than ever. Otherwise urbanites in all those cities you mentioned would be deciding each and every election.

Amen. The whole purpose of having a Republic is for this reason. Let us all remember that we live in a Democratic Republic and not a Democracy. This is a good thing for a few reason but the most important of which is that the majority cannot vote to order the minority into an oven.
If you want direct democracy then work within the states that have the initiative process. If you don't have one then get one. Works for me here.

Regards to all,

J

 

[Forrestal]

An earlier post had stated something about the final election results did not matter because Kerry had already conceded the election.

Here is my question……does a concession speech really mean anything?

Supposing the final electoral count gave the election to Kerry, would it not have mattered because he conceded?

What if a candidate concedes at 6:01a.m. Eastern time….just after the polls opened. Election over?

My point is, I don’t think a candidates concession, whenever given, brings an end to the election.

What do you think?

Regards,
Forrestal

 

[The_Edge]

Originally posted by Forrestal
An earlier post had stated something about the final election results did not matter because Kerry had already conceded the election.

Here is my question……does a concession speech really mean anything?

Supposing the final electoral count gave the election to Kerry, would it not have mattered because he conceded?

What if a candidate concedes at 6:01a.m. Eastern time….just after the polls opened. Election over?

My point is, I don’t think a candidates concession, whenever given, brings an end to the election.

What do you think?

Regards,
Forrestal

You are correct. A candidate's concession speech is only a gracious formality and nothing more. It is not a binding contract, although I'm sure that could be argued in court. Theoretically the election results could change and the outcome turn in favor of the conceded candidate.

Anyone who is honestly holding out hope that Kerry will still be elected is delusional. Break out the Kool-Aid.

 

[Marlowe]

Originally posted by The_Edge
What part of "majority" don't you understand? Even if a county swings one way by one single vote it is still a majority and therefore a fair win.

Easy, tiger! You're preaching to the choir here. It's just that the map you posted makes it look like the entire countryside voted for Bush and the all the cities voted for Kerry. That's not exactly how the numbers break up. Have a look at this map, showing gradations between red (Bush) and blue (Kerry) votes. It's not quite so dramatically differentiated between the cities and the sticks.

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/purple_america_2004.gif

Originally posted by The_Edge
Which is exactly why the Electoral college is so vital and more important now than ever. Otherwise urbanites in all those cities you mentioned would be deciding each and every election. [/B]

Yes, the Electoral College of Votes prevents the country from becoming a "mob-ocracy."

 

[BellyTank]

To those who responded to my earler postings on this thread, I extend my thanks for your responses. I was asking as an individual, from my own point of view not as a "European" and what you have told me goes a long way to giving me a better understanding of the current conservative climate in the US, especially that among younger people.
I was not trying to be inflammatory or cause trouble. It is difficult to get insight into peoples' political angle without hearing from "people".
Thanks people,
BTank.
PS. I watched F9/11, thought provoking at least...