US elections someone explain it
- Thread starter Thermo
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Right, well what happens is, the citizen votes for an elector. Each state has a different number of electors, depending on the number of citizens. It is weighted so big states have proportionally fewer electors, and small states have proportionally more electors.
So, say you are voting for the Republican party, you vote for your republican representative in your state. If he wins, he then casts his vote for President, which will be for the Republican candidate.
This system is why Bush won with a minority vote. He received less votes from the proletariat than Gore, however due to the non-proportional nature of the Electoral College, he ended up with more votes from the Electoral College. And this is why Florida was so important: if Gore had won there, he would have had enough votes from the EC to be president.
I think it is more backwards than our first-past-the-post system, but there are pushes for Proportional Representation in the US too.
So, say you are voting for the Republican party, you vote for your republican representative in your state. If he wins, he then casts his vote for President, which will be for the Republican candidate.
This system is why Bush won with a minority vote. He received less votes from the proletariat than Gore, however due to the non-proportional nature of the Electoral College, he ended up with more votes from the Electoral College. And this is why Florida was so important: if Gore had won there, he would have had enough votes from the EC to be president.
I think it is more backwards than our first-past-the-post system, but there are pushes for Proportional Representation in the US too.
Oh, and there are more than two parties, there was that third candidate in 2000. But in the same way that the UK effectively works on a 2-party system (although the Lib Dems and other minority parties are now receiving more significant levels of votes), Republican and Democrat are the two main US parties.
I probably didn't explain myself fully in the last post. Some states have a greater influence because they have a larger electorate.
I probably didn't explain myself fully in the last post. Some states have a greater influence because they have a larger electorate.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 8 Apr 2004
- Messages
- 386
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
There are more than two candidates this year, depending what area you live in, I believe it's by county as to who qualifies, but there's Nader - independent, he ran with the greens last time, but at the time of most of the primaries, the greens said they wouldn't field a candidate. Then they did choose a candidate, so there's Cobb. A newcomer party, which looks set to make some gains are the Libertarians - with Michael Badnarik. Walt Brown is for socialist, Peroutka for the Constitution party.
Those may all be worth noting as either major or minor candidates.
Those may all be worth noting as either major or minor candidates.
There is a college vote system. Depending on the population of that state depends on the number of college votes. For example Wyoming has the smallest population and has only 3 college votes. You need 270 to win. So if you won all the states with the biggest amount of college votes like California, which has 40 votes due to the large population, you would not necessarily need to win the majority of states to win. States that were important like Ohio and Florida held alot of College votes and were marginal so who ever won them potentially would win the race....phew
WHY WHY WHY do we have to watch the us election on {yes} british tv
from the media coverage and amount of tv time given to the yanks you could think they were running for number 10 downing street.
i think we have enough grazy american tv shows ,culture , theme parks,food outlets .and presenters .
might be nice if we had more british tv!
from the media coverage and amount of tv time given to the yanks you could think they were running for number 10 downing street.
i think we have enough grazy american tv shows ,culture , theme parks,food outlets .and presenters .
might be nice if we had more british tv!
Tony6 said:
Well, they are our closest ally, we do have the old "Special Relationship" and everything, and we have a lot more in common with them than our European neighbours, so to me at least, it is of interest. I didn't get the impression of overdoing it, I felt that the news kept me informed but certainly wasn't overwhelming. If they covered all the European elections then we would never see the end of it, France one week, Germany the next, then Italy etc. etc.
As for British TV, friends of mine on the other side of the pond are big fans of British TV. Coupling, Blackadder (once had to explain that Blackadder II wasn't Elizabeth I's son, despite calling her "Ma'am"
), Red Dwarf, Father Ted, Monty Python. We get more US TV than the US gets UK TV, but the shows we do export generally attract almost-religious fan-bases. I guess repeats are also a way of showing that good tv and radio progs cost money .... I honestly feel that the decent coverage is very good and BBC radio is unsurpassed against other stuff I have heard ... Not happy with advertising at all.jasy said:what more repeats of 1970's shows for over £100 per year ang yes you guessed it....... we don't have a choice you have to pay it
BBC tv supplied 49,481 hrs, BBC Radio 76,752 hrs, content 2003/2004
A grand total of 126,233 hrs or 346 hrs per day 14.4 hrs every hour.
I have a choice among most of that for £10 per month ... pretty good value I think.
BTW .. no license required for Radio these days ... so that's fantastic value for .... £nowt. ( £nowt, precisely what we would see returned if License fee was dropped )
P
Tony6 said:
Because the American President is the British Prime Ministers Boss??
I suppose when all is said and done, the old Yanks aim to be the last people standing when the planet starts shutting down ....
I don't think I'll be betting against them ...
Here's a different slant .. how many of the people they go to war with, would use the same weapon technology if they had better ? There you go, even in war they try to be friendly, fighting with their second best weaponery, giving the sucker an even break !!
I don't think I'll be betting against them ...
Here's a different slant .. how many of the people they go to war with, would use the same weapon technology if they had better ? There you go, even in war they try to be friendly, fighting with their second best weaponery, giving the sucker an even break !!
pipme said:I guess repeats are also a way of showing that good tv and radio progs cost money .... I honestly feel that the decent coverage is very good and BBC radio is unsurpassed against other stuff I have heard ... Not happy with advertising at all.jasy said:what more repeats of 1970's shows for over £100 per year ang yes you guessed it....... we don't have a choice you have to pay it
BBC tv supplied 49,481 hrs, BBC Radio 76,752 hrs, content 2003/2004
A grand total of 126,233 hrs or 346 hrs per day 14.4 hrs every hour.
I have a choice among most of that for £10 per month ... pretty good value I think.
BTW .. no license required for Radio these days ... so that's fantastic value for .... £nowt. ( £nowt, precisely what we would see returned if
License fee was dropped )
P
I don't like to have to pay for something i do not believe i get full value for money for. Great quoting hours etc but i do not listen to any of the radio stations and very rarely watch bbctv due to the amount of cr*p that is on it. Saturday tea times are usually full of repeats, peak viewing time!!
The quote was??
Well, they are our closest ally, we do have the old "Special Relationship" and everything, and we have a lot more in common with them than our European neighbours, so to me at least, it is of interest.
How can you call the americans our closet allies when they have taken us to war!
What do with have in common with them? Oh yes ,mac donalds,
You might recall the 1st world war i believe the so called "speacial relationship "was`nt around when they refused to help and the start ??
oh yes thats right, it was the french that helped our soldiers.
THATS ME HISTORY lesson?
i guess if you like fat food ,pollution,have no culture or history.Sorry there is the gun history cowboys and indians there will always be someone that likes america broadcasted on on your tv.
Well, they are our closest ally, we do have the old "Special Relationship" and everything, and we have a lot more in common with them than our European neighbours, so to me at least, it is of interest.
How can you call the americans our closet allies when they have taken us to war!
What do with have in common with them? Oh yes ,mac donalds,
You might recall the 1st world war i believe the so called "speacial relationship "was`nt around when they refused to help and the start ??
oh yes thats right, it was the french that helped our soldiers.
THATS ME HISTORY lesson?
i guess if you like fat food ,pollution,have no culture or history.Sorry there is the gun history cowboys and indians there will always be someone that likes america broadcasted on on your tv.
- Joined
- 8 Apr 2004
- Messages
- 386
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
Welcome to Britain in the digital age, thanks to satellite and that charming Australian American whose initials be RM, we can import and repeat like was never possible. Now some channels put 'All new' in the corner when a new show is realeased in case of nonserialized shows.
But if you're referring to BBC America, I see where you're coming from, I looked at the content of that channel, and I really don't think it's doing enough to sell the new programming we have here. It got slated by the critics, it should do well in the States.
But if you're referring to BBC America, I see where you're coming from, I looked at the content of that channel, and I really don't think it's doing enough to sell the new programming we have here. It got slated by the critics, it should do well in the States.
Sponsored Links
