Ok, not football at all, but it matters, eventually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orgoner

Must admit I've been biting my tongue on this one, at least in terms of floating my thoughts and opinions out there as someone who's experienced (and voted in) elections on both sides of the Pond.

I guess the one observation I would make is that I really don't care for the way in which the presidential election is run. It isn't particularly democratic because, as it turns out, individual votes don't carry equal value.

It probably hasn't been overly emphasized in the UK, but the final result is determined by votes from an electoral college, which is essentially a combination of each individual state treated as a "first past the post" unit, with the number of votes they assign loosely based on the population of that state.

To "win" the electoral college, a candidate has to garner 270 votes.

Forty-odd of the states lean fairly solidly in one direction or the other (Red=Republican ("sort of" Conservative), Blue=Democrat ("sort of" Labour)), so their electoral votes are all but nailed-on as assigned to one candidate or the other as they are extremely unlikely to flip the other way..

Of the remaining states, they are either small fry (e.g. New Hampshire, which, though fairly purple. only has four electoral college votes) or larger "swing" states (the seven you've probably been hearing about in the news) where the presidential race is really taking place because of the number of electoral college votes they carry.

An individual vote in a swing state is therefore likely to be much more important than any vote in any of the other states.

Seems wrong to me: not that the majority can always be relied upon to vote sensibly, but it seems to me that the president should be the candidate receiving the most individual votes from individual people, not effectively chosen by a handful of larger purple states that may not look like much of the rest of the country.

All that said, it could absolutely be argued that a state like New Hampshire has an outsized influence on the Senate, for which each of the fifty states elect two candidates.

The House of Representatives is, as its name suggests, much more representative as it is made up of officials elected from similarly sized distructs (although there seems to be an awful lot of gerrymandering of these for political purposes).

I'll shut up as this stuff tends to get me annoyed and I can feel my hackles rising...

---

Hi Orgs,

You would be surprised at the amount of attention, and detail, that the US election attracts (or not, maybe). It's not like the 5 mobile messages a day and numerous follow-up texts to voters in the swing states like Pennsylvania featured on our BBC news today, or the claim by the Harris campaign to have "knocked on the door" of 3 million voters over the weekend!, but it is VERY in-depth considering. I agree with you regarding the popular vote vs electoral college. Folks might not like the outcome but at least they would know who really won (unless of course it was Trump in present circumstances, in which case who would know?>;))

Proportional representation is often suggested as a way of addressing the issues you mention regarding the Senate and House of Representatives (kind of equivalent to our House of Commons and House of Lords except the Lords aren't voted for, they are appointed (or if hereditary peers, the seat is passed won the generations). Thing is, proportional representation tends to deliver coalition government, not always (or ever?) a good thing (Israel is an example of said system, where religious minority parties are very powerful))

Proportional representation seems to be a good idea in principle, but, as you suggest, it doesn't seem to actually deliver that much when push comes to shove.

I have paid a fair bit of attention to my various local candidates and like some from both sides of the main parties and will be voting for them accordingly, not on blind party loyalty.

I really don't care for either Trump or Harris, so perhaps my perceived lack of representation there is a moot point.

I'll be glad when it's all over, although these things have a habit of starting up again almost immediately.

Trumps latest threat if he were to win......"It will be so good, maybe a bit nasty to start, but that's ok...." and if he loses?

How have the States managed to give us such a divided nation?

I'm not sure how the other US-based posters are set up, but taxation is the one area that totally does my head in.

It takes me a solid week every year to put together and successfully file my US Federal and NH State taxes as well as an F-BAR, which is a detailed document the US government demands that makes me list (in excrutiating detail) all of my non-US financial holdings and interests, no matter how insignificant they might be (seemingly under pain of death).

I fully acknowledge that taxes are an inevitable part of life and, to a certain extent, I have a percentage figure in my head that I simply never consider to be mine to use so that it doesn't come as a total shock when it comes to settle up every April 15 (I pay quarterly estimated bills to the IRS and NH to keep the final sticker shock to a minimum).

As an immediate example, I have a local tax bill in front of me right now. I have to pay $15k a year to my town in order to live in a house that I own outright (no mortgage). Roughly $10k of this goes to a school that serves no useful purpose to me as I don't have kids. The balance gets munched up by the state, emergency services, roads, and other community projects. I guess this is the equivalent of a Council Tax bill in the UK?

NH has no state income tax (unlike most) and no separate city-based income taxes.

I can at least see how my local taxes are spent, even if they seem on the high side.

The federal taxes on the other hand...

I suspect the US is not the Utopia many foreigners believe it to be. It is definitely not a good place to live if you don't have funds, or at least the ability to earn them.

(I probably should've continued to bite my tongue)

One challenge Trimp presents it seems from this small Isle to the Decomcrats is actually a little amusing in that often what he says is just being funny and not meant literally but the sense of humour failure to o all things Trump means it seems to send them into a rage.

The Senate and the HoR can from the little I know block the more extreme stuff in the unlikely event it ever came to pass. It also ignores the fact that some of the stuff both parties have done over the last 20 years hasn’t always been that great.

Back to the UK the current government seems to treat the deprived areas in the UK with a degree of contempt if they deign to complain about fairness which having grown up in northern climes I find somewhat offensive and disheartening at the same time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WTF11

Strangely (perhaps), agreed on all those points and as a pensioner with zero chance of increasing my earnings I'd happily slice off Starmers gentleman bits given the opportunity.

---

😎

Orgs, not meaning to get you stirred up. However, two sides to look at the presidential election process. As you know we are not a democracy. We are a representative republic. Big difference.

The other side of the electoral college is that it's the sole reason that the entire country is not controlled by a collection of large urban areas. You can see the brilliance of the founding fathers. You can see what happens when that happens at the state levels. Living down state IL, upstate New York or off the coast in California means you are basically without representation on any state or federal matters in those states. Chicago, New York City or So Cal or San Fran means you just pay taxes but have little or no input on how the state is run.

The whole intent was to provide equal representation as well as make it hard to pass laws/regulations. That's largely been destroyed when they passed the 17th amendment which made the senate a popular vote position. The senate, along with Judicial was intended to act as a "brake" on populist and mob rule that predominates in the House. With the 17th amendment the senate is little different that the house and when one party controls congress, the senate and the presidency it can just pass anything it wants regardless of the impact on the country. The $35,000,000,000,000 debt ($272,00 per citizen) is one simple example of not having guardrails on a system. This does even include trillions of dollars of liabilities that aren't included in "government accounting" on the debt.

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

I think the 17th amendment along with the politicization of our public schools sealed our fate. The old Ben Franklin saying "'When people discover they can vote themselves money that is the end of the Republic'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hopelesslyoptimistic

One challenge Trimp presents it seems from this small Isle to the Decomcrats is actually a little amusing in that often what he says is just being funny and not meant literally but the sense of humour failure to o all things Trump means it seems to send them into a rage.

The Senate and the HoR can from the little I know block the more extreme stuff in the unlikely event it ever came to pass. It also ignores the fact that some of the stuff both parties have done over the last 20 years hasn’t always been that great.

Back to the UK the current government seems to treat the deprived areas in the UK with a degree of contempt if they deign to complain about fairness which having grown up in northern climes I find somewhat offensive and disheartening at the same time.

---

It does seem as if he deliberately chooses to throw random stuff out there to amuse himself and stir up a "news" response, especially as he's been doing little else for at least a year now and he's no spring chicken.

I don't think anyone running for president is ever likely to be much more than a self-obsessed gobshyte and this pair is no exception.

I'm dreading hearing either of them pontificate on a regular basis over the next four years and, like Hopey suggests, am hopeful that a combination of the Senate and House of Representatives can keep the more ridiculous stuff (whichever side it comes from) in check and prevent the US from descending into a feral failed state.

To quote Private Frazer, "We're doomed, I tell you! Doomed!"

Anyway, football eh?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spaldy

Orgs, not meaning to get you stirred up. However, two sides to look at the presidential election process. As you know we are not a democracy. We are a representative republic. Big difference.

The other side of the electoral college is that it's the sole reason that the entire country is not controlled by a collection of large urban areas. You can see the brilliance of the founding fathers. You can see what happens when that happens at the state levels. Living down state IL, upstate New York or off the coast in California means you are basically without representation on any state or federal matters in those states. Chicago, New York City or So Cal or San Fran means you just pay taxes but have little or no input on how the state is run.

The whole intent was to provide equal representation as well as make it hard to pass laws/regulations. That's largely been destroyed when they passed the 17th amendment which made the senate a popular vote position. The senate, along with Judicial was intended to act as a "brake" on populist and mob rule that predominates in the House. With the 17th amendment the senate is little different that the house and when one party controls congress, the senate and the presidency it can just pass anything it wants regardless of the impact on the country. The $35,000,000,000,000 debt ($272,00 per citizen) is one simple example of not having guardrails on a system. This does even include trillions of dollars of liabilities that aren't included in "government accounting" on the debt.

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

I think the 17th amendment along with the politicization of our public schools sealed our fate. The old Ben Franklin saying "'When people discover they can vote themselves money that is the end of the Republic'.

---

You're not wrong. Even in NH, there is a big North/South divide.

Southern NH is not so different from Massachusetts, which has a much different vibe to those living North of where I live.

I guess no system is ever going to be perfect, but the whole election process seems more of a circus than anything else, even if important things are at stake.

Said it earlier in the thread but it really, really, really is hard to believe with over 250,000,000 potential candidates that this is the best we could come up with. Of course, who in their right mind would want the job. You have to sell your soul and lose all sense of self identity.

Almost as hard to believe is the fact when Truman left the job in 1952 he packed up a U haul trailer and pulled it with a Chrysler that was loaned to him to head back to Independence Missouri to live in his 3 bedroom house. No secret service and no books, media or other money grabs. Just went back to normal life. I went through his house on a tour in the early 80's. it was little different than my Grandparents house in Pinckneyville IL. It just boggles the mind that this occurred just a few years before I was born.