NON-US views on US Elections

[The Nightfly]

Just wondering what the non-US people on here think of the race for presidential nomination. I've been keeping a pretty keen eye on things considering it's not my country, although admittedly I don't know Obama's bowling score.

Who would you like to see end up as president? Who do you think would be best in relation to your own country's interests? What are your views on all of them?

Personally I think Obama looks like being as close to the perfect politician as I'm ever going to see in the western world. His conduct so far has seemed to be far more mature than Clinton's, favouring a positive approach rather than seeing how much dirt he can dig up on the opposition. There isn't one policy he has that I would disagree with in my own country.

He has an inspirational style, and I hope to god it rubs off on British politics because we're forced to choose between a dull bunch characters to say the least... but that's another matter.

People from the US are of course welcome to chip in, but try keep it relative to the title

[Martian]

Well, I'm a bit stymied by the whole electoral college thing. The first past the post system has it's flaws, but on the whole makes more sense to me.

Regarding the candidates, Obama is the only one who really seems sensible to me; mind, that's coming from someone who freely admits to being confounded by the American value system to begin with. While I consider the whole 'leader of the free world' bit to be a bit arrogant to say the least, I reckon that the US is a major player in world politics and who they choose as a leader therefore affects everyone. To bad the other 6 billion of us don't get a say on the matter, but what are you gonna do?

What worries me is that if the US economy truly tanks they're probably going to drag us with them. I mean, things are going well here now, but what happens when our primary trading partner doesn't have the buying power to import our goods anymore? It's a bad situation.

[SecretMethod70]

Originally Posted by Martian

Well, I'm a bit stymied by the whole electoral college thing. The first past the post system has it's flaws, but on the whole makes more sense to me.

Has its flaws is an understatement. Plurality voting (first-past-the-post) is, quite easily, one of the worst, if not the worst voting method available. Worse yet, this is something that has been known for quite a long time but we've still done almost nothing about it, here and elsewhere around the world. The electoral college, while obviously imperfect, is mostly a scapegoat for the real problem in our elections, which is plurality voting.

Anyway, I just wanted to pop in here and point that out, because I'm not a foreigner so I'll leave it at that.

[highthief]

Not sold on Obama - lots of sizzle, not sure there is a lot of steak there.

Hillary would probably do well economically and in foreign issues, but I get the impression the US is more likely to accept a black man over a white woman as President.

[The Nightfly]

Originally Posted by highthief

Not sold on Obama - lots of sizzle, not sure there is a lot of steak there.

I've always seen it as he's pure steak and the sizzle is just a consequence of that.

That analogy is a bit dodgy but whatever...

[Tully Mars]

Of the few folks I've spoken to down here I don't think there's much preference as long as it isn't Bush. Of course the understanding of who stands for what is at least as limited as the interest. I get asked whether I think Bush will really leave more often then who I think will win.

[spindles]

I don't think I have a huge preference, but I'm more of a democrat than a republican.

I know he has MS, but I wonder if they can organise to get Jed Bartlett?

[percy]

The impression I have is that race and gender predominate the coverage, or from what I have seen at least. Things like the black vote in the north, the black vote in the south, the womens vote , the 19-34 age group and if they are ready for a women, ready for a black man. Not alot on actual policy.

Interesting though, not much mention of religious tendencies. Usually most public forums from award shows to political debates in the USA have several references to 'thanking God,' but surprising little of that so far

And John McCain!! Poor guy, even as the presidential candidate for the GOP he has about as much air play as PeeWee Herman does these days. Maybe he should go see a matinee and scratch an itch.

[james t kirk]

What KILLS me about the entire US election process is HOW DAMN LONG IT TAKES.

It's INSANE.

By the time November rolls around, they will have been campaigning for 2 years.

That's 2 YEARS.

Can't you get it over with faster?

I much prefer our system where an election gets called, and everything is over but the crying in 4 to 5 weeks time.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by james t kirk

What KILLS me about the entire US election process is HOW DAMN LONG IT TAKES.

It's INSANE.

By the time November rolls around, they will have been campaigning for 2 years.

That's 2 YEARS.

Can't you get it over with faster?

I much prefer our system where an election gets called, and everything is over but the crying in 4 to 5 weeks time.

Its leader of the free world eh? If anything we need more time.

Nuclear arsenal, massive economy, able to change the course of history at a whim, that sort of thing.

[Martian]

Originally Posted by james t kirk

I much prefer our system where an election gets called, and everything is over but the crying in 4 to 5 weeks time.

But the crying lasts 2-4 years.

[percy]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Its leader of the free world eh?

Nothing is free

[Charlatan]

Our process takes less time to elect but then we aren't electing a head of state in Canada. We are electing a Parliament. The difference being the party has already elected it's head at a separate convention.

That said, I agree. The US system appears to be in constant election cycle. It's amazing they get anything done.


From my point of view it really does look like McCain is the Republican's John Kerry (i.e. someone has to run so it might as well be him). It is the Democrats election to lose. As for Clinton vs. Obama... from where I am sitting Obama looks pretty good but the longer this primary season goes on without a clear winner, it looks like more damage is being done to Obama than Clinton.

McCain is the dark horse of this election.

[loquitur]

yeah, it's constant electioneering in the US. We have this first amendment thing that prohibits muzzling anyone about anything, plus we have definite dates for elections, so everyone is free to do their plotting and act on it. They know when the next elections are and what they need to do to spin things to their advantage. Oh, and the country is freakin' huge.

This isn't a defense of how the system has turned out, but just a commentary on why it has turned out that way. On balance I like the first amendment; restraints on expression tend to operate in favor of those entrenched in power.

[Willravel]

This is an interesting thread. Do Mexicans really think Bush won't leave office?

[dc_dux]

The length of the election cycle doesnt bother me as much as the cost.

The candidates combined raised and spent nearly $800 million for the primaries alone; the general election (if they dont take public funding) could cost the two candidates another $500 million each....and that doesnt include the spending by independent groups (the 527s) to trash the candidate of their choice.

[Tully Mars]

Originally Posted by willravel

This is an interesting thread. Do Mexicans really think Bush won't leave office?

I don't know about all Mexican. But yes, of the one's I've spoken with they think there's a serious chance Bush will simply call or create some type of emergency and stay.

These are not all poorly educated or poor in any other way. I had a great day yesterday with a lady I met at my gym. Turns out her family owns that gym and several others in and around Merida. She's about 50-50 on whether he'll actually leave. I ended up speaking with her dad he gave it a 25% chance Bush would leave.

Of course what does he know he had the Pats in the super bowl. He also at the super bowl according to several pictures on his wall.

[Willravel]

If they're right, then it's on the American people to not fall for it.

[Tully Mars]

Originally Posted by willravel

If they're right, then it's on the American people to not fall for it.

They're not right.

The US presidential election system is confusing. Ask the average US citizen on the street and I'll bet at 40% couldn't explain it with any degree of accuracy or detail. In late November, 2000 I took a dive trip down to Bonaire, if you dive you highly recommend it. One night during dinner and drinks a British couple asked me who I thought was going to come out on top, Bush or Gore. We discussed it a bit, I told them I hoped for Bush but didn't know what was going to happened (yeah, I voted for Jr. the first time around.) He asked "Do they always count Florida last?" I did my best to explain the electoral college. That just seemed to confuse them even more. I remember him saying, in a thick British accent, "Well who the bloody hell elects the electors?" "Umm, waiter we're gonna need another round of drinks here."

Another thing to consider is Mexico is definitively Latin. The news here includes US news to some degree but you're more likely to read stories out of central and south America. It's not unheard of for leaders in those countries to refuse to give up their hold on power.

[loquitur]

DC_Dux, why do you think $800 million is too much to spend on an presidential election? We have a country of 300 million people, a huge economy, tremendous influence -- isn't choosing our leaders worth spending a hump of money on? It's still probably less than what we spend on barbecues.

[dc_dux]

loquitor...its not the $800 million in and of itself....its the fact that most of that is from large donors and/or special interests and hardly representative of the 300 million people.

What is impressive about Obama's campaign is that 40% of his donors have contributed $200 or less.

But as you noted, its a matter of first amendment rights to try to buy influence.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

What is impressive about Obama's campaign is that 40% of his donors have contributed $200 or less.

You need to clarify this a bit.

40% of his donors donated less than $200 dollars, which is kinda meaningless.

OR....

40% of his money came from donation of 200 dollars or less.


The way you wrote it is not exactly impressive.

[dc_dux]

From FEC data ..... 2008 Donor Demographics

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

From FEC data ..... 2008 Donor Demographics

Ah ok, so its the later.

McCain better get fund raising!

Been a while since I've been on that site, man the lawyers REALLY wanted Kerry/Edwards in 2004, go figure eh?

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Been a while since I've been on that site, man the lawyers REALLY wanted Kerry/Edwards in 2004, go figure eh?

Thats the value of transparency in campaign contributions required by law...

....so why not the same for contributions to a quasi-public presidential library, particularly when a president is soliciting funds while still in office and making major policy decisions? (oops, wrong thread)

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Thats the value of transparency in campaign contributions required by law...

....so why not the same for contributions to a quasi-public presidential library, particularly when a president is soliciting funds while still in office and making major policy decisions? (oops, wrong thread)

I think the political power of a presidential library is being vastly over rated.

I see it more as a virtual penis for past presidents, which makes Clinton's all the more amusing.

[loquitur]

If you have seen a picture of Clinton's library you'd see just how phallic it is. Very apt.

From what I read, McCain apparently is going to be taking public financing. I wonder if Obama will too? (I'm assuming BHO will be the nominee)

[The Nightfly]

massive subject deviation here...

[fastom]

The election process baffles me. It goes on forever and during that length of time nobody has figured out that the candidates aren't the best choices.

How Bush even got to be a candidate is baffling, how he won over the others stupifies me. Aren't there a couple hundred million people more qualified? How he hasn't been turfed out like Nixon is astonishing.

I will be surprised like the Mexicans if he leaves gracefully. I fear he has his middle finger on the WW3 button and nothing to lose by pushing it.

Edit: I guess to answer the question "Who would I like to see as President" None of the above! Maybe Ron Paul or Jesse Ventura as a write in candidate.

[Lebell]

This is a very interesting thread. One of the most interesting I've seen here in a long time.

[Tully Mars]

Originally Posted by fastom

The election process baffles me. It goes on forever and during that length of time nobody has figured out that the candidates aren't the best choices.

How Bush even got to be a candidate is baffling, how he won over the others stupifies me. Aren't there a couple hundred million people more qualified? How he hasn't been turfed out like Nixon is astonishing.

I will be surprised like the Mexicans if he leaves gracefully. I fear he has his middle finger on the WW3 button and nothing to lose by pushing it.

Edit: I guess to answer the question "Who would I like to see as President" None of the above! Maybe Ron Paul or Jesse Ventura as a write in candidate.

He won the first time because people, like myself, believed him when he said he'd be a uniter not a divider. He's consistantly proven that was a lie. He could give a shit about uniting the country or what the "other" side wants.

Jesse's living down here in Mexico, no I don't know where and no I don't know him. Saw him on Cobert and he talked about living in Mexico.

Ron Paul may have some decent ideas. Unfortunately for him, he's crazy. I saw him on Meet the Press and he talked about salve ownership like it was a good thing and if the northerners had wanted to end slavery they should have bought all the salves. See to him it was a "property rights" issues.

[loquitur]

Best non-US view of the US elections I have ever seen:

We in Denmark cannot figure out why you are even bothering to hold an election.

On one side, you have a bitch who is a lawyer, married to a lawyer, and a lawyer who is married to a bitch who is a lawyer.

On the other side, you have a true war hero married to a woman with a huge chest who owns a beer distributorship.

Is there a contest here?

(No, I don't regularly read that site. I was directed there by a friend)

[Tully Mars]

Hmmm..

We in Denmark cannot figure out why you are even bothering to hold an election.

On one side, you have a bitch who is a lawyer, married to a lawyer, and a lawyer who is married to a bitch who is a lawyer.

On the other side, you have a true war hero married to a woman with a huge chest who owns a beer distributorship.

I guess I'd only make two changes...

We in Denmark cannot figure out why you are even bothering to hold an election.

On one side, you have a bitch who is a lawyer, married to a disbarred lawyer, and a lawyer who is married to a bitch who is a lawyer.

On the other side, you have a true war hero married to a woman with a huge chest who owns a beer distributorship whose family has known ties to the mob and won't release her income tax data to "protect her family's privacy.".

And then add...

No there shouldn't be a contest here at all.

[Leto]

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Has its flaws is an understatement. Plurality voting (first-past-the-post) is, quite easily, one of the worst, if not the worst voting method available. Worse yet, this is something that has been known for quite a long time but we've still done almost nothing about it, here and elsewhere around the world. The electoral college, while obviously imperfect, is mostly a scapegoat for the real problem in our elections, which is plurality voting.

Anyway, I just wanted to pop in here and point that out, because I'm not a foreigner so I'll leave it at that.

I just don't understand. what is plurality voting? I think we have first past the post here, but not sure of what the implications are.

All I know is that we have representatives who represent a particular party. They run for election in an electoral district (riding) which is represented based on size of population. Who ever gets the most votes (this is the democratic part) gets to represent the electoral district in Parliament (works the same way in provincial as federal elections). Depending on the party that elects the most number of representatives, the makeup of Parliament will be constituted with a majority one way (just a shade to the right of centre or conservative) or another (just a shade to the left of centre or liberal).

I think that to Americans, both of our major parties are left of their centre. But to, let's say the French, both of our parties are to the right of their centre.

I don't get what is intrinsically wrong with this system. Should we be voting without parties?

As far as the American candidates go, I have concern about their dredging up NAFTA. After all the pain in adjusting to it, I would be concerned that the now entrenched business processes will suffer for yet another change. And it's not like the Americans paid any attention to NAFTA if disputes went against them anyways.

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

...
On the other side, you have a true war hero married to a woman with a huge chest who owns a beer distributorship.

....

Big chest??? really? I have to pay more attention. Beer too? sounds like somebody chose right.

[loquitur]

they mean her beer chest. her boobs aren't that big, but her trust fund sure is............

[SecretMethod70]

Originally Posted by Leto

I just don't understand. what is plurality voting? I think we have first past the post here, but not sure of what the implications are.

All I know is that we have representatives who represent a particular party. They run for election in an electoral district (riding) which is represented based on size of population. Who ever gets the most votes (this is the democratic part) gets to represent the electoral district in Parliament (works the same way in provincial as federal elections). Depending on the party that elects the most number of representatives, the makeup of Parliament will be constituted with a majority one way (just a shade to the right of centre or conservative) or another (just a shade to the left of centre or liberal).

I don't get what is intrinsically wrong with this system. Should we be voting without parties?

Plurality voting is the technical term for what is commonly referred to as "first past the post" voting. Everything else you mentioned (proportional parliamentary representation, political parties, etc) has nothing to do with the math of the voting. All of that is what you do with the results of voting, but says nothing of how those votes are cast and tabulated.

Plurality voting gets its name because the winner is the person who gets a plurality of votes (more than anyone else) but does not have to necessarily get a majority of votes. It is incredibly simple, which is why it is so flawed. Voters vote for one person, and whoever gets the most votes wins. Second (or third, or fourth) opinions are entirely disregarded. In terms of determining the will of the voters, it's terrible. Case in point: the 2000 US presidential elections. The electoral college is a convenient scapegoat, since it had the most obvious and visible effect on the election, with the winner of the national popular vote not winning the election, but in reality that difference was only a symptom of the real problem. If Florida had used any other generally accepted system of voting, other than plurality voting, Al Gore would have won Florida and the electoral college would have elected him as president.

Let's take a look at a few, in order of increasing complexity (there are quite a few). First there's approval voting, in which voters do basically the same thing as plurality voting, only they can vote for as many candidates as they want. Vote for everyone you don't mind, don't vote for anyone else. If this had been used in the 2000 US presidential election, most of those Nader voters in Florida would have also voted for Al Gore, and so he would have gotten those votes as well, causing him to win Florida and be declared the winner. However, approval voting still has the very significant flaw that a candidate can be declared a winner even without majority support.

Then there's instant runoff voting. With IRV, voters rank candidates according to their preferences, and a candidate does not win until they have a majority of support, rather than just a plurality. Let's say there's a race with candidates A, B, and C, and there are 5 voters in this election. Two voters vote, in order, A, B, C. Another two vote C, B, A. And the fifth votes B, A, C. That gives A two first place votes, C two first place votes, and B one first place vote, but none of the three candidates have a majority. So, since B only got one first place vote, he's out of the race and then you look at the second choice of the B voters, which is candidate A. That gives A three votes to C's two votes, and A is the winner. If IRV were in place for the 2000 elections, Nader voters would have been able to declare their support for Al Gore, and he would have won Florida.

IRV gives particular weight to first choice preferences by only counting those first, and then only counting the second choice of ballots whose first choice candidate was eliminated. There is a somewhat similar voting method which works differently, called the Condorcet method. There are a lot of sub-methods available within the Condorcet method, but I'll stick with the basics. First, it's important to understand that the Condorcet method is so named because it is focused on satisfying what is called the Condorcet criterion, which is that the winner of an election should be the candidate that would defeat all the others in a head-to-head match. Voters in a Condorcet method election vote in much the same way as they do in an IRV election, by ranking the candidates. But then, the votes and rankings are looked at the find the candidate who would defeat all the other candidates in a one-on-one election. This method is less biased towards first choices and, instead, seeks to find the best overall choice. Using the previous example, with 2x(A,B,C), 2x(C,B,A) and 1x(B,A,C), the Condorcet method would see that A defeats C 3-2, but loses to B 3-2. It would also see that C loses to both A and B. Finally, it would see that B defeats both A and C in a head-to-head election. So, the winner of the election using the Condorcet method would be candidate B, which is a very different result from the IRV election!

No voting system is absolutely perfect. There are, for example, anomalies where there is no Condorcet winner, and there are a number of ways to deal with that. Also, the larger the electorate, the less likely an anomaly is to occur. Personally, I think the Condorcet method is the superior voting method, but IRV isn't terrible either. Between the two, it's a philosophical issue of whether or not you think first choice should trump overall preference or not.

Regardless of which voting method is best, there's one thing that is generally agreed upon: plurality voting is the worst. The really sad thing is that this isn't news. Marquis de Condorcet (who created the Condorcet criterion) lived in the 18th century. Personally, I've been reading about how bad plurality voting is since before the 2000 election even thrust the US election system into the spotlight, only to be disappointed to see that that spotlight is rarely shone on the actual problem of how we count votes (except in magazines like New Scientist or Discover, which is where I first read about the problems with plurality voting during the 2000 primary season).

Anyway, I hope that clears up the confusion. The parties and parliament and proportional representation, etc etc etc have nothing to do with the voting method. The voting method is just the math behind determining the winner of an election.

(sorry for the thread-jack)

[Nimetic]

I don't know... it's started to bother me.

It's become somewhat demeaning I think. To the candidates.

I understand that this is an atypical campaign. My feeling is that it's a nasty battle that has gone on too long. By the sound of it, Clinton is behind and cannot back down - she seems trapped and desperate.

Initially I thought Clinton sounded like the better candidate, with Obama being too young. (Bear in mind that this is a relatively uninformed "snap" judgement from a distance, I've not read their policies).

Now though... I'm questioning that.

[loquitur]

Nimetic, I'm sure it looks to you like it goes on way to long because the campaigns in most other countries are much shorter. (FWIW I shared your initial impressions of BHO and HRC.) At this point in the campaign, even though this is very serious business, it takes on almost the quality of a sporting event, with each "team" trying to win the championship. Except that there are fewer rules.

Oh, and I'm actually surprised we haven't had a Kevin Rudd-style video of one of the candidates picking his/her ears or scratching somewhere inappropriate. Not that it hurt Rudd much.

[m0rpheus]

I agree with the sentiment, it takes too damn long to pick a nominee. I can understand why once upon a time it took a long time, when the nominee had to travel by train to try and rally support by getting the message out there. Now though? We have these neat new invention called Tee Vee, and the Interweb to get said message out to the masses.
Seriously couldn't this be done and over with in a month tops?

[SecretMethod70]

it's still totally different to see a candidate live.