the american way to elect the president is kind of weird to most european people , as we elect the president on direct voting , which means people vote for the guy of their choice (they are sometimes more than 6 candidats for presidence in france) , then the 2 with most voices go to a second round were the one above 50% wins(obviously).

then americans goes trough the filter of "choosed electors" , who then vote for one the 2 running for the white house. i assume it was made to maintain the federalist build of america , but sometimes it means that you can have more votes and loose (ask AL GORE) , which is anti-democratic in european mentality

i think it maintains the states independancy and that it protects the campaign from side effects like politician only going and acting for urban areas , where most people leave. but it s a foreign point of view.

so ,do you like your system or would you change it ?

i am all for states rights

i dont like people in new york telling people in wyoming or louisiana how to live their lives

Our primary system weeds out some of the candidates. The winner on the Democrat and Republican primaries go head to head in the general election. I think this process should be familiar to you.

I am kind of torn between the way we do things now, which is called the "Electoral College" and a straight popular vote, like in your country. If we went to popular vote, the candidates would do most of their campaigning in the states with the biggest populations like California and New York. This would leave the states with smaller populations out of the political process. On the other hand, with the Electoral college, the candidates do most of their campaigning in the "swing states" that may go for either candidate. Becuase they are so focused on these very few swing states, places like California and New yourk with the majority of people, get ignored. I dont know what to do to fix the problem to be honest. Maybe stop the winner take all electoral college method of doing things. Colorado tried to pass a bill to do just that last night and it failed.

i am all for states rights

i dont like people in new york telling people in wyoming or louisiana how to live their lives
So basically you're anti American.

You want States to make their own decisions even if they violate federal law. You should move to Eastern Europe. That's why those countries broke apart.

New York can't tell Louisiana what to do. By constitutional law, if gay marriage for instance if you're a Louisiana resident and want to have a same sex marraige, you can't go to New York, get a license and then go back to Louisiana expecting the state to recognize it.

The ignorance of "states rights" advocates is mind numbing. But you morons still can't accept you lost the war, it's over, move on with your inbred lives!

the american way to elect the president is kind of weird to most european people , as we elect the president on direct voting , which means people vote for the guy of their choice (they are sometimes more than 6 candidats for presidence in france) , then the 2 with most voices go to a second round were the one above 50% wins(obviously).

then americans goes trough the filter of "choosed electors" , who then vote for one the 2 running for the white house. i assume it was made to maintain the federalist build of america , but sometimes it means that you can have more votes and loose (ask AL GORE) , which is anti-democratic in european mentality

i think it maintains the states independancy and that it protects the campaign from side effects like politician only going and acting for urban areas , where most people leave. but it s a foreign point of view.

so ,do you like your system or would you change it ?
Tino,

The reason is simple for the "electoral college." It assures that small, less popular states, such as Nebraska, Montana, South Dakota, etc, gets the same consideration as California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Texas.

If we didn't have that system, then candidates would ignore the smaller states and not serve them. They'd only focus on the big states and not give equal representation.

It's merely a system of checks and balances.

If Kerry were to win Texas, California, Pennsylvania, Florida, New York, Illinois, Ohio and three other states but lose the other 40 states, he could still have enough votes to win the election despite not having the support of most of the states because he targeted the larger populace areas.

Sweet

Actually the purpose of the electoral college goes back to when the country first began. The vast majority of the population was uneducated hicks (how little changes) so they wanted to make sure that they didn't elect the town drunk......

As we can see, the electoral college has been a complete failure.

Sweet

Actually the purpose of the electoral college goes back to when the country first began. The vast majority of the population was uneducated hicks (how little changes) so they wanted to make sure that they didn't elect the town drunk......

As we can see, the electoral college has been a complete failure.
They still are stupid hicks. They've re elected the biggest spending Republican prez of all time, whose ballooned government and created a mess, so they vote to give him 4 more years to clean up his room.

Yes, the original intent was to protect the people from themselves. But it's also one of our many "checks and balances."

youre an idiot fat boy

states rights have been a staple of american politics since the founding fathers fear of a strong federal government

thats why we have states with their own constitutions and not regions or provinces

read a history book dip****

youre an idiot fat boy

states rights have been a staple of american politics since the founding fathers fear of a strong federal government

thats why we have states with their own constitutions and not regions or provinces

read a history book dip****
I have no problem with states such as Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, etc., being their own country and withdrawing from the USA. I'm sure they could survive ontheir own with numbnuts like you supporting the idea.

States rights are outdated as the Old Testament.

I happen to be a former lawyer. I ve forgotten more about state and federal law than you'll ever know

i am all for states rights

i dont like people in new york telling people in wyoming or louisiana how to live their lives


see , that s a weird answer to me . i mean , in my french point of view , it s one nation and one people with the same laws and the same rights.

no way a guy from eastern france can live under other laws than one dude living in paris. that would be the end of the country (and it may come soon).

see , that s a weird answer to me . i mean , in my french point of view , it s one nation and one people with the same laws and the same rights.

no way a guy from eastern france can live under other laws than one dude living in paris. that would be the end of the country (and it may come soon).
Tino,

See you're using COMMON SENSE. You can't understand "states rights" advocates like numbnut tech9. They want to be part of the USA and enjoy all the benefits, but want to make and change laws based on their whims. Either you're part of the whole and play by the rules or you're not part of the whole. Easy decision.

The South lost the civil war and for decades these "states' rights" advocates are still crowing about it. "States rights" is the claim southern states used when slavery was abolished that they, because of their "rights" as a state, could defy abolition.

Sorry, doesn't work that way.

But the inbred ****tards from the south have comprehsion problems. That's what happens when you cross up the family DNA

states rights have been a staple of american politics since the founding fathers fear of a strong federal government

thats why we have states with their own constitutions and not regions or provinces

read a history book dip****

Maybe you should read a bit of history. When the republic was first formed every state was virtually an independent entity, sort of how the European Union is right now. And it was a disaster. Without any sort of cohesiveness the nation with aimless and shiftless.

The Constitution was created to unite the new nation under an effective national government. If it wasn't for this, your country would never have become such a force in the world.

The South eventually rebelled against this system, leading to the Civil War. Reconstruction brought the nation back under an even-more powerful national government which led to the surges in economic and industrial growth that led the country to where it is today.

Tino,

See you're using COMMON SENSE. You can't understand "states rights" advocates like numbnut tech9. They want to be part of the USA and enjoy all the benefits, but want to make and change laws based on their whims. Either you're part of the whole and play by the rules or you're not part of the whole. Easy decision.

The South lost the civil war and for decades these "states' rights" advocates are still crowing about it. "States rights" is the claim southern states used when slavery was abolished that they, because of their "rights" as a state, could defy abolition.

Sorry, doesn't work that way.

But the inbred ****tards from the south have comprehsion problems. That's what happens when you cross up the family DNA

Either way it doesn't matter this time. Bush won by a wide margin in the popular vote.

i did notice that your system and most of you guys fear a strong centralize state , which is the way most european countries , except spain , are ruled.

i think , just my opinion , that it comes from the act that the first americans were running away from opression in europe , and you still fear a government with no counterpowers.

i did notice that your system and most of you guys fear a strong centralize state , which is the way most european countries , except spain , are ruled.

i think , just my opinion , that it comes from the act that the first americans were running away from opression in europe , and you still fear a government with no counterpowers.
Most of these "states rights" advocates are simply uneducated, rednecks who'd like to bring back slavery and indentured servants.

You can't be part of a "team" and then want to play by your own rules, which is what "state's rights" advocates want. **** 'em. I say if Alabama and the other 12 southern states want to be independent, let them. It's addition by subtraction. Plus the nation's IQ average will skyrocket and the welfare subsidies would plummet.

Spain doesn t have a centralized government? Do explain.

spain does have a government , but it s only used to for international scene and great country choices.

what most people ignore , is that most spaniards barely speak spanish. the country is cut in small pieces were everybody first language is an old one , sometimes close to french , sometimes celtic and even the oldest language of the world in the "bask country" (spoken before man discovered writting).

spanish was made up to unify the country , but people of each part of spain are ruled mainly by a local chamber . and there is still a civil war in some parts of the country , as some people would like to get independant and refuse to speak spanish (and put bombs , too).

the catalogna part even chooses his economic orientation .

france is kind of the same , except that regionalism is not allowed , to protect the country from implosion. still , some people still speak celtic in the west .

spain does have a government , but it s only used to for international scene and great country choices.

what most people ignore , is that most spaniards barely speak spanish. the country is cut in small pieces were everybody first language is an old one , sometimes close to french , sometimes celtic and even the oldest language of the world in the "bask country" (spoken before man discovered writting).

spanish was made up to unify the country , but people of each part of spain are ruled mainly by a local chamber . and there is still a civil war in some parts of the country , as some people would like to get independant and refuse to speak spanish (and put bombs , too).

the catalogna part even chooses his economic orientation .

france is kind of the same , except that regionalism is not allowed , to protect the country from implosion. still , some people still speak celtic in the west .
Gotcha. Thanks for the lesson.

Sounds like they have a lot of confusion and clashing because of that fragmentation. But, of course, the hillbillies in the USA who clamor for the same type of system wouldn't understand.

In the States, the local, state and federal goverments all work in conjunction. They're all part of the whole. The local bodies are a subsidiary of the state, and the states are the subsidiary of the federal. They don't work independently of each other and have to synchronize their laws. The local government for the city of Los Angeles can't decide it wants to legalize cocaine and prostitution because it's against state and federal law.

If they could, what's the point in having a federal body. Everyone would do what suited their state and what's legal in one state would be illegal in another, you'd have a judicial system in disarray, etc.

see , that s a weird answer to me . i mean , in my french point of view , it s one nation and one people with the same laws and the same rights.

no way a guy from eastern france can live under other laws than one dude living in paris. that would be the end of the country (and it may come soon).

thats what makes america unique

there was talk when the 13 colonies became independent whether they would all be 13 different nations or join together as one nation

ultimately they decided to be one nation and hold certain rights for each state

those are the rules

Maybe you should read a bit of history. When the republic was first formed every state was virtually an independent entity, sort of how the European Union is right now. And it was a disaster. Without any sort of cohesiveness the nation with aimless and shiftless.

The Constitution was created to unite the new nation under an effective national government. If it wasn't for this, your country would never have become such a force in the world.

The South eventually rebelled against this system, leading to the Civil War. Reconstruction brought the nation back under an even-more powerful national government which led to the surges in economic and industrial growth that led the country to where it is today.


and that contradicts what i said where?

The local government for the city of Los Angeles can't decide it wants to legalize cocaine and prostitution because it's against state and federal law.

If they could, what's the point in having a federal body. Everyone would do what suited their state and what's legal in one state would be illegal in another, you'd have a judicial system in disarray, etc.

Chicago citizens are not allowed to own handgunz legally (I know I grew up there)but it is allowed across the state, hell even within Cook County. Nevada has legalized prostitution but the rest of country has banned it (and within the state Clark county, Las Vegas, it is illegal, but not in the other counties). The federal govt has banned Marijuana as a narcotic. But Cali and Alaska<-(where it is totaly legal to grow, distribute, and posses w/out a prescription) allow medical marijuana. So maybe you don't know as much about state vs federal law as you stated. Cause your saying that states and local goverments and the federal goverment are completely synchronized and that is simply a lie! There are tons of examples that show one state has a law where it is legal or illegal in the neighborring state. Another example. Legal tobacco age in every state is eighteen. Not in Alabama it's 19.
MAN I LOVE ALWAYS BEING RIGHT!

You just showed yer a lieng fat fuk :cool:

Chicago citizens are not allowed to own handgunz legally (I know I grew up there)but it is allowed across the state, hell even within Cook County. Nevada has legalized prostitution but the rest of country has banned it (and within the state Clark county, Las Vegas, it is illegal, but not in the other counties). The federal govt has banned Marijuana as a narcotic. But Cali and Alaska<-(where it is totaly legal to grow, distribute, and posses w/out a prescription) allow medical marijuana. So maybe you don't know as much about state vs federal law as you stated. Cause your saying that states and local goverments and the federal goverment are completely synchronized and that is simply a lie! There are tons of examples that show one state has a law where it is legal or illegal in the neighborring state. Another example. Legal tobacco age in every state is eighteen. Not in Alabama it's 19.
MAN I LOVE ALWAYS BEING RIGHT!

You just showed yer a lieng fat fuk :cool:
Wrong wrong wrong. Handgun ownership IS NOT a federal law. Find me that in the consititution (no, the second amendment doesn't talk about that). Where in the Constitution does it establish a age for smoking?

Tino, listen to techn9ne on this one. For the states to have their own laws is another way we have our freedom.

Wrong wrong wrong. Handgun ownership IS NOT a federal law. Find me that in the consititution (no, the second amendment doesn't talk about that). Where in the Constitution does it establish a age for smoking?
Never said hand gun owner ship was fed law. Was proving that local goverment can have law that is different then state law. Also states can have different laws!!! ie.. the Tabacco age. Finaly you convienently avoided the One that was A federal law. Under the Federal law Marijuana is considered a controled substance and ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But it's not in Alaska and Cali under circumstances. Read yer post fat boy. You are such a liar its funny. First you copy That Malibu wanna be black movie and then you have stated your a former boxing champ and now you use to practice law but now you don't. Man your just a dorky freshmen at some state college. Deal w/ it boy your ******Democrate boy got his azz handed to him :cool:

Never said hand gun owner ship was fed law. Was proving that local goverment can have law that is different then state law. Also states can have different laws!!! ie.. the Tabacco age. Finaly you convienently avoided the One that was A federal law. Under the Federal law Marijuana is considered a controled substance and ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But it's not in Alaska and Cali under circumstances. Read yer post fat boy. You are such a liar its funny. First you copy That Malibu wanna be black movie and then you have stated your a former boxing champ and now you use to practice law but now you don't. Man your just a dorky freshmen at some state college. Deal w/ it boy your ******Democrate boy got his azz handed to him :cool:
I'm not a Democrat. Dems are *******. Kerry was a *****.

Unlike hard core rightwingers, I don't claim the candidate or party I support is flawless and without fault.

I have respect for Jeb Bush. he's an intelligent, educated governor of Florida who actually earned his way up the ladder. He didn't depend on daddy's connections and made it where he's gotten on his own. he's a Republican. Had he run vs. Kerry, I'd probably voted for Jeb. I respect him. I can't say the same for Dubya.