Obama i SAD (2008-2016)

[elSaik]

Zar ne bi bilo efikasnije kad bi se ti "poeni" dijelili na osnovu dobivenih glasova.
Pa npr. ako 40% stanovnika Floride glasa za Republikance, onda da isti dobiju 40% od poena koje ima Florida...?

[jeza u ledja]

@jez:
zao mi je sto ne shvatas ni primjer ni poentu. mrsko mi je dalje objasnjavati kako i zasto je ovakav izborni sistem u USA jedan od nacina (niposto jedini nacin) kojima se cekira moc vecine. vec sam pojasnila da je SFRJ bila jedan ekstrem, a da USA nastoji da ni manjina nije automatski sposobna da tiranise vecinu.

Slazem se ja da SAD ima jedan od najboljih federalnih demokratskih sistema (checks and balances), ALI izbori za predsjednika su izuzetak od tog pravila.

U onom prvom linku sto sam postavio izmedju ostalog se upravo spominje ono sto sam ranije rekao - da ovakav nacin izbora podstice dvopartijski sistem. Mislim da upravo u toj cinjenici treba potraziti razloge zasto se ovaj zastario sistem nije jos promjenio.

[danas]

Zar ne bi bilo efikasnije kad bi se ti "poeni" dijelili na osnovu dobivenih glasova.
Pa npr. ako 40% stanovnika Floride glasa za Republikance, onda da isti dobiju 40% od poena koje ima Florida...?

tako rade maine i nebraska. ali sve dok je indirektni izborni sistem na snazi i dok je electoral college taj koji 'bira' predsjednika i dalje je moguce da neko dobije vecinu glasova a izgubi izbore.

[poktapok]

Sistem jeste zastario i pocinje se na njega hvatati hrdja i patina. U 18. i 19. vijeku je i te kako valjao; u danasnje vrijeme je pojam sprdacine. Nekad uzor za cijeli svijet, sada primjer za kako pokvariti demokratiju.

Ko se ne mijenja u skladu sa prilikama mora izumrijeti. U tom smislu, kada se americki Ustav posljednji put promijenio? Amandman br. 27 iz 1992. - regulisanje plata kongresmena i senatora. (Zvuci poznato?) Prije toga, br. 26 iz 1971. - garantovanje prava glasanja punoljetnih drzavljana. Dakle, posljednja kvalitetna promjena temeljnog zakona zemlje je bila u doba kad su kompjuteri zauzimali prostore velicina ormara, a nesto zvano Internet ih je umrezavalo za potrebe americkog Odjela za Odbranu (najvece bekrije u drustvu najmanjih poreza).

Danas se na sve strane zahtijeva ukidanje elektronskog glasanja. Zasto? Zato sto se vise ne vjeruje tehnologiji. A kada se ne vjeruje tehnologiji? Kada je sistem pokvaren.

"Checks and balances" su bratstvo i jedinstvo americkog sistema. Ako se u njega ne vjeruje, koncept ce iskopniti i nestati. Kada sudstvo povuce crtu i preda predsjednistvo Suncevom W. Sinu, tada sistem prestaje biti demoktatski. Hvala PBS-u, ABC-ju, NBC-ju, CBS-u i svim istancanim poznavaocima demokratskog diskursa na CNN-u i Fox-u, ali totalitarizam se prepoznaje po definiciji, a ne po kvalitetu kompjuterske grafike.

Treba li poslije svega potezati nakaradu iz vremena vjestica zvanu "collegiate voting"?

[danas]

u pitanju su electoral, a ne electronic votes

[walkabout]

Nadjoh ovaj tekst...

Clintonovi uvuceni u prasinu oko boje...
Giuliani dobrovoljno uzima od usta pomagaca...

Zakuhava se...

------------------------

Clintons fall into racially charged hot water
Email Printer friendly version Normal font Large font Philip Sherwell in Las Vegas
January 14, 2008

Advertisement
BILL CLINTON is scrambling to head off a potential backlash among black voters against the White House campaign of his wife, Hillary, after the couple were each accused of making racially demeaning comments.

Mr Clinton was forced to telephone the nationally syndicated radio talk show of the Reverend Al Sharpton, the outspoken black preacher, to deny that he had dismissed Barack Obama's attempt to become the first black president as "the biggest fairytale I've ever seen".

Donna Brazile, a leading black Democrat strategist and former Clinton insider, said many blacks had found his comments condescending. "For him to go after Obama using 'fairytale', calling him a kid, is an insult," she said. "As an African-American I find his words and his tone very depressing."

Some black radio stations and internet blogs contained much harsher criticism and alleged the put-down was racially charged. There is also speculation, however, that the Obama camp has quietly sought to whip up a race row, while publicly saying it wished to remain above the fray - a tactic that some feel could backfire on him.

Mr Clinton, who is revered by many blacks, insisted that his "fairytale" jibe was aimed not at Senator Obama's presidential aspirations but at uncritical media coverage of his much-vaunted opposition to the Iraq war. He even praised his wife's rival, telling Mr Sharpton: "He has put together a great campaign … He might win."

Mr Clinton's damage limitation exercise came after his wife also provoked controversy by appearing to diminish the achievements of Martin Luther King. She said it took President Lyndon Johnson to implement the reforms that the assassinated civil rights leader had championed.

Aides to Senator Clinton acknowledged she had "misspoken" in her effort to clarify that change required action not just words - the basis for her frequent attacks on Senator Obama's campaign rhetoric of hope and optimism.

This week the battle for the Democrat nomination moves towards primary elections in South Carolina, and a series of other states with many black voters.

In both parties the focus of the campaign has shifted to hip-pocket issues such as falling home prices, soaring oil prices, health care and unemployment, as the US economy edges closer to a recession. But the cash reserves of one Republican candidate, Rudy Giuliani, made headlines on Friday when it emerged that his senior aides had given up their pay cheques for the month to help save dwindling campaign funds.

Mr Giuliani, the former New York mayor, has directed his entire effort toward winning the big contests - which are in expensive media markets and require extensive spending to place his message on the airwaves - rather than concentrate on the early states, where he has fared poorly.

Campaigning in Florida, Mr Giuliani was optimistic. "We've got plenty of money," he said. The campaign had not asked anyone to forgo salaries, he said, but the aides had done it to help him marshal his resources for the next stretch of the campaign.

Telegraph, London;The New York Times; Reuters

[poktapok]

u pitanju su electoral, a ne electronic votes

U pitanju je najkomplikovaniji izborni sistem na svijetu. Elektronsko glasanje je, umjesto da doprinese transparentnosti cijele rabote, donijelo samo jos vise mogucnosti za malverzaciju.

Da bi demokratija funkcionisala, mora se vjerovati u nju. Ovako je izborni ritual samo jos jedan TV serijal za dokone konzumente. Plava pilula za ulazak u matricu.

[Ergot]

[DobroJutroKolumbo]

u pitanju su electoral, a ne electronic votes

U pitanju je najkomplikovaniji izborni sistem na svijetu. Elektronsko glasanje je, umjesto da doprinese transparentnosti cijele rabote, donijelo samo jos vise mogucnosti za malverzaciju.

Da bi demokratija funkcionisala, mora se vjerovati u nju. Ovako je izborni ritual samo jos jedan TV serijal za dokone konzumente. Plava pilula za ulazak u matricu.

Oh my GOD , dzaba ti pricas @danas...oni svoje , pa svoje ...ELECTORAL , nema veze sa electronic...to sto se tice problema elektronskog glasanja veze nema sa sistemom Electoral glasova , zbog kojih je npr. Al Gore izgubio izbore... Slazem se da je Electoral College zastario sistem...

http://www.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college.htm

After the 2000 U.S. presidential election, just about everybody in the United States was talking about the Electoral College. In the end, of course, Gore won the popular vote (more Americans voted for him), but Bush actually won the presidency, because he was awarded the majority of the votes in the Electoral College.

In this article, we'll explain how this interesting system works. How is it that a candidate could win more votes overall and yet not be elected? What would happen if there were a tie in the Electoral College? Who then would elect the president? You will find out about the past elections that weren't decided on Election Day but weeks later, when the Electoral College met, and some that weren't decided until months later. You'll also learn about the strange election of the first son of a former president to win the presidency.

History of the Electoral College
Every four years, on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November, millions of U.S. citizens go to local voting booths to elect, among other officials, the next president and vice president of their country. Their votes will be recorded and counted, and winners will be declared. But the results of the popular vote are not guaranteed to stand because the Electoral College has not cast its vote.

The Electoral College is a controversial mechanism of presidential elections that was created by the framers of the U.S. Constitution as a compromise for the presidential election process. At the time, some politicians believed a purely popular election was too reckless, while others objected to giving Congress the power to select the president. The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.

Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. senators (2 in each state) plus the number of its U.S. representatives, which varies according to the state's population. Currently, the Electoral College includes 538 electors, 535 for the total number of congressional members, and three who represent Washington, D.C., as allowed by the 23rd Amendment. On the Monday following the second Wednesday in December, the electors of each state meet in their respective state capitals to officially cast their votes for president and vice president. These votes are then sealed and sent to the president of the Senate, who on Jan. 6 opens and reads the votes in the presence of both houses of Congress. The winner is sworn into office at noon Jan. 20. Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, which is entirely legal.

Selecting Electors
If you're wondering how someone becomes an elector, it turns out it's not the exact same process across the board. It can actually differ from state to state. In general, though, the two most common ways are:

* The elector is nominated by his or her state party committee (perhaps to reward many years of service to the party).
* The elector "campaigns" for a spot and the decision is made during a vote held at the state's party convention.

There's the how, but what about the "what" -- as in, "What are the required qualifications of an elector?" There really aren't any. According to the National Archives and Records (NARA) Web site, "the U.S. Constitution contains very few provisions relating to the qualifications of electors." While the constitution doesn't dictate what an elector should know or be able to do, it does suggest who or what an elector cannot be:

* He or she cannot be a Representative or Senator
* He or she cannot be a high-ranking U.S. official in a position of "trust or profit"
* He or she cannot be someone who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the U.S.

Now, what about the "who?" Who is it that gets nominated or voted in and assigned to the post?

Usually, electors are people who are highly politically active in their party (be it Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Republican ...) or connected somehow to the political arena, such as: activists, party leaders, elected officials of the state and even people who have ties (political and/or personal) to the Presidential candidates, themselves.

So, we've covered the how, what and who -- but that's not all! There's still faithless electors, winner-takes-all and the district system to consider...

Electoral College Voting

The final electors for each state are voted on by the state's residents on voting day. In many states, the electors' names are printed on the ballots -- where those names "sit" depends on the state. For example, the electors could be listed directly under the presidential candidates' names (Democrats with the Democratic nominee, Libertarians with the Libertarian nominee, Republicans with the Republican nominee and so on) or simply grouped by party somewhere else on the ballot. And, of course, the names might not even be listed at all. Essentially, it is the electors who get voted "in" who end up casting the "real" vote. Hold on, it seems like the last two sentences don't go together, "How can someone be voted "in" if they're not even on a ballot?" Consider this information from the Department of the Secretary of State for North Carolina:

Under North Carolina General Statute § 163-209, the names of candidates for electors of President and Vice-President nominated by any political party recognized in this State under North Carolina General Statute § 163-96 or by any unaffiliated candidate for President of the United States who has qualified to have his name printed on the general election ballot under North Carolina General Statute § 163-122 must be filed with the Secretary of State. A vote for the candidates for President and Vice-President named on the ballot is a vote for the electors of the party or unaffiliated candidate by which those candidates for elector were nominated and whose names have been filed with the Secretary of State.

The key is this part, "A vote for the candidates for President and Vice-President named on the ballot is a vote for the electors..." This is the case for 48 states -- it's known as the "winner-take-all system." The other system, known as the "district system," is observed in both Maine and Nebraska. In these states, two electors' votes are made based on the candidate who received the most votes statewide. The remaining electoral votes go by congressional districts, awarding the vote to the candidate who received the most votes in each district.

Now, in regard to "winner-take-all" states, keep in mind what we said in the last section: Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, which is entirely legal. Although if you do vote against your party, you'll most likely be simultaneously forfeiting your post as elector and you may even incur a hefty fine -- see the sidebar on faithless electors.

"Faithless Electors"
It turns out there is no federal law that requires an elector to vote according to their pledge (to their respective party). And so, more than a few electors have cast their votes without following the popular vote or their party. These electors are called "faithless electors."

In response to these faithless electors' actions, several states have created laws to enforce an elector's pledge to his or her party vote or the popular vote. Some states even go the extra step to assess a misdemeanor charge and a fine to such actions. For example, the state of North Carolina charges a fine of $10,000 to faithless electors.

It's important to note, that although these states have created these laws, a large number of scholars believe that such state-level laws hold no true bearing and would not survive constitutional challenge.

Distribution of 2004 and 2008 Electoral Votes

Distribution of 2004 and 2008 Electoral Votes
State 2004 and 2008
Alabama 9
Alaska 3
Arizona 10
Arkansas 6
California 55
Colorado 9
Connecticut 7
Delaware 3
D.C. 3
Florida 27
Georgia 15
Hawaii 4
Idaho 4
Illinois 21
Indiana 11
Iowa 7
Kansas 6
Kentucky 8
Louisiana 9
Maine 4
Maryland 10
Massachusetts 12
Michigan 17
Minnesota 10
Mississippi 6
Missouri 11
Montana 3
Nebraska 5
Nevada 5
New Hampshire 4
New Jersey 15
New Mexico 5
New York 31
North Carolina 15
North Dakota 3
Ohio 20
Oklahoma 7
Oregon 7
Pennsylvania 21
Rhode Island 4
South Carolina 8
South Dakota 3
Tennessee 11
Texas 34
Utah 5
Vermont 3
Virginia 13
Washington 11
West Virginia 5
Wisconsin 10
Wyoming 3
Source: U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. These allocations are based on the 2000 Census. Total number of electoral votes = 538; majority needed to elect the President = 270
Under the electoral college system, each state is assigned a specific number of votes that is proportional to its population, so that each state's power is representative of its population.

Electoral College Results
In most presidential elections, a candidate who wins the popular vote will also receive the majority of the electoral votes, but this is not always the case. There have been four presidents who have won an election with fewer popular votes than their opponent but more electoral votes.

Here are the four elections when the candidate who led the popular vote did not win the office:

* 1824: John Quincy Adams, the son of former President John Adams, received more than 38,000 fewer votes than Andrew Jackson, but neither candidate won a majority of the Electoral College. Adams was awarded the presidency when the election was thrown to the House of Representatives.

* 1876: Nearly unanimous support from small states gave Rutherford B. Hayes a one-vote margin in the Electoral College, despite the fact that he lost the popular vote to Samuel J. Tilden by 264,000 votes. Hayes carried five out of the six smallest states (excluding Delaware). These five states plus Colorado gave Hayes 22 electoral votes with only 109,000 popular votes. At the time, Colorado had been just been admitted to the Union and decided to appoint electors instead of holding elections. So, Hayes won Colorado's three electoral votes with zero popular votes. It was the only time in U.S. history that small state support has decided an election.

* 1888: Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote by 95,713 votes to Grover Cleveland, but won the electoral vote by 65. In this instance, some say the Electoral College worked the way it is designed to work by preventing a candidate from winning an election based on support from one region of the country. The South overwhelmingly supported Cleveland, and he won by more than 425,000 votes in six southern states. However, in the rest of the country he lost by more than 300,000 votes.

* In 2000, Al Gore received 50,992,335 votes nationwide and George W. Bush received 50,455,156 votes. After Bush was awarded the state of Florida, he had a total of 271 electoral votes, which beat Gore's 266 electoral votes.

Today, a candidate must receive 270 of the 538 votes to win the election. In cases where no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the decision is thrown to the House of Representatives by virtue of the 12th Amendment. The House then selects the president by majority vote with each state delegation receiving one vote to cast for the three candidates who received the most electoral votes.

Here are the two elections that were decided by the House of Representatives:

* 1801: Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, both Democrat-Republicans, received the same number of electoral votes, despite the fact that Burr was running as a vice presidential candidate, not for the presidency. Following 36 successive votes in the House, Jefferson was finally elected president.
* 1825: As mentioned above, Andrew Jackson received a majority of the popular vote over John Quincy Adams, but neither man received a 131-vote majority of electoral votes needed at the time to claim the presidency. Adams won the House vote on the first ballot.

The Electoral College Debate
Proponents of the Electoral College say that the system served its purpose in the elections we talked about, despite the fact that the candidate who won the popular vote didn't always win the election. The Electoral College is a block, or weighed, voting system that is designed to give more power to the states with more votes, but allows for small states to swing an election, as happened in 1876. Under this system, each state is assigned a specific number of votes that is proportional to its population, so that each state's power is representative of its population. So, while winning the popular vote may not ensure a candidate's victory, a candidate must gain popular support of a particular state to win the votes in that state. The goal of any candidate is to put together the right combination of states that will give him or her 270 electoral votes.

In 2000, as the election approached, some observers thought that Bush, interestingly also the son of a former president, could win the popular vote, but that his opponent, Gore, could win the Electoral College vote because Gore was leading in certain big states, such as California, New York and Pennsylvania.

[pitt]

[danas]

problem je sto narod ne glasa -- a sistem kao sistem i nije toliko los... zavisi sta se zeli postici...

za kolegu jeza -- ono sto tvrdim svo vrijeme, pomasceno dole

The Electoral College Debate
Proponents of the Electoral College say that the system served its purpose in the elections we talked about, despite the fact that the candidate who won the popular vote didn't always win the election. The Electoral College is a block, or weighed, voting system that is designed to give more power to the states with more votes, but allows for small states to swing an election, as happened in 1876. Under this system, each state is assigned a specific number of votes that is proportional to its population, so that each state's power is representative of its population. So, while winning the popular vote may not ensure a candidate's victory, a candidate must gain popular support of a particular state to win the votes in that state. The goal of any candidate is to put together the right combination of states that will give him or her 270 electoral votes.

[jeza u ledja]

Ok, u pravu si. A evo kako taj sistem djeluje u praxi:

* 1876: Nearly unanimous support from small states gave Rutherford B. Hayes a one-vote margin in the Electoral College, despite the fact that he lost the popular vote to Samuel J. Tilden by 264,000 votes. Hayes carried five out of the six smallest states (excluding Delaware). These five states plus Colorado gave Hayes 22 electoral votes with only 109,000 popular votes. At the time, Colorado had been just been admitted to the Union and decided to appoint electors instead of holding elections. So, Hayes won Colorado's three electoral votes with zero popular votes. It was the only time in U.S. history that small state support has decided an election.

Nema sta, upali jednom u 200+ godina.
A zbog toga zato na svakim izborima desetine miliona ljudi ne izlazi jer znaju da njihov glas ne vrijedi nicemu.

[danas]

Ok, u pravu si. A evo kako taj sistem djeluje u praxi:

* 1876: Nearly unanimous support from small states gave Rutherford B. Hayes a one-vote margin in the Electoral College, despite the fact that he lost the popular vote to Samuel J. Tilden by 264,000 votes. Hayes carried five out of the six smallest states (excluding Delaware). These five states plus Colorado gave Hayes 22 electoral votes with only 109,000 popular votes. At the time, Colorado had been just been admitted to the Union and decided to appoint electors instead of holding elections. So, Hayes won Colorado's three electoral votes with zero popular votes. It was the only time in U.S. history that small state support has decided an election.

Nema sta, upali jednom u 200+ godina.
A zbog toga zato na svakim izborima desetine miliona ljudi ne izlazi jer znaju da njihov glas ne vrijedi nicemu.

mislim da to nije tacno -- da ljudi izlaze na izbore ne bi se moglo desiti da neko dobije vecinu a izgubi izbore. to se desava upravo jer ljudi NE IZLAZE na izbore, a ne izlaze jer ne shvataju sistem.

hajde da pojednostavim -- recimo da su samo CA i VT u federaciji i da CA ima 54 izborna glasa a VT ima 3. i zamisli da na izbore u CA izadje 10,000 ljudi i 60% ih glasa za kandidata X a 40% za kandidata Y. kandidat X je dobio svega 6,000 glasova u CA ali je dobio 54 izborna glasa -- jer sistem je zamisljen tako da moze pravedno i tacno funkcionisati SAMO ako SVI stanovnici CA izadju na izbore. istovremeno, u VT moze izaci 1 milion ljudi, i glasati za kandidata Y; koji ce dobiti 3 izborna glasa. iako je na saveznom nivou dobio vise glasova , kandidat Y ce izgubiti izbore. zasto? zato sto VECINA u CA NIJE UOPSTE GLASALA.

ja u ovome vidim sustinu problema sa ovim izbornim sistemom. ljudi trebaju shvatiti da se njihov glas RACUNA, ali se racuna na nivou njihove savezne drzave. zasto bi ih to odbijalo od glasanja? jer su mozda politicka manjina u toj drzavi? sta da radi onaj ko zivi u HDZ sredini a podrzava SDP? pa treba da radi isto ono sto i republikanac u demokratskoj drzavi i demokrata u republikanskoj drzavi -- da se aktivira i propagira svoju politicku ideju, te da nastoji da zadobije sto vise politicke podrske. umjesto da kuka -- kako se haman njegov glas ne racuna

[jeza u ledja]

mislim da to nije tacno -- da ljudi izlaze na izbore ne bi se moglo desiti da neko dobije vecinu a izgubi izbore. to se desava upravo jer ljudi NE IZLAZE na izbore, a ne izlaze jer ne shvataju sistem.

hajde da pojednostavim -- recimo da su samo CA i VT u federaciji i da CA ima 54 izborna glasa a VT ima 3. i zamisli da na izbore u CA izadje 10,000 ljudi i 60% ih glasa za kandidata X a 40% za kandidata Y. kandidat X je dobio svega 6,000 glasova u CA ali je dobio 54 izborna glasa -- jer sistem je zamisljen tako da moze pravedno i tacno funkcionisati SAMO ako SVI stanovnici CA izadju na izbore. istovremeno, u VT moze izaci 1 milion ljudi, i glasati za kandidata Y; koji ce dobiti 3 izborna glasa. iako je na saveznom nivou dobio vise glasova , kandidat Y ce izgubiti izbore. zasto? zato sto VECINA u CA NIJE UOPSTE GLASALA.

ja u ovome vidim sustinu problema sa ovim izbornim sistemom. ljudi trebaju shvatiti da se njihov glas RACUNA, ali se racuna na nivou njihove savezne drzave. zasto bi ih to odbijalo od glasanja? jer su mozda politicka manjina u toj drzavi? sta da radi onaj ko zivi u HDZ sredini a podrzava SDP? pa treba da radi isto ono sto i republikanac u demokratskoj drzavi i demokrata u republikanskoj drzavi -- da se aktivira i propagira svoju politicku ideju, te da nastoji da zadobije sto vise politicke podrske. umjesto da kuka -- kako se haman njegov glas ne racuna

Ne kontam.

Ne vidim sta ce se promjeniti ako izadju svi na izbore? Prvo, generalno nema nekih vecih razlika u izlasku ljudi u Vermontu, Californiji ili bilo gdje drugo na izbore. Drugo, evo sad izlazi oko 50% ljudi, sta da izadje 100%? Sta ce se promjeniti? Onda ces umjesto 10,000 imati 20 miliona Kalifornijaca (Kalifornjana? Kalifornijanaca? ) od kojih ce 12 miliona glasati za jednog, a 8 miliona za drugog. I onda ce 8 miliona ljudi uzalud glasati!!!!! Tu nije u pitanju neki izborni prag od 5% ili tako nesto, ovo je skoro pola stanovnistva. I sta se tu dobije izlaskom svih na izbore, kako to sistem funkcionise ako svi izadju?? Nikako. Samo dobijes jos vecu gomilu izfrustriranih glasaca.

Sta radi SDPovac koji zivi u HDZovoj sredini?

Kada glasa za predsjednika - fino, izadje na izbore i njegov 1 glas se racuna isto kao i 1 glas u Sarajevu, Banja Luci, Bijeljini.
Kada glasa za drzavni parlament, fino, izadje na izbore i glasa u svojoj izbornoj jedinici iz koje se poslanicka mjesta dijele po postocima izmedju vodecih stranaka, dakle ne ide sve samo pobjedniku.
Tako se to radi.

[danas]

ok, ne kontas... poenta je u tome da ako svi stanovnici CA glasaju, onda ce kandidat X imati i popularnu i izbornu vecinu. i zato onda nece biti problema...

a uzmimo da je kalifornija nezavisna drzava... od 20 milona stanovnika... i da bira predsjednika sama sebi... 12 miliona glasa za jednog a 8 miliona za drugog kandidata... i ti tvrdis da je tih 8 miliona glasalo dzabe -- jer su izgubili na izborima...

ako jos nisi skontao -- na izborima neko mora i da izgubi

[jeza u ledja]

ok, ne kontas...

Stupid!! Stupid!!!

[danas]

ako jos nisi skontao -- na izborima neko mora i da izgubi

Hah! Laz! Reci to Haretu... Taj ne gubi ni na jednim izborima

pa nije hare neko

[jeza u ledja]

ok, ne kontas... poenta je u tome da ako svi stanovnici CA glasaju, onda ce kandidat X imati i popularnu i izbornu vecinu. i zato onda nece biti problema...

a uzmimo da je kalifornija nezavisna drzava... od 20 milona stanovnika... i da bira predsjednika sama sebi... 12 miliona glasa za jednog a 8 miliona za drugog kandidata... i ti tvrdis da je tih 8 miliona glasalo dzabe -- jer su izgubili na izborima...

ako jos nisi skontao -- na izborima neko mora i da izgubi

Pa upravo je problem u tome sto ti to posmatras kao da je California nezavisna drzava, ali upravo California to nije, i ovdje se ne radi o izborima za predsjednika Californie, vec SAD, cijih je California dio.

I sori, ali izgleda da ti logika i matematika nisu najjaca strana . Konstatujes kako ce u slucaju da svi ljudi u Californiji izadju na izbore kandidat X imati i "popularnu i izbornu vecinu". Prvo, nije jasno o kakvoj vecini govoris, je li na nivou drzave ili na nivou SAD? Ako govoris o nivou drzave, taj kandidat ce svakako imati popularnu vecinu, jer popularna vecina znaci prosta vecina onih koji su izasli na izbore. Dalje, ako govoris o popularnoj vecini u cijeloj Americi, u slucaju da u svakoj drzavi svi izlaze na izbore, onda, kako rekoh, konstatujem da ti matematika nije najjaca strana. Zasto? Pa, evo ti uprosten primjer (uzecu u obzir samo 7 najvecih drzava)

California 54 (36,457,549)
New York 33 (19,306,183)
Texas 32 (23,507,783)
Florida 25 (18,089,888)
Pennsylvania 23 (12,440,621)
Illinois 22 (12,831,970)
Ohio 21 (11,478,006)

I evo glasovi podjeljeni ovako (uprosticu brojeve stanovnika, recimo da i bebe izlaze na izbore ):

California:
Dems: 19 miliona glasova
Reps: 17 miliona glasova
Total: 54 bobe za Dems

New York:
Dems: 10 mil
Reps: 9 mil
Total: 33 bobe za Dems

Texas:
Dems: 1 mil
Reps: 22 mil
Total: 32 bobe za Reps

Florida:
Dems: 1 mil
Reps: 17mil
Total: 25 boba za Reps

Pennsylvania:
Dems: 1 mil
Reps: 11 mil
Total: 23 bobe za Reps

Illinois:
Dems: 7 miliona
Reps: 5 miliona
Total: 22 bobe za Dems

Ohio:
Dems: 1 mil
Reps: 10 mil
Total: 21 boba za Reps

-----------------------------

Ukupno stanovnistvo:
Dems: 40 mil
Reps: 91 mil

Ukupno broj boba:
Dems: 109 boba
Reps: 101 boba


----------------------------

I tako Republikanci dobiju vise od duplo vise glasova Demokrata, a izgube sa elektorskim glasovima. Prema tome, ako svi izadju na izbore to ce samo povecati broj ljudi koji su glasali uzalud, tj. njihov glas se nigdje nije ubrojio (u ovom primjeru 17 miliona iz Californie + 9 miliona iz Ney Yorka + 5 miliona iz Illionoisa).

[danas]

kalifornija jeste tretirana kao nezavisna drzava kada su predsjednicki izbori u pitanju... kao sto sam vec rekla, ne broje se glasovi pojedinacnih glasaca, vec glasovi drzava, jer svaka drzava salje svog kandidata i na kraju se drzavni glasovi broje... po milioniti put -- USA nije direktna demokratija, i postoji istorijski i politicki dobar razlog za to. tako 10 manjih drzava i dalje moze pobijediti na izborima udruzenim izbornim glasovima...

PS ne mozes uzeti ovaj primjer, jer 'bobe' nemaju smisla samo sa ovih 7 drzava -- 'bobe' su dodijeljene na osnovu ukupne USA populacije pa zato dobijas ovako off rezultate... ali svejedno -- nije nista sporno u cinjenici da izborni i popularni glas ne mora da se poklopi... ono sto zelim reci je da kada god glasa vise ljudi -- dobija se bolja slika situacije. i smatram da sistem moze samo tako funkcionisati...

[danas]

Prema tome, ako svi izadju na izbore to ce samo povecati broj ljudi koji su glasali uzalud, tj. njihov glas se nigdje nije ubrojio (u ovom primjeru 17 miliona iz Californie + 9 miliona iz Ney Yorka + 5 miliona iz Illionoisa).

kako se nije ubrojio? ubrojio se u izborima na nivou date savezne drzave... i ti ljudi su izgubili; tj., njihov delegat je izgubio... 'dalje' ide kandidat koji je pobijedio na nivou drzave... i to je sve

[king31]

ova tema je trebala ici u Dijasporu ...

[pitt]

ova tema je trebala ici u Dijasporu ...

to samo dijasporu pogadjaju rezultati ovih izbora jel?

[danas]

ova tema je trebala ici u Dijasporu ...

to samo dijasporu pogadjaju rezultati ovih izbora jel?

ma ja
a nemoj slucajno da se zajebes da pokusas da objasnis kako jedan komplikovani sistem funkcionira