DISQUS

susan · 1 year ago

The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do state-by-state or country-by-country, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes-- 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

Sally Miller · 1 year ago

As a dual citizen living in Europe for more years than I will tell, my reaction is: surprized? Kennedy was the most popular and Clinton was pretty high too, Kerry was "adored" because he speaks a little French and schooled in Switzerland. What do they have in common? That will give you some indication of the answer to their popularity. The size & level of democracy, importance put on form rather than substance in each country will also give some indications.

In France I have heard "elegant, beautiful wife I'd love to spend some private time with, fun musician, wish I was in his place with pretty admins, etc, etc... for all these presidents/candidates .. not really the stuff Americans want from their leaders. And Democrats are much closer in their views of goverment intervention in citizens lives to the Europeans.

As a test, I passed out the transcript of Obama's speech to Germans friends at work. They were apalled when they actually understood what he had said. (They only heard the lofty flattering stuff) They were also very upset years ago when Clinton forced then to act on Bosnia.

You need to understand they want what they see as a careful, "elegant, superficial, flatering US that asks nothing of them. The EU cannot get their act together, the cost of living and social costs are drowning most EU countries. (Social medicine is close to bankrupt in most countries). There are very reasonable and knowledgeable people - but they are the minority. Most simply want their creature comforts and noone telling them they have to take any responsibilities. The State is there to take care of them - they thik.

"Popularity" is nothing but superficial and short lived. Please note that the US is not having to ask people from these countries to take green cards. That gives me a better indication of reality.