- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 26 Hour
- Reading permission
re: about u.s. voting dynamics
you are right, meigouracing.|
when i lived in seattle, i really didn't care much at all about the different party nominations and such. i didn't even know who all the cabinet secretaries were!
boy, how things have changed for me. now that i live in dc, i have become a political animal (looking more like an elephant than donkey ... that refers to the republican and democratic parties for non-meiguoren).
about the 40 percent base for either party, you forgot that it is not only terms of population percentages, but also states. (explanation for chinese people follows ...) in the u.s., residents of each of the 50 states vote to choose electors or whatever they're called to represent them. those electors (bigger states get more of them) vote for a candidate so that the entire state effectively votes for only one person!
there are something like 40 states that are already heavily leaning toward one candidate or the other, leaving 10 or so states that are called "swing" states, meaning they could go either way.
in regard's to chairman's 17 percent assertion, that means something like only 3 percent of the overall population (i'm guessing) actually decides the president. (of course, we know EVERY vote counts, right? except for those lost due to hanging chads and electronic voting machines that are compromised by hackers.)
maybe in the future, if china adopts national elections, then they can improve on this process. i kind of think the whole electoral thing is pretty unfair, but hey, it's what we've got and no one said politics (even democractic politics) was fair.