Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin & Virginia

Mirandola · September 2012

Don't suppose anyone else is planning on staying up late on presidential election night? And if so, would you like company?

Arkady · September 2012

I usually host something myself, you'd be welcome. You'd have to join us in drinking ourselves poorly though.

Mirandola · September 2012

Excellent.

Detritus · September 2012

I am also up for that, was is Chicago during the last election, that was a good night.

andy · September 2012

Been saying this for a while, but this will be like Clinton-Dole in 96. Electoral College landslide, reasonably close popular vote.

Detritus · September 2012

Thats the problem with the Electoral College system.

Mirandola · September 2012

Hmm. My bet is for a pretty solid Obama victory in both popular vote and electoral college. Oh, and I just came back from Chicago. It's awesome.

twinspark · September 2012

It looks like I'll be in the US that night - California - as I was in 2008 when OB won which was truly memorable event - dinner at a friend's home everyone crying 'We got our country back' and I remember Eddie Izzard's brilliant soundbite on the TV news about departure lounges around the world reverbrating with the sound of American travellers ripping Canadian badges off their luggage shouting 'damn it I'm a yank and proud of it'. I think OB will win but doubt the result will be declared as early as last time might drag a bit longer.

Roy · September 2012

Ooh, I've never stayed up for a US election - I invariably do for UK general elections. What time do the results come in, and what channel do you watch for coverage? roy

Roy · September 2012

BTW, I never understand how American political activists manage it. Whereas we'd be talking about what's going on in Haringey, or in South Cambridgeshire, or whatever, the American activists end up talking about what's going on in electoral district Z-Z-9-Plural-Z-Alpha. I don't know how they manage to deal with these arbitrary constituency designations. roy

Detritus · September 2012

In 08 I was staying at a friends house in Grand Rapids MI. We drove to Chicago on election night and I have never seen a city celebrate like they did. My friends are Republican and were inconsolable. I felt like the world was starting anew, it might sound stupid, but it was as if a weight had been lifted from my shoulder. From a British point of view I find it strange that we are apathetic at best to the general elections in this country. Look at the way the election matters to people in the USA, Now I dont know if that is a inditement of throwing vast amounts of money for political advertising or Americans are just more engaged in the political world.

Roy · September 2012

@Detritus: Speak for yourself - the election certainly matters to me in this country

Detritus · September 2012

It matters to me as well, but look at the voter turnout for the last general election, 65%.That was up from 05 but still we were in the worst economic crisis in years and 35% of the population didn't bother to vote. I call that apathy.

Mirandola · September 2012

Turnout's lower in the US. 56 and something percent in 2008.

Detritus · September 2012

I agree but it's the way people interact about politics. I do think it has a lot to do with the amount of money that can be spent on the campaign in the USA

andy · September 2012

@Detritus - I think the Electoral College is interesting. The writers of the constitution recognised that each method of electing people was imperfect, so set up three different methods (Congress, Senate and President) in the hope the imperfections would balance each other out. They explicitly didn't want the President to have a national mandate (which they felt would lead to populism). The problem now is that the electoral college makes Presidential votes disproportionately influential in swings states like Ohio and Florida, and they've found themselves with the problem they tried to account for.<div> </div><div>I'm not sure you have a more engaged public in the US - there's just more money being spent. It's a bit like saying coca-cola is popular because they spend a lot on ads. As Mirandola said, turnout in Presidential elections is typically 10% lower than UK general elections - it bounces around the 55% mark, compared to the 65%ish average in general elections. What is interesting is that power is more widely dispersed in the US: Senators and Governors are powerful jobs, and party allegiance is much weaker, so this makes politics more interesting. In the UK it's all about the PM and the cabinet - the Mayor and Scottish Assembly are the only jobs that really stand apart for the govt and are worth having. <div> </div><div>But it's hard to argue that it's all about the money in the US, and with the super-PACs spending hundreds of millions, it's only going to alienate people from the process in the long term. </div><div> </div></div>

JoeV · September 2012

Slight correction Andy, what provides balance in the federal government is the three branches of government, Congress, President and the Judiciary, i.e. the Supreme Court. The founding fathers established the Electoral College to elect the President as a compromise and again as a way to maintain the balance of power between big and small states. The system may not be perfect but the alternates debated at the time weren’t considered viable or fair either: a vote in Congress, a vote by state legislatures, or by popular vote. Only Congress is directly elected by the people. Judges on the Supreme Court are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. One of the reasons for low turnout in the US is election fatigue. We have local, state and federal elections and the number of elected offices can be overwhelming. For instance in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">New York City</st1:place></st1:City>, where I’m from, the following offices are elected: Local --City Mayor --City Comptroller --City Public Advocate --City Council Representative --Borough President --Borough District Attorney --Borough/county court judges --Borough school board representatives State --State Governor/Lt Governor --State Comptroller --State Attorney General --State Senator --State Assembly member --State Court judges Federal --<st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> Senator --<st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> Representative in Congress --President/Vice President <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p> Other localities have different offices that are elected (some almost double the number elected in <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">New York City</st1:place></st1:City>). Everyone living in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">New York</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">State</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> votes for the State and Federal offices. <o:p> </o:p> Don’t get me started about money in politics, though to me the lack of accountability and disclosure of super-PAC donations is far more damaging than the actual amount spent. <o:p> </o:p>

NorthNineteen · September 2012

I've never actually been in the UK for the Presdential Election, what kind of time do results start coming through/does it get interest?

Arkady · September 2012

@ JoeV – I think you and andy are both right. Certainly the framers of the constitution wanted a separation of executive, legislative and judicial power. But andy’s point stands too – the framers wanted to use different electoral methodologies to mix it up even further. One way they did this was to select Congress itself by two different methods – direct election for the House of Representatives, and election by the state’s governments to the Senate. The Senate became directly elected following the 17th amendment, and that is often considered to have contributed to federal centralisation. Maybe the framer’s had it right to begin with.

andy · September 2012

Strictly Joe is right. When they talk explicitly about the separation of powers, they talk about the three branches of government. <div> </div><div>I was talking about the general principles of checks and balances and how that is reflected in the different types of election. Congressmen are elected on 2 year terms, the whole lot are re-elected at once and they represent areas of roughly equal size. Senators are elected on 6 year terms, a third each election, 2 per state, with little direct connection to the size of the electorate. This was deliberate. So in congress you get one populist, reactionary, locally focussed body balanced against (in theory) a more reflective, slower and nationally oriented one. And the Presidency combines features of both. Intellectually, it's a very elegant system. In practice, money renders the whole thing moot.</div><div> </div><div> </div>

Detritus · November 2012

... So it's almost time, where and when?

Arkady · November 2012

My usual do is sadly off, as I have a conference to attend the following morning.

gem · November 2012

I am with <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/nov/05/bronco-bama-mitt-romney-abigael-video">Abigael</a> on this one.

Idoru · November 2012

The thought of Romney winning is too terrifying for me to contemplate watching. I shall be shivering under my duvet.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Top Posters

Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin & Virginia

Comments