Question for Americans

[intedomine]

So it looks like Kerry is gonna be your new democrat candidate, i'm an aussie so im not sure on all the american politics and stuff.


Well if he is, do you think that he would be able to beat bush in the presidential election? Just curious.


Is he winning the polls or anything?

 

[Dreadsox]

The biggest factor will be turnout in the election in my opinion. I believe that a large turnout means no Bush.

The problem now is so much time between now and the election, there is no wasy to predict who will win.

As it is, I think Kerry will lose. I think his voting record will cause mainstream voters and independants to shy away from him.

It will be a close election, and while I think Kerry will win the popular vote, I am predicting an electoral college victory for Bush again.

 

[verte76]

It is too early to tell. I think the race will be close and competitive. I'm really surprised that Kerry is doing so well in the Southern and border states. Egads, he beat John Edwards in Tennessee, big time, and Virginia. Tennessee is the more conservative state; Virginia has the liberal D.C. suburbs. Now that Clark is out of the race it will be interesting how Kerry runs against Edwards in the other Southern states. That will tell us something, I think, if he polls really well against Edwards.

 

[STING2]

verte76,

I think how Kerry does in the Democratic Primary's in the South will tell you very little about how he will do in the general election. The Democrats are a much smaller party in the South than in other parts of the country. Republicans and Independents are going to vote Bush in the South. Even some Democrats in the South will probably end up voting for Bush.

 

[anitram]

I guess the question is - can Bush win all the states he won in the 2000 election? Can he be expected to pick up other states from the Dem candidate?

I have no idea. Somebody with a better idea of polls and numbers should answer this.

 

[STING2]

According to what I have read in the economist, everything is shaping up to be a replay of the 2000 election. 45% of the electorate has made up their mind already to go for the Democratic Candidate while another 45% are going to vote for Bush. The big question is the undecided 10%. All the Republicans have to do is win the States they won last time. The Democrats will have to do the hard work of upsetting the Republicans in one or more of these States if they want to win the election.

 

[intedomine]

Hang on is voting compulsary in the US of A

 

[STING2]

Nope

 

[intedomine]

Whoa! Thats huge! I thought it was....

Down here in australia, we got no choice, we have to vote otherwise we get forced to pay a whopping great fine even if we dont have any preference for any of the parties.....

I envy you yanks now, I'm strongly against compulsory voting, even though I'd probably vote in every election anyway...

 

[Kieran McConville]

Sorry to be an asshole, intedomine, but I'd strongly suggest voluntary voting is a big reason why America has its current president. It's different when everyone is forced to take an interest.

Anyhow compulsory voting isn't so onerous, is it? All you have to do, legally, is turn up and get your name ticked off the list. You can use the ballot paper for noughts-and-crosses if you really want to.

 

[~*Buffalo*~]

Sorry to be an asshole, intedomine, but I'd strongly suggest voluntary voting is a big reason why America has its current president. It's different when everyone is forced to take an interest.

Anyhow compulsory voting isn't so onerous, is it? All you have to do, legally, is turn up and get your name ticked off the list. You can use the ballot paper for noughts-and-crosses if you really want to.

Absolutely. I'm an Australian and I don't mind having to vote. We just had a state election the other week and Team Beattie won - I voted for them, so you know, it's kind of nice to know that everyone has a say and most people agreed with me.

Yes, it is important for people to make informed choices, and yes, I am aware that many Australians don't and just vote to avoid getting a fine. But I definitely prefer our system to America's. Last election was about 24% voter turn-out, wasn't it? That's pretty poor!

I find it quite laughable really that the country which promotes itself as the greatest democracy on earth had less than a quarter of the population voting. Let's hope it's better this time - even for us in Australia, the US president is pretty much the most important person in our lives! So, please, Americans, make a good choice! For the sake of your friends in Australia ...

 

[TylerDurden]

I understand why Americans (and a whole lot of other countries) don't have compulsory voting. That whole right to believe that all the candidates suck. The non-vote is a vote in a sense. That's what it means in theory, but in reality 3/4 of the population just can't be arsed to stop watching the football game on tv for half an hour and go and vote. Those people have no right to complain about the president they get. Obviously with elections as important as this one in the US, you'd hope a whole lot more get out and vote.

Compuslory elections are good because it gets rid of the laziness, plus it forces everyone to at least spend 10 seconds giving it some serious thought. Like the US, Australia has 2 major parties that have been the only 2 real choices for leadership since forever (one leaning slightly left, one right - both with close relationships to their equivalents in the US and UK), and of course, like the US, many people will still just vote for whoever is 'their' traditional party, not on issues, but still, it makes a lot more people think about their countries politics and leadership, which is a good thing in a day and age where generally most people don't give a shit.

Ok, another question on US elections to be explained for the non US people here - what's this Electoral College business?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Down here in australia, we got no choice, we have to vote otherwise we get forced to pay a whopping great fine even if we dont have any preference for any of the parties.....

This may be stupid, but...don't you have the option of voting "none of the above" - ie you don't support any of the candidates? Or can't you show up to vote and then just spoil the ballot paper so you haven't voted for a candidate you don't like but you won't get fined for failing to vote?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Ok, another question on US elections to be explained for the non US people here - what's this Electoral College business?

Disclaimer: I'm not American.

Basically the Electoral College means that American elections aren't decided purely on the popular vote, that is the candidate with the most votes wins. Instead the candidate who wins each state gets a certain number of delegates, the number varying depending on the population of the state. The delegates then cast their votes in an Electoral College held after the election and then candidate with the largest number of Electoral College votes is elected President.

In the 2000 election Gore got around 500,000 more votes than Bush, but Bush still won because he had more Electoral College votes.

Some people think the Electoral College is completely outdated, elections should be decided only by the popular vote and the system can mean that residents of some states have more influence on the election than residents of other states. Others defend it on the basis that it means that candidates don't ignore the small states with few voters, because those states Electoral College votes could help them to win the election.

 

[OzAurora]

After reading Stupid White Men, my question instead would be 'can the Americans be assured that the next election is infact going to be fair and democratic?' Maybe I have only read subjective un-truths, but it still makes me wonder............



oh and for anyone who liked what Mike Moore had to say in that book, I strongly reccomend you read PJ O'Rourke's 'Parliament of whores', very funny stuff, but in all honesty you don't know whether to laugh or cry

 

[Seabird]

I'm very disappointed it seems so many democrats just jumped on the bandwagon and he ran away with it before any of the other candidates had a chance. I don't like him, and I won't vote for him. I said before if it comes between him and Bush I won't vote. Well, you'd better hope I don't because I'd choose Bush over Kerry. What a shame we couldn't have better choices.

Beware everyone who wants to get rid of Bush. Don't vote for just anything just to get rid of him, we could be out of the frying pan into the fire. So maybe Kerry doesn't want the war, but what else is he for or against? Will he lead us to virtual socialism? That's my worry.

 

[meegannie]

This may be stupid, but...don't you have the option of voting "none of the above" - ie you don't support any of the candidates? Or can't you show up to vote and then just spoil the ballot paper so you haven't voted for a candidate you don't like but you won't get fined for failing to vote?

I was wondering that as well.

And, this may be even more stupid , but are all ballots paper ballots in Australia?

Disclaimer: I AM an American.

This is from the local newspaper in the county where I went to university:

"Carney said that overall most voters were able to use the write-in process with few problems. There were occasional voters who wrote their candidate's name on the machine rather than paper provided behind a screen that opened on the voting machine when the write-in option was taken by the voter."

It's a dry county and public intoxication laws are VERY heavily enforced, so these people probably can't claim being drunk as an excuse.

 

[verte76]

Compulsory voting just wouldn't work in the U.S. No matter who the candidates are there would be people who think the candidates suck too much to vote for them. Some people don't like Kerry. Alot of my leftie friends like Kucinich and that's it, they didn't like any of the other candidates. I don't think Kerry will "lead us into socialism", he's not *that* leftist. There are people who supported Clark who don't want Kerry, etc, etc. Some people were very pissed when a Clark listserver turned into a Kerry listserver after the endorsement. There was such a stink that the owner changed it back to a Clark list and started another Kerry group. This sort of thing would happen if Edwards won, people wouldn't support him, same for any candidate.
P.S. I am from the States, because of my location thing some people think I'm from Turkey! I'm not. That's a protest against the Istanbul terror attacks.

 

[meegannie]

Compulsory voting just wouldn't work in the U.S. No matter who the candidates are there would be people who think the candidates suck too much to vote for them.

I don't much like the candidates at the moment and don't know whether or not I'll vote, but if compulsory voting included the option of 'none of the above,' I would be fully in support of it.

 

[verte76]

Something that is an option for the people who don't like either of the major party candidates is the "write-in" option. You can just write in your choice on your ballot. That way you get to vote but you don't have to vote for anyone you honestly don't like. I can see why people would not want to vote for either of the major party candidates, and I don't like it that our system is so rigid that there are two candidates in the media and stuff and that's it. For this reason I really wish we had a parliamentary form of government, but that's not going to happen. Oh well. Kucinich would be a good lefty alternative if that's what you're looking for. Kucinich is the candidate I "matched" with the most on that matching test that anitram posted. I like him, also Edwards, but I am in Kerry's campaign now. I don't have any trouble with this. Some of my best friends do however. They don't like Kerry's vote for the war and other stuff.

 

[BVS]

I think the biggest question for this election is 'will there be any hanging chads?'

 

[meegannie]

Something that is an option for the people who don't like either of the major party candidates is the "write-in" option. You can just write in your choice on your ballot.

That's why I was arguing that compulsory voting could work in the US.

Whether or not I do a write-in will depend on the candidates filing a declaration of intent.

Kucinich is okay, but I don't think I would vote for him...though of the major party candidates, I agreed with him the most (and he doesn't bother me nearly as much as Al Sharpton!). I didn't like any of the Democratic contenders, though.

 

[anitram]

Will he lead us to virtual socialism? That's my worry.

Are you serious?

Let me tell you as somebody who was born in a socialist country that there is nothing even mildly socialist about Kerry. It's simply absurd. He's not even leftist at all, except according to American standards.

 

[verte76]

I hate it that barely 50% of the U.S. electorate even bothers to vote. But I have to think that it's the rigidity of our electoral system that contributes to this as much as anything. A friend of mine from Canada, and many others, believe that the Democrats and Republicans are both right-wing parties, and that one is just more right-wing than the others. We don't have the equivalent of a Labor or Social Democratic Party like they do in Europe, Canada, Australia, and I'm probably leaving someone out. The Democratic nominee is always too conservative for some voters and too liberal for others. Turkey certainly has its flaws as a democracy--their military is very powerful, they have the Ethnic Problems from Hell due to repressive laws, but they did vote for a minority party to head its government in 2002. The majority of the voters didn't support an establishment party because they thought the big parties were corrupt, so they put a small party in and they are now the government. They have a parliamentary form of government. I just wish we had more flexibility as per parties and voting here.

 

[BVS]

Are you serious?

Let me tell you as somebody who was born in a socialist country that there is nothing even mildly socialist about Kerry. It's simply absurd. He's not even leftist at all, except according to American standards.

Yeah that comment made me laugh as well.

 

[verte76]

Are you serious?

Let me tell you as somebody who was born in a socialist country that there is nothing even mildly socialist about Kerry. It's simply absurd. He's not even leftist at all, except according to American standards.

Correct. He's only leftist within the context of the major political parties, which are both pretty conservative because the U.S. is a conservative country. We don't have the equivalent of a leftist party here, the way they do in Canada (New Democratic Party), Europe (Labour, Social Democrats) and others. Plenty of my lefty friends think Kerry is too conservative and won't vote for him for that reason. Just go to Kucinich's site and check out why he's still in the race. I am not saying that Kucinich is a socialist, he's not, but he's someone who's criticizing Kerry from the left.

 

[nbcrusader]

He's not even leftist at all, except according to American standards.

Is he a socialist? No. But labels will be generated according to the US political standard of measurement.

 

[Dreadsox]

Isn't that what this is about? American standards?

 

[Danospano]

The key issue determining whether or not Bush is re-elected is THE ECONOMY. Over 2 million people have lost jobs since he took office. Considering Bush lost by 500,000 some odd votes, those 2 million people are going to determine who wins this election. I highly doubt they will vote for a guy that in-effect lost their jobs, so I'd say Kerry has a decent change of winning.

I, however, don't fully support John Kerry. There were at least a dozen other candidates I valued higher than Kerry, and those were just the democrats. Clark would have been a great president and would have kicked Bush's ass in the debates, morality and patriotic factors. I don't care if the polls said he'd lose in a head to head election. As we should all know by know, the media controls the image of candidates and the media felt Kerry was the go-to guy after he manhandled those little splinters of Iowa and New Hampshire...as if they represented the pulse of the nation? Kucinich was and I guess still is a good choice, and so it Sharpton if you look at the issues and ignore his unique and honest portrayl of America...I know his words and his vocal tone make THE WHITE MAN nervous, but I'm a white man and I love the guy!

 

[melon]

Beware everyone who wants to get rid of Bush. Don't vote for just anything just to get rid of him, we could be out of the frying pan into the fire.

I don't think we can do much worse than a lying, warmongering homophobic religious fanatic whose domestic policy is non-existent and whose foreign policy is dependent on the "potential" for another terrorist strike. Sorry to say, but the potential is never going to go away, as long as people have free will.

I will vote for anyone just to get rid of Bush, and Kerry fits the mold.

Melon