election day (please explain to an aussie)

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 01:10 AM
link   
alright. first off, as you can probably tell im an aussie.

second. i thought the election for the new US president was next year?

Third. do you vote for the president or the party that he/she represents??

im not shure if it's different in america but here in australia, we vote for the local candidate that we like, it doesnt matter if we dont like the party that their in as long as we believe theyre gonna be better for our local area we vote for them, then all of the votes in the area get counted, who ever polls most votes gets that seat in parliment, all of their (all of the candidates) their total's goes towards the final tally of votes for their party (the one they represent), the part with the highest amount of votes (australia wide) wins the election, then they(the winning party) are the ruling government usually they have a leader before the election (i dont think anyone has had to elect a leader after one) who is then our primeminister (same as your President)

is this a similar way to what you (the USA and it's citizens) vote like??

or have i totaly missed the target.

please help a confused aussie who wishes to follow the US presidential elections.




posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Welll u vote for whatever is better for ur locality. but i vote for what the party i think has the best leader for Australia and who has the best policies and who i think would be best as PM for our country.


All Americans do is either Vote Illuminati, or not vote at all ;P

But not likeit matters anyways...they still get an illumani

[Edited on 4-11-2003 by DaRAGE]



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 01:34 AM
link   
I am Canadian, I think our process is more like yours in Australia. You don't actually vote for the Prime Minister, you vote for who you like in your local riding. The leader of the party who wins the most seats becomes Prime minister. The party that gets the second most votes becomes the official opposition.

The American electoral system seems to be more confusing. As was seen in the last election, it doesn't always make a lot of sense either.



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 01:42 AM
link   
ther is something called primaries where the barrell is cut...
after that bad commercials, bad debates, and who ever makes it out of the hell hole with enough money is then chosen to lead his party...

after that more of the aformentioned...

then elections with college students stealing votes, votes coming up missing, and extra votes being created by whoever has the capitol to make it happen...

and sorry you are wrong we dont vote for illuminati, they are insidious enough to lie and keep the secret untill after the # hits the fan, i voted gore, but as you know he won the popular vote and lost the colligate vote...



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 01:46 AM
link   
yeah, the electoral college, what do they know about who should run the country, they are too busy throwing keggers and lifting their shirts up for Girls Gone Wild videos.



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 02:15 AM
link   
ok, here straight from the US constitution is how it works.... opengov.media.mit.edu...://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section1

[Edited on 4-11-2003 by namehere]



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 02:17 AM
link   
do you vote yet?

or has you negativity steared you away from the polls...

and by the way kiss my ass....



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by greenkoolaid
yeah, the electoral college, what do they know about who should run the country, they are too busy throwing keggers and lifting their shirts up for Girls Gone Wild videos.


Another thing I never fully understood is why that's still in practice. It was started so that our founding fathers could always "control" an outcome if the "people" voted for the "wrong" guy. It was a fail safe mechanism. Fair enough.

However, nowadays the Electoral college merely votes along with their constituents, picking the candidate that the voters themselves picked in the majority. (I'm not getting into anything that starts with "Florida", alright?)

My point is this: If our leaders claim that the electoral college merely votes along with its constituents, that it chooses the leader who won the popular vote in that particular county or state, then why even have it?

Is it because some states are more "Important" then others? If that's so, I find it very unamerican. But then again, that's just my two cents.



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 02:26 AM
link   
the constitution was nullified when bush the first was in office...

executive order....

so reading your link "namehere" means nothing to one with knowledge of power men have...
but for those that think all is dandy im sure more words will "fluff" em up a bit...



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigsage
do you vote yet?

or has you negativity steared you away from the polls...

and by the way kiss my ass....


me? what negativity? and yea i vote, would be my first time actually(im 21).

kiss your ass ... wow that was defensive, i said what i thought then changed it out of consideration so as to not insult you and because i misunderstood your comment.

why do you have to say anything about my comment(that was in error) after i changed it?



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigsage
the constitution was nullified when bush the first was in office...

executive order....

so reading your link "namehere" means nothing to one with knowledge of power men have...
but for those that think all is dandy im sure more words will "fluff" em up a bit...


ok, where do you get this "fact"?

[Edited on 4-11-2003 by namehere]



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 02:37 AM
link   
word of advice, it dosent matter...

all of this is just to make you feel like it does but it dosent, at all...

so if the guy you vote for dosent make it in office and he won the popular vote remember sage...
and if he won the collegiate vote and still makes it not in office remember sage...

id hate to say it but those on top are going to keep bush there he wil have to be moved by force...



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigsage
word of advice, it dosent matter...

all of this is just to make you feel like it does but it dosent, at all...

so if the guy you vote for dosent make it in office and he won the popular vote remember sage...
and if he won the collegiate vote and still makes it not in office remember sage...

id hate to say it but those on top are going to keep bush there he wil have to be moved by force...


mmk, so where did bush senior change the constitution, what was changed and where is this executive order you claim was written by him that did this?



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 02:46 AM
link   
the only group below the president is fema...
everybody else gets paid for time...
no change in the constitutional draft, an executive order...
done in a state of emergency(or so thought)...



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigsage
the only group below the president is fema...
everybody else gets paid for time...
no change in the constitutional draft, an executive order...
done in a state of emergency(or so thought)...


lol im not arguing, you claim of things yet give no proof of what you say, all i asked for was you to back your claim, thats all, im not arguing anything.



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 02:51 AM
link   
He might be referring to the executive order that suspends the constitution in times of chaos or confusion so that they can institute a curfew and arrest on sight with no trial. I've read that somewhere here on ATS (Not the board, but the actual frontpage section years ago)

I believe it was reagan who signed that bill into law though...but as far as *I* know, it has never been *used*.

Unless I really DID go to France and become a professor.



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 02:52 AM
link   
but you havent yet understood the style of those like us...

proofs are words used to impose on another being ones will, so if by your choice you want to find out more your curiousity will lead you, other than that you will lead you not me...



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kai-Raega
He might be referring to the executive order that suspends the constitution in times of chaos or confusion so that they can institute a curfew and arrest on sight with no trial. I've read that somewhere here on ATS (Not the board, but the actual frontpage section years ago)

I believe it was reagan who signed that bill into law though...but as far as *I* know, it has never been *used*.

Unless I really DID go to France and become a professor.


im aware of that but he stated it as if it has been enacted this whole time, it has not, therefore his statement was inaccurate.


[Edited on 4-11-2003 by namehere]



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 03:06 AM
link   
is unaccurate...

but to each his own...

it has already been done you (as well as most) are being introduced to decisions made already...

does this temporal fluxuation in politics bother you?...



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
im aware of that but he stated it as if it has been enacted this whole time, it has not, therefore his statement was inaccurate.

[Edited on 4-11-2003 by namehere]


I know, I have to agree with you NH.

With all due respect to Big Sage, who I will admit is well versed on many topics, reading some his posts makes my eyes hurt.

I feel like im tripping without actually taking anything. He should really bottle this stuff, I could make money selling it.

[Edited on 4-11-2003 by Kai-Raega]





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join