reply to post by JamesofOz
Hi Dear jamesOz,
yes, if the polls are going to elect the President this prediction is already achieved many days before the election.
Now, let me refer to something interesting I found in other thread here in the forum, a Canadian psychic claim that he has already picked up the
winner of the election. He claims is going to be Mitt Romney.
Why I see something less clear in that final result than this other supposedly very accurate seer? (well I really don't know how nice is his record in
This are my reasons:
I honestly think, as a person with certain interesting experience dealing with accomplished omens or predictions, included past Presidential
elections, that to claim that Romney will win the election in this moment might be extremly bold, since first it is needed to define what is the
sense of winning in this context.
Is winning to get clearly the needed electoral votes to be President?
Is winning to get the majority of the popular votes along the entire country?
in other words the President elected by the American people and not by the politicians?
is winning to be proclaimed as President by the house of representatives in a very tied election where even the electoral votes might be the same for
the two candidates?
Is winning to be favored by a veredict fo the supreme court stopping a counting of ballots that in many democratic countries or other republics around
the world since decades or even centuries ago is the only way to confirm legally an election?
My personal feeling is that the election will be very tied until this next tuesday, that many voters are still having a lot of trouble to take a
decision, and the advertising in the media is not helping but confusing the people,and moreover there are many that have no real opportunity to vote
ontime, thanks to the situation created by the hurricane.
what would happen if the two candidates have the same amount of electoral votes but lets say hypotetically Barack Obama with more popular votes? Even
in such a case Romney can be President without really have won the election, neither through electoral votes or to have convinced the majority of the
voters, even with his many fascinating promises of to bring back the eden in to this earth, primarily by legalizing the tax evasion for the great
What would happen if there are many districts that are now severely affected by the disaster caused by Sandy, even still without power, and
therefore without a functional voting system, in which the people will not have a real chance to vote?
it is sad to recognize that the American electoral system has a so big gap in the law through which a President can be legally elected, but that does
not mean necesarily fairly elected, that can allow that the leader of the country can be a person that didnt receive really the support of the clear
majority of the Americans.
For instance the indirect election system gives more value to the vote of certain states over others, since it is evident that only grave
disparities or contradictiones that can emerge in this election, as it was in 2000, between electoral votes and popular ones, only might come from a
visible wrong weighting of the correct amount of electoral votes that each State must have in the electoral college.
It is said, by the experts, that the indirect election through an electoral college was created to open differences in between candidates with very
close results, that is not necesarily bad, in theory, but when the system opens a difference in favor of whom got less votes, who was not voted by
the majority in the country, pardon me but it is wrongly designed.
Here the thread of the election that catched my attention, :
The Angel of Lightness
edit on 11/4/2012 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)