The Basics of Government

Lucky for you the world of American politics is not a quickly spinning one. Congress changes its face every two years and it is sometimes infamously slow and others secretly (hopefully, no longer so) fast. Much of what you read about is the President's doing, but Congress is the heart of the American government because it is elected directly by the people, unlike the President which is elected by electors (people selected by a constituency to vote according to how their constituency voted) or the Justices of the Supreme Court (which are nominated by the President and ratified by Senate(?)). Bills are introduced by House committees, deliberated upon, voted upon, and sent to the Senate for the same fun. More often than not, these committees are chaired and mostly populated by the members of the majority in that house. The whole thing is very complex but if you're looking into specifics Wikipedia helps a lot.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by MetheGelfling

Yeah there's this weird deal called the electoral college. It's crazy. While you're looking at the US Gov't, it's good to compare and contrast the concentrations/separations of power with the UK's gov't.

Comparing the US and UK governments is like comparing apples to oranges. You guys have more than two parties that frequently get elected and have had it that way for decades if my knowledge serves me correctly. We haven't had a Presidential candidate outside of the Dems and Reps voted for by a state's electors since Alabama Gov. George Wallace back in the 60s (oh, by the way, in case you didn't know, he was a racist motherfucker) and we haven't had a President outside of the two main parties since the 1800s. We have only had a few independant congressmen in the last few years but they've all swung Democratic. And the electoral college rarely works like it ought to! (Electors tend to give all their votes to one guy instead of splitting them up in case a district votes that way.)

Double Post:

Originally Posted by MetheGelfling

A better place to start if you want info on political theory and how gov't works is to go to the source. Read the Magna Carta, Articles of Confederation, US Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Federalist Papers. As well as writings by people like, John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Immanel Kant. It's a heavy undertaking as far as the reading goes, but if you really want a well informed opinion, it's the best route.

Yeah no, I wouldn't recommend reading all the old stuff because it's all far from what our government is as it exists today. The only relevant stuff is the Constitution. And even that gets flung around, pissed on, kicked and thrown out the window from time to time.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I didn't know you were an American.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Arainach

In today's climate, sounds like a great way to get one's self shot.

Our government isn't THAT paranoid, they'll just tackle you for traipsing in saying, "Hi!" to your Congressperson.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

If a state legislature decides to employ a system for assigning electoral votes wherein the winner of the popular vote statewide wins the state's electoral votes, and the electors assign the state's electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote statewide, how is that not working "like it ought to"?

Our House of Representatives is elected by Congressional district, so if their constituents can choose their own representatives why can't they have their votes properly applied towards the candidate they choose, not the candidate the whole state wants?

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Now, I'll repeat my question; if the state legislature decides to assign its electoral votes, as the Constitution says they can, based on which candidate wins the state's popular vote, instructs the electors to vote accordingly, and they do so, how is it "rarely working like it ought to"?

How it "ought to" work and how it does work are two different things. Electoral votes are assigned by Congressional district, just like Representatives, so why do those 48 states decide, for example, that one district will vote for a Republican Representative and one will vote for a Democratic Representative instead of saying, OK, the majority of voters in the state voted for a Democratic Representative so both districts are now forced to elect their Democratic Representative. I don't think that's fair representation of one's voting voice, and might be one reason why some people are disillusioned by the electoral system.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Electoral votes are assigned by state, based on a state's congressional delegation, not by congressional district (strictly speaking, there is no provision for congressional districts, but that's a different issue). Each state has an electoral vote for everyone it sends to Congress, with a minimum of three, as every state has at least one representative in the House of Representatives and two Senators.

Maine and Nebraska do their electing in more or less the same fashion I am referring to. It's a fairer (read: more representative) method than just throwing everyone's vote the way the majority of the state did. Why this country still clings to that method is beyond me and frustratingly so.

FELIPE NO