lizze

As far as I understand it, America’s electoral collage’s system was arranged in time where communication was not so developed. It took a few days to travel from the West Coast to D.C. These days the news and result from each state is instant.

With the current system, it is not a true representative of One man/woman for One Vote as it depends in which state you live. Being a Democrat in Texas or Republican in California … well that vote is not being fully weighted as it is usually a minority in those states.

With two opposing candidates, a voting system with proportion voting (I think it might be called National or Popular vote here in the US) is doable, more fair and more representative of the political landscape of the US.

I am not a huge fan of the UK voting system either. It produces an executive government at the cost of votes are not being equal. I prefer the proportion system but that has the risk of less executive power for the ruling party so consensus is important.

The only US candidate that has reached me is Barack Obama. No other candidate has reached me with their message. I watched Barack’s speech in South Carolina via Ustream today. I got that info from his twitter.

The speech was good, no fear mongering. He talked about what his solutions to the current issues are. No trashing other candidates, in general it was a positive attitude. If I could, I would vote for him.

Hillary does not appeal to me at all, that would just be 4 more years with the same corporate / lobby power houses in charge. Afterall, she took money from the insurance industries after they almost tore her to bits a couple of years ago. Where is her morals? Corporate America has disproportion influence of American politics and I think it is hurting the US. If something is hurting the US, then the rest of the world gets some that too.