Election 08 (Make your prediction)

You're too much. Electoral law dictates a two-party system in the states. For the most part we operate on a first-past-the-post and winner-take-all systems. Thus, in order for a party to win seats it must be able to capture a large enough porportion of the vote. A US party has to be a broad coalition, necessitating moderation and ensuring two parties that are relatively similar.The GOP is considering a further move to the right, thinking that Palin actually helped their ticket. They have proclaimed the death of moderate republicans in their party.If you want multiple parties, I recommend taking a look at Parliamentarian Democracy which follows a proportional representation. Won 10% of the vote? Great, you get 10% of the seats. In the states, 10% gets you nothing (unless everyone got less than you did and state law such as the type forcing a re-election in Georgia is non-existant). Britain is interesting in that it uses proportional representation and yet has a two-party system (Labour and Conservatives). Although I think the Liberal party there is stronger than any third-party in the states.By the way, if it was all about upper-class control, why the hell would they let someone who is not from the upper class, who has actively campaigned for the rights of the maligned, win? McCain was the true son of the elite in America, Obama nothing but. I guess it's just a conspiracy to consolidate their control?

Thanks for the clarification. I've only breifly studied the British electoral system (and electoral systems in general are outside my perview except for in how elections shape potential relations between states) and just knew that it was different from the US and Europe.

You misunderstand. The two-party system is a consequence of our electoral laws, not following the rules. I guess you could say the two-party system is an emergent property. I'm not saying he is middle class. But compare his net worth with that of the McCain family. McCain's wife is sitting on a huge fortune (somewhere around 100 million). Obama's money comes from book royalties. Further, Obama is the classical rags-to-riches. He actually came from a situation worse than myself. He is know president-elect (and in 73 days president). McCain, on the other hand, was born into a powerful and influential family. Obama is self-made. McCain is not. To ignore this is to be blind to reality. Your childhood helps make you who you are. There's a reason it's called your formative years, when your disposition on practically everything is set.At anyrate, I think Obama has a better understanding of what its like to be poor and to struggle economically than McCain (who aside from 5 bad years in Vietnam has never had to struggle). You could be right. After all, Obama captured the majority of voters who make over 250,000 dollars despite his pledge to raise their taxes. Why would they vote for someone who's going to raise their taxes?I understand you're a physics student. Please use the reasoning present within you to not fall for these ridiculous conspiracy/crackpot theories.

Youtube is owned by Google, an internet giant.And given their propensity for banning a certain anti-creationist member (thanks to Kent Hovind), it could be argued they are in league with big business (over copy-rights). Of course, both Obama and McCain have a channel on Youtube.As an aside, comparing their Youtube pages is an excellent example of who really made good use of decentralized media. Obama has 1822 videos to McCain's 330. A huge chunk of Obama's videos display republicans backing him (that's where I found the "rednecks for Obama") and many videos urging people to vote.It will be interesting to see how well the GOP manages to use the internet in 2012--they have quite a ways to catch up.It also seems as if the democrats have finally found a social organizing unit that can compete with the church--things such as Facebook, MySpace, Youtube. With these the dems can run voter turnout ops that challenge or best the church drive. The reason I don't mention unions is because most US voters do not belong to a union, but most US voters belong to a church, even if inactive. The internet-groups are able, I think, to reach voters in ways that unions inherently cannot.And now I've rambled.I'll make a prediction for 2012:
If Obama has a good presidency, look for him to build his electoral edge. I'm shooting for over 400. Depending on demographics, we could capture some more southern states (Georgia?) or western states (Arizona?) If it's a bad term, he could still win, especially if "No-Fail Palin" or any other right-fringe candidate is the GOP nominee.

And just like that, the Dodo is extinct. Again. And again.I wonder how many false DMCA claims Ham, Hovind, and their ilk will make before they quit?It's getting old.

Interesting. I have to ask, if you want proportional, why even keep the electoral college? It becomes wholly unnecessary at that point, no?