Down To The Wire 2012 >>POLITICS<<

It would seem to be an amalgam of state's rights and a parlimentary system. A Prime Minister is never elected directly, but is elected by representatives along party lines. In this case, the Electoral College serves as the parliment, but the president does not require a majority of the Electoral College, only a plurality. Also, the idea of independent states was much stronger at the birth of the US than it is now.

NBCNews is reporting that Obama has strong leads in Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin which should push him over the 270 electoral votes needed for re-election:http://firstread.nbcnews.com/...ghts-obamas-midwest-firewallThe Romney campaign insists that Iowa is much closer than polls suggest which may have some truth to it. Nonetheless, Obama looks to be in a strong position as of now. If Obama is able to carry either Florida or Virginia it would make Iowa a moot point.

Reminds me of how Kennedy used the "Missile Gap" argument against Eisenhower. Kennedy argued that the difference between the number of nuclear armed US missiles and USSR missiles was putting the US at risk, and that this occurred during Eisenhower's time in office. Of course, no one stopped to ask if more missiles made us safer.Romney, like many other current Republicans, seems to be a victim of the neocon echo chamber. Arguments and policies are not judged by their practical or pragmatic effects, but rather on their adherence to neocon ideology. If the Republicans continue on this path then they will lose more and more votes over time. At some point they have to face reality, hopefully sooner than later.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

No, that would an exercise of sovereign powers given to those two branches as part of a federal republic.Our national government is a democratically elected federal republic. The election of representatives is where democracy ends. After that, the elected officials are free to vote however they want even if it contradicts the majority opinion of the public.State governments are more of a mish mash. There are laws that are enacted based on direct democratic votes (e.g. referendums) at the state level. This is not seen at the federal level outside of ammending the constitution.

Very good point. In the US, elected officials are granted powers by the constitution which is addressable by democratic vote (but still split up into states).I have been known to pick nits about these issues when I discuss politics with people. People tell me that surely the US is a democratic nation. I retort by asking them how they voted on Obamacare. That always gets them thinking.I often wonder if a true democracy would even work. I think it would be a bit like asking a 5 year old what you should eat for dinner. Sometimes we need to be told to eat our veggies, if you know what I mean.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

So how did you vote on the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare)? What about funding for the war in Iraq? Did you vote to continue funding or against it?

What we are saying is that they are using the term incorrectly, but it is used so often in this incorrect way that we understand what they are trying to get at. It's a bit like ignoring people when they say that the Sun moves about the Earth when they describe morning moving towards evening.

Both are factually incorrect. If we are picking nits, it does mean a pure democracy. However, the usage of the term has changed over the years. Languages are living entities so there is a strong argument to include republics under the heading of democracy.

It is my opinion that there is a segment of the population that wants to see Obama out of office at all costs. They see these lies as little white lies for the better good. Do people really think that Obama is a secret Muslim who is part of an inner circle of Arab leaders looking to overthrow the West? I really don't think anyone truly believes that, but they will still claim it. Human psychology can be quite intriguing at times.