The Voters of Qatar Living Have Spoken

in the US MANY people are voting EARLY!!..Thousands of voters have already taken advantage of voting early to avoid long lines that are being expected on election day. The "Election process is a tiring affair" might be true for the rest of the world, BUT not in the US..America knows that it's important to get it's voters out to vote. It was proven in past elections that every vote DOES matter!

will be frustrated. But if Obama wins, not only MCain's supporter will be frustrated but Obama's supporter will be furious. Obama will not change the present foreign policy of USA. If he does, it will more messy and chaotic. My opinion only. But "who cares" said the QL poll.

"dgoodrebel will always be the rebellious good one"

But, the AP just put out a poll 12 hours ago that puts Obama ahead in 6 swing states and even in 2. Their numbers are Obama: 50% McCain: 41%
Early voting will probably reach to 30%..

Scarlett, yes, I meant the electoral college, the way the us does "democracy" is very different from other countries since they don't trust "the people".

that's not the case..the US trusts its citizens to vote...it started from the beginning of our country, when there wasn't any way to communicate throughout the country in the election process. So...each state ended up having certain number of votes as per the population and area of land. However..its really outdated and should be done away with since we now have computers, tv, newspaper and radios...but that part is just a personal viewpoint.

here you go, the official explanation...from Wikipedia

The Electoral College consists of 538 popularly elected representatives who formally select the President and Vice President of the United States.[1] In 2008, it will make this selection on December 15. The Electoral College is an example of an indirect election.

Rather than directly voting for the President and Vice President, United States citizens cast votes for electors. Electors are technically free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, but in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates[2] and voters cast ballots for favored presidential and vice presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors.[3] Most states allow voters to choose between statewide slates of electors pledged to vote for the presidential and vice presidential tickets of various parties; the ticket that receives the most votes statewide 'wins' all of the votes cast by electors from that state. U.S. presidential campaigns concentrate on winning the popular vote in a combination of states that choose a majority of the electors, rather than campaigning to win the most votes nationally.

Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress. Additionally, Washington, D.C. is given a number of electors equal to the number held by the smallest states.[4] U.S. territories are not represented in the Electoral College.

Each elector casts one vote for President and one vote for Vice President. In order to be elected, a candidate must have a majority (at least 270) of the electoral votes cast for that office. Should no candidate for President win a majority of the electoral votes, the choice is referred to the House of Representatives.[5] Should no candidate for Vice President possess a majority of the electoral votes, the choice is given to the Senate.[6]

The Constitution allows each state legislature to designate a method of choosing electors. Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia have adopted a winner-take-all popular vote rule where voters choose between statewide slates of electors pledged to vote for a specific presidential and vice presidential candidate. The candidate that wins the most votes in the state wins the support of all of that state’s electors. The two other states, Maine and Nebraska, use a tiered system where a single elector is chosen within each Congressional district and two electors are chosen by statewide popular vote. U.S. presidential elections are effectively an amalgamation of 51 separate and simultaneous elections (50 states plus the District of Columbia), rather than a single national election.

Candidates can fail to get the most votes in the nationwide popular vote in a presidential election and still win that election. This occurred in 1876, 1888 and 2000. Critics argue the Electoral College is inherently undemocratic and gives certain swing states disproportionate clout in selecting the President and Vice President. Adherents argue that the Electoral College is an important and distinguishing feature of the federal system, and protects the rights of smaller states. Numerous constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress seeking a replacement of the Electoral College with a direct popular vote; however, no proposal has ever successfully passed both houses.

AND:

Irrelevancy of national popular vote

This graphic demonstrates how the winner of the popular vote can still lose in a hypothetical electoral college system.In the elections of 1876, 1888, and 2000, the candidate receiving the plurality of the nationwide popular vote did not become President.[40] Opponents of the Electoral College submit that such outcomes do not logically follow the normative concept of how a democratic system should function.

Outcomes of this sort are attributable to the federal nature of the system. As such, argue supporters of the Electoral College, candidates must build a popular base that is geographically broader and more diverse in voter interests.

Scenarios exhibiting this outcome typically result when the winning candidate has won the requisite configuration of states (and thus their votes) by small margins while his opponent captured large voter margins in the remaining states. Given the 2000 allocation of electors, it is possible a candidate could win with only the hair's width support of the 11 largest states. In such an example, the very large margins secured by the losing candidate in the other states would aggregate to well over 50 percent of the ballots cast nationally. Claims that the Electoral College suppresses the "popular will" are therefore open to debate.

A result of the present functionality of the Electoral College is that the national popular vote bears no legal or factual significance on determining the outcome of the election. Since the national popular vote is irrelevant, both voters and candidates are assumed to base their campaign strategies around the existence of the Electoral College; any close race has candidates campaigning to maximize electoral votes by capturing coveted swing states, not to maximize national popular vote totals.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked,the good fortune to run into the ones I do,and the eyesight to tell the difference.

I agree..it is complicated.. but...what I can not disagree with is....it works

already cast my vote....

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked,the good fortune to run into the ones I do,and the eyesight to tell the difference.

Yes Palin is an airhead.. The appropriate vote in the upcoming election would be none of the above please.

The Obama presidency will be a presidency of continual conflict, with his left wing base as he is unable to deliver the outlandish demands they make and with mainstream America as he fails to deliver hope though no doubt there will be change.. he has very little room to move given the economic situation. Frankly I can only see him making it worse, but I hope I am wrong..