Que pensez-vous de la situation "trouble" à la suite des élections ? Trouvez-vous normal qu'un candidat qui a obtenu le plus grand nombre de voies ne soit peut-être pas élu président ? Avez-vous voté ? Si la réponse est non, le regrettez-vous ?
J'ai entendu à la radio que les Américains n'étaient pas trop "stressés" à l'idée que l'on reconte les voies. En France, je n'imagine pas la panique qu'il pourrait y avoir si quelque chose comme ça se produisait !
I don't think it is strange that a person who has won the popular vote has lost the presidency. The electoral college was designed so that small states would have a more equal say in the election. If the election was solely based on the popular vote than the candidates would ignore the smaller states and heavily focus on the larger (more populated) states. This would drastically change the strategies of both candidates, and perhaps the results would have been different. Although it is true that Gore has won more popular votes, the difference is very small in fact Gore has won (looking at the current results) 49,096,960 votes nation-wide and Bush 48,875,530 the difference is 221,430 votes this means that Gore has ~ .45% more votes than Bush. Is .45% a large number? Well in florida the law has required a recount because the difference in the results there was less than .5%, therefore following the same rational ~ .45% is certainly not a large difference. However I do think that many Americans are upset that there is a chance that Gore may not be elected despite the fact that he has won the popular vote. Yet if Bush is elected 49.89% of the people who voted will be happy and only 50.11% will be upset.
No, I think most people are panicing over this, although it is controlled. I voted, and as I left the polls I told my friend how nice it was that we were lucky enough to live in a country where there were fair and just elections. And now I find out that there were many cases in which votes were falsified, miscounted,and otherwise tampered with?! Makes me wonder about the legitimacy of our government that we always proclaim is a true democracy.
The electoral college was originally designed not to pay more attention to small states, but because our founding fathers had little faith in the American people. There were no televisions, no radios, no planes, so basically, most people knew very little about the candidates. Their idea - instead of having the people elect the president, why not have the people elect people who actually did know about the president who would represent them in the vote. Hence, the electoral college. In my opinion, in this day in age, there is no longer any need for the electoral college. There is also no excuse for the travesty of justice going on in Florida. Just let Palm Beach county vote again!
Armelle--about the "trouble" with the elections--A headline on one of the internet salons today says "The Rest of the World Thinks We Are Idiots!" What is funny to me (having grown up in Canada) is how few Americans seem to realize that people in other countries may not feel the same way about the US as they do.
This morning my friends and I were talking about a really radical idea. What if one-fifth of the children of the United States were raised in other countries, then returned to the US as adults? That would sure change things! What do you think?
Yes the founding fathers were worried that the american people may not be knowledgeable about the candidates. Therefore they believed that the citizens would vote for a person from their own state; thus the larger states would be at an advantage since they have a larger population. So part of the reason (what you said is also correct) for the electoral college was to protect the small states.
Also it is not reasonable to have just the people of Palm Beach revote and decide this election. Florida is not the only state where there have been "irregularities".
I'm personally upset at the manner in which the media has handled the election, especially with its several blunders on election night. It is very probable that they had a impact on the voting of several citizens.
I tend to agree with Gabrielle - the electoral college is an outdated method of electing the president. There are several reasons why the electoral college conflicts with the principles of democracy: 1.A vote in Wyoming counts more than a vote in California. This outcome of the electoral system seems unfair and it results from the disproportionate representation of smaller states. 2.The all or nothing system of gaining electoral votes - a candidate must win greater than 50% of the popular vote(adjust for hte inclusion of a third party candidate) in a given state in order to win the electoral votes in that state. This system encourages voter apathy in states where there is a strong republican or democratic majority. For example, in Massachusetts many people don't feel the need to vote because they know that a democratic candidate will be chosen - they think their vote will make no difference. If we were to abolish the electoral college, voter turnout would most likely increase - strengthening the force of democracy. 3.Underrepresentation of third party candidates. The all or nothing system of winning electoral votes does not accurately portray the strength or importance of third party candidates. Often their issues are not given the attention they deserve. Also, the people in a state where there are equal proportions of democrats and republicans - people feel compelled to avoid casting a vote for a third party candidate who might take away votes from their second choice candidate. An example of this situation this year is Nader - people in Florida were probably less likely to cast a vote for Nader and instead they chose to vote for Gore in order to prevent Bush from garnering votes. This situation leds to the creation of the Nader-trader website where individuals in heavily repulican states "swapped" their votes for Nader with a democratic individual in a state with a large democratic contingent. Clearly, this electoral system is biased against these third party candidates and the individuals who hold their views.
however, one thing we must consider is that the US it not really a democracy - but a republic. A country for the people and by the people - but only the RIGHT people. Anyhow, given this assumption - must the US still adhere to strict notions of democracy? probably not - but that probably also means that we shouldn't go running around the planet extolling the virtues of democracy if we don't really have one ourselves......
William, je suis d'accord avec toi, je pense que l'opinion que les étrangers ont des US est très différente de celle des Américains eux-mêmes. Par exemple, mon beau-frère qui est Américain a énormément changé depuis qu'il est en France (depuis 8 ans) : je pense qu'il a une vision beaucoup plus objective et critique de son pays ; au début, il n'acceptait pas que l'on critique certaines facettes de son pays mais désormais, il nous écoute et comprend tout à fait notre opinion.
Kristen, je ne comprends pas très bien lorsque tu dis que les US sont une République et non une démocratie. La France, par exemple est une République et une Démocratie. La Grande Bretagne est une démocratie et pas une République etc etc, peux-tu m'éclairer ?
Une chose intéressante : les Américains vivant à Paris ont voté en majorité pour Bush. Ils ont toujours voté pour le président élu. Se sont-ils trompés cette fois-ci ??
Une dernière chose : lors d'élections en France, les sondages sont interdits au moins une semaine avant les élections afin de ne pas influencer les électeurs. Pensez-vous que si cela se passait comme cela aux US, le résultat serait plus juste ? (vous avez souligné que les médias ont peut-être influencé le vote de certains électeurs le jour de l'élection).
Arrête-donc avec tes commentaires sur la protections des petits états des Etats-Unis. Ce n'est pas là la vrai raison :) Tout le monde sait bien (et surtout moi :)!!) que tu es un partisan de cet imbécile de G.Bush. Même si c'est assez incompréhensible de vouloir choisir un des hommes les plus bêtes des USA comme prochain président, je respecte ton malheureux choix. Pourquoi pas sylvester stallone la prochaine fois?Leurs Q.I. doivent être proches, ils s'entendraient bien tous les deux.
Que Palm Beach revote! Ou que quelqu'un se dévoue pour faire un attentat! :)
Pour ma part, je voulais lancer, comme on dit en français "un coup de gueule". Aujourd'hui, ce qui fait presque tous les jours la une des journaux c'est le méli-mélo judico-politique sur les differents qui opposent Bush et Gore ou plutôt je devrais dire leurs avocats...
A savoir que les plus grands groupes d'informations US et mondiaux (?) ont trompés le monde entier avec leur résultats bidons. Que l'homme le plus puissant du monde va être elue dans un immense bazar. Cela fait peur, pendant ce temps palestiniens et israéliens peuvent s'entretuer, la Côte d'Ivoire va peut-être sombrer dans une guerre civile, les Philippines risquent de connaätre de graves émeutes si le président Suharto ne démissione pas,...
Il y a vraiment quelque chose qui cloche, vous ne trouvez pas? Vous pouvez trouver que j'exagère, mais j'espère que tous cela se résolvera avant la mi-janvier (lors de la passation de pouvoir) et ce jour la, le bon sens reviendra un peu et que tout ceci ne soit qu'un mauvais souvenir, en tout cas aujourd'hui le monde entier vit à l'heure de la mesquinerie politique à Palm Beach... C'est le Soap Opera de cet hiver!
If you believe that college grades are any idicators of someone's intelligence than you might be surprised to learn that Gore's grades are just as poor as Bush's grades which may or may not be just as bad as Sylvester Stallone's grades :)
In terms of interpretation of the election results: a friend of mine proposed that the country is not actually divided - 50% favor Bush (I do not understand why) and 50% support Gore. What we think is the two-pole party model is actually a grand confusion. What do you think about that? Do you believe that the American people knew which candidate they prefered, which one was better?
Do you also think that the world is generally lacking good leaders nowadays? Is it that a president cannot be chosen because there isn't a good candidate?
To be honest I think that part of the problem with this year's presidential election is that neither of the two candidates have very strong leadership skills. They are not horrible per say, but neither of them have anything extraordinary about themselves. I think the fact that the race is close is a great indicator of it.
I think it's a bit of an embarrassment for the U.S., what with the votes being miscounted, the ballots being confusing, ballots pehaps being lost, etc, etc. It'll be interesting to see how it all works out, because whoever wins will have a difficult time convincing the other half of the nation that he is the real victor. I think pretty much the only good thing that's come out of this is that a lot more people have become interested in the elections and in voting. Perhaps voter turnout will even be greater next time. And how is the voter turnout in France? Do most people vote, or are a lot of them apathetic, like in the U.S.?
I simply want to say that the election coverage I've seen in the past two weeks has completely soured me on TV. I thought nothing could turn me away from this glorious brain-numming media. I was wrong.
What bothers me more than anything is the fact that the facts are completely obscured! Nobody knows anything really (or at least, no one agrees on a consistent set of facts). This makes the whole exercise pointless, and completely infuriating. The Gore camp makes outrageous and provocative statements about the Bush camp, and vice versa, and nobody learns anything remotely about reality.
I think everyone should just shut up. The radio personalities too. In general, the media is using this tragic national episode to inflame the public and thus keep them watching, making their sponsors happy because people are seeing more commercials than ever. Of course, such abuse of power has occured many times in the past, but it needs to stop now, or I'll have to turn off my tv for good.
Cette histoire d'élections présidentielles commence vraiment à devenir ridicule. Tout ça pour faire la différence entre deux candidats qui ont à peu près les mêmes idées politiques. C'est pour ça que le pays est divisé en deux parties égales. S'il y avait une rélle différence, ne pensez vous pas que le problème ne se poserait même pas? Et pourquoi ne pas introduire d'autres candidats sérieux qui équilibreraient la balance et éviteraient le scandale qui est en train d'émerger? Je vous laisse me donner votre avis...
Cécile, I agree that the elections outcome has become absurd at that point. Everybody is tired of the ongoing manual countings and the lack of clear results. People are also worried that whoever the real winner is, he will not be universally accepted. I do not think though that there is no difference between the two candidates. Anyone who watches the campaign more closely and knows more about politics will tell you that Gore and Bush are fundamentally different. The problem is that both candidates, as Diana said, have nothing extraordinary about themselves - nothing really attracted the people as political charm, influence, authority... As for other, more serious candidates, that is a good idea, but it is only my personal opinion. I assume that the law, (bureaucracy, constitution...) will not allow great delays, more elections. That takes a lot of time, and preparation. (from the sides of the candidates as well). So, I don't know! A grand confusion!
- Cela ne vous dérange-t-il pas que le système d'élections ait été décidé au 18 ème siècle, ne pensez-vous pas qu'il faille l'adapter au peuple américain d'aujourd'hui ? Seriez-vous pour le suffrage universel direct ?
- Cela ne vous dérange-t-il pas d'élire comme président quelqu'un qui ne sait pas situer l'Autriche, est complètement inculte, sait à peine s'exprimer et a un QI de chat ? Ce sont pour moi les choses les plus importantes.
- Que pensez-vous du fait que seuls 2 partis aient de l'importance dans le pays (2 partis de droite en plus) ? En France il y a beaucoup plus de partis et chaque élection présidentielle ne se finit pas comme un duel entre 2 personnes toujours des 2 mêmes partis.
Je suis d'accord avec Frédérique: ne pensez vous pas qu'il faudrait revoir le système électoral américain? Est ce que le suffrage universel direct ne vous paraät pas une meilleure solution que le système actuel?
Le seul commentaire qu'on peut faire à propos du systeme electoral americain c'est : "dépassé". Il était surement au top à la fin du 18eme siécle mais depuis la technologie et surtout les médias ont évolués...
"fair and just elections" ?! Sarah es tu sure de ce que tu annonces? que penses-tu des bulletins de Palm Beach? Et que pense tu des manoeuvres plus ou moins légales pour ne pas faire voter certaines personnes ou encore l'excuse de dire qu'il n'y a plus de bulletins pour voter...?????
décidément... les élections ont commencé à devenir comme un 'show' depuis l'avènement de la télé et depuis les candidats font n'importe quoi... et ça avait commencé avec Kennedy.
je ne sais pas si la cours supreme des US possède ce pouvoir, mais s'il fallait revoter, peut-être meme avec un nouveau systeme électoral, pensez vous que la participation des américains au élections serait plus grande ?
In response to Jean's question: yes and no... let me explain. In one sense it is suprising to me that europeans would take such interest in the affairs of the Untited States. It seems most times as if most europeans try to distance themselves as much as possible (perhaps in fear of association? :) ) from Americans. On the other hand, this is quite an unusual and unprecedented situation. It seems suprising that such an "ordered" and powerful country such as the US can seem in such a chaotic state. I'm sure history and government classes all over tge world are having a field day with this election in terms of media coverage and recognition.
In response to Antoine's question: I am absolutely positive that if there were a new vote that many many more americans would turn out to vote. I think this election will also cause the voter turnout in the next election to increase as well.
Personally i think the entire Florida situation is ridiculous. news outlets have reported that there are also thousands of votes from deceased, non-citizens, underaged , etc. if it only comes down to 900 or so votes, i think the system that they have employed to determine a winner is extremely faulty
Discussion
Que pensez-vous de la situation "trouble" à la suite des élections ? Trouvez-vous normal qu'un candidat qui a obtenu le plus grand nombre de voies ne soit peut-être pas élu président ? Avez-vous voté ? Si la réponse est non, le regrettez-vous ?
J'ai entendu à la radio que les Américains n'étaient pas trop "stressés" à l'idée que l'on reconte les voies. En France, je n'imagine pas la panique qu'il pourrait y avoir si quelque chose comme ça se produisait !
I don't think it is strange that a person who has won the popular vote has lost the presidency. The electoral college was designed so that small states would have a more equal say in the election. If the election was solely based on the popular vote than the candidates would ignore the smaller states and heavily focus on the larger (more populated) states. This would drastically change the strategies of both candidates, and perhaps the results would have been different. Although it is true that Gore has won more popular votes, the difference is very small in fact Gore has won (looking at the current results) 49,096,960 votes nation-wide and Bush 48,875,530 the difference is 221,430 votes this means that Gore has ~ .45% more votes than Bush. Is .45% a large number? Well in florida the law has required a recount because the difference in the results there was less than .5%, therefore following the same rational ~ .45% is certainly not a large difference. However I do think that many Americans are upset that there is a chance that Gore may not be elected despite the fact that he has won the popular vote. Yet if Bush is elected 49.89% of the people who voted will be happy and only 50.11% will be upset.
No, I think most people are panicing over this, although it is controlled. I voted, and as I left the polls I told my friend how nice it was that we were lucky enough to live in a country where there were fair and just elections. And now I find out that there were many cases in which votes were falsified, miscounted,and otherwise tampered with?! Makes me wonder about the legitimacy of our government that we always proclaim is a true democracy.
The electoral college was originally designed not to pay more attention to small states, but because our founding fathers had little faith in the American people. There were no televisions, no radios, no planes, so basically, most people knew very little about the candidates. Their idea - instead of having the people elect the president, why not have the people elect people who actually did know about the president who would represent them in the vote. Hence, the electoral college. In my opinion, in this day in age, there is no longer any need for the electoral college. There is also no excuse for the travesty of justice going on in Florida. Just let Palm Beach county vote again!
Armelle--about the "trouble" with the elections--A headline on one of the internet salons today says "The Rest of the World Thinks We Are Idiots!" What is funny to me (having grown up in Canada) is how few Americans seem to realize that people in other countries may not feel the same way about the US as they do.
This morning my friends and I were talking about a really radical idea. What if one-fifth of the children of the United States were raised in other countries, then returned to the US as adults? That would sure change things! What do you think?
Gabrielle:
Yes the founding fathers were worried that the american people may not be knowledgeable about the candidates. Therefore they believed that the citizens would vote for a person from their own state; thus the larger states would be at an advantage since they have a larger population. So part of the reason (what you said is also correct) for the electoral college was to protect the small states.
Also it is not reasonable to have just the people of Palm Beach revote and decide this election. Florida is not the only state where there have been "irregularities".
I'm personally upset at the manner in which the media has handled the election, especially with its several blunders on election night. It is very probable that they had a impact on the voting of several citizens.
I tend to agree with Gabrielle - the electoral college is an outdated method of electing the president. There are several reasons why the electoral college conflicts with the principles of democracy: 1.A vote in Wyoming counts more than a vote in California. This outcome of the electoral system seems unfair and it results from the disproportionate representation of smaller states. 2.The all or nothing system of gaining electoral votes - a candidate must win greater than 50% of the popular vote(adjust for hte inclusion of a third party candidate) in a given state in order to win the electoral votes in that state. This system encourages voter apathy in states where there is a strong republican or democratic majority. For example, in Massachusetts many people don't feel the need to vote because they know that a democratic candidate will be chosen - they think their vote will make no difference. If we were to abolish the electoral college, voter turnout would most likely increase - strengthening the force of democracy. 3.Underrepresentation of third party candidates. The all or nothing system of winning electoral votes does not accurately portray the strength or importance of third party candidates. Often their issues are not given the attention they deserve. Also, the people in a state where there are equal proportions of democrats and republicans - people feel compelled to avoid casting a vote for a third party candidate who might take away votes from their second choice candidate. An example of this situation this year is Nader - people in Florida were probably less likely to cast a vote for Nader and instead they chose to vote for Gore in order to prevent Bush from garnering votes. This situation leds to the creation of the Nader-trader website where individuals in heavily repulican states "swapped" their votes for Nader with a democratic individual in a state with a large democratic contingent. Clearly, this electoral system is biased against these third party candidates and the individuals who hold their views.
however, one thing we must consider is that the US it not really a democracy - but a republic. A country for the people and by the people - but only the RIGHT people. Anyhow, given this assumption - must the US still adhere to strict notions of democracy? probably not - but that probably also means that we shouldn't go running around the planet extolling the virtues of democracy if we don't really have one ourselves......
William, je suis d'accord avec toi, je pense que l'opinion que les étrangers ont des US est très différente de celle des Américains eux-mêmes. Par exemple, mon beau-frère qui est Américain a énormément changé depuis qu'il est en France (depuis 8 ans) : je pense qu'il a une vision beaucoup plus objective et critique de son pays ; au début, il n'acceptait pas que l'on critique certaines facettes de son pays mais désormais, il nous écoute et comprend tout à fait notre opinion.
Kristen, je ne comprends pas très bien lorsque tu dis que les US sont une République et non une démocratie. La France, par exemple est une République et une Démocratie. La Grande Bretagne est une démocratie et pas une République etc etc, peux-tu m'éclairer ?
Une chose intéressante : les Américains vivant à Paris ont voté en majorité pour Bush. Ils ont toujours voté pour le président élu. Se sont-ils trompés cette fois-ci ??
Une dernière chose : lors d'élections en France, les sondages sont interdits au moins une semaine avant les élections afin de ne pas influencer les électeurs. Pensez-vous que si cela se passait comme cela aux US, le résultat serait plus juste ? (vous avez souligné que les médias ont peut-être influencé le vote de certains électeurs le jour de l'élection).
Allez Ralph,
Arrête-donc avec tes commentaires sur la protections des petits états des Etats-Unis. Ce n'est pas là la vrai raison :) Tout le monde sait bien (et surtout moi :)!!) que tu es un partisan de cet imbécile de G.Bush. Même si c'est assez incompréhensible de vouloir choisir un des hommes les plus bêtes des USA comme prochain président, je respecte ton malheureux choix. Pourquoi pas sylvester stallone la prochaine fois?Leurs Q.I. doivent être proches, ils s'entendraient bien tous les deux.
Que Palm Beach revote! Ou que quelqu'un se dévoue pour faire un attentat! :)
J'ai cru que j'allais pleurer en lisant le message de Kristen.
C'est là que l'on voit qui est inscrit au club 'debate' et qui ne l'est pas....!!!! :)
Ralf, tu devrais t'inscrire au club 'débat'!!! :):)
Personally, even though I do favor Gore- I just want to know who won the election, fair and square.
Pour ma part, je voulais lancer, comme on dit en français "un coup de gueule". Aujourd'hui, ce qui fait presque tous les jours la une des journaux c'est le méli-mélo judico-politique sur les differents qui opposent Bush et Gore ou plutôt je devrais dire leurs avocats...
A savoir que les plus grands groupes d'informations US et mondiaux (?) ont trompés le monde entier avec leur résultats bidons. Que l'homme le plus puissant du monde va être elue dans un immense bazar. Cela fait peur, pendant ce temps palestiniens et israéliens peuvent s'entretuer, la Côte d'Ivoire va peut-être sombrer dans une guerre civile, les Philippines risquent de connaätre de graves émeutes si le président Suharto ne démissione pas,...
Il y a vraiment quelque chose qui cloche, vous ne trouvez pas? Vous pouvez trouver que j'exagère, mais j'espère que tous cela se résolvera avant la mi-janvier (lors de la passation de pouvoir) et ce jour la, le bon sens reviendra un peu et que tout ceci ne soit qu'un mauvais souvenir, en tout cas aujourd'hui le monde entier vit à l'heure de la mesquinerie politique à Palm Beach... C'est le Soap Opera de cet hiver!
Stephane !
If you believe that college grades are any idicators of someone's intelligence than you might be surprised to learn that Gore's grades are just as poor as Bush's grades which may or may not be just as bad as Sylvester Stallone's grades :)
In terms of interpretation of the election results: a friend of mine proposed that the country is not actually divided - 50% favor Bush (I do not understand why) and 50% support Gore. What we think is the two-pole party model is actually a grand confusion. What do you think about that? Do you believe that the American people knew which candidate they prefered, which one was better?
Do you also think that the world is generally lacking good leaders nowadays? Is it that a president cannot be chosen because there isn't a good candidate?
To be honest I think that part of the problem with this year's presidential election is that neither of the two candidates have very strong leadership skills. They are not horrible per say, but neither of them have anything extraordinary about themselves. I think the fact that the race is close is a great indicator of it.
I think it's a bit of an embarrassment for the U.S., what with the votes being miscounted, the ballots being confusing, ballots pehaps being lost, etc, etc. It'll be interesting to see how it all works out, because whoever wins will have a difficult time convincing the other half of the nation that he is the real victor. I think pretty much the only good thing that's come out of this is that a lot more people have become interested in the elections and in voting. Perhaps voter turnout will even be greater next time. And how is the voter turnout in France? Do most people vote, or are a lot of them apathetic, like in the U.S.?
I simply want to say that the election coverage I've seen in the past two weeks has completely soured me on TV. I thought nothing could turn me away from this glorious brain-numming media. I was wrong.
What bothers me more than anything is the fact that the facts are completely obscured! Nobody knows anything really (or at least, no one agrees on a consistent set of facts). This makes the whole exercise pointless, and completely infuriating. The Gore camp makes outrageous and provocative statements about the Bush camp, and vice versa, and nobody learns anything remotely about reality.
I think everyone should just shut up. The radio personalities too. In general, the media is using this tragic national episode to inflame the public and thus keep them watching, making their sponsors happy because people are seeing more commercials than ever. Of course, such abuse of power has occured many times in the past, but it needs to stop now, or I'll have to turn off my tv for good.
Cette histoire d'élections présidentielles commence vraiment à devenir ridicule. Tout ça pour faire la différence entre deux candidats qui ont à peu près les mêmes idées politiques. C'est pour ça que le pays est divisé en deux parties égales. S'il y avait une rélle différence, ne pensez vous pas que le problème ne se poserait même pas? Et pourquoi ne pas introduire d'autres candidats sérieux qui équilibreraient la balance et éviteraient le scandale qui est en train d'émerger? Je vous laisse me donner votre avis...
Cécile, I agree that the elections outcome has become absurd at that point. Everybody is tired of the ongoing manual countings and the lack of clear results. People are also worried that whoever the real winner is, he will not be universally accepted. I do not think though that there is no difference between the two candidates. Anyone who watches the campaign more closely and knows more about politics will tell you that Gore and Bush are fundamentally different. The problem is that both candidates, as Diana said, have nothing extraordinary about themselves - nothing really attracted the people as political charm, influence, authority... As for other, more serious candidates, that is a good idea, but it is only my personal opinion. I assume that the law, (bureaucracy, constitution...) will not allow great delays, more elections. That takes a lot of time, and preparation. (from the sides of the candidates as well). So, I don't know! A grand confusion!
Quelques questions pour les Américains :
- Cela ne vous dérange-t-il pas que le système d'élections ait été décidé au 18 ème siècle, ne pensez-vous pas qu'il faille l'adapter au peuple américain d'aujourd'hui ? Seriez-vous pour le suffrage universel direct ?
- Cela ne vous dérange-t-il pas d'élire comme président quelqu'un qui ne sait pas situer l'Autriche, est complètement inculte, sait à peine s'exprimer et a un QI de chat ? Ce sont pour moi les choses les plus importantes.
- Que pensez-vous du fait que seuls 2 partis aient de l'importance dans le pays (2 partis de droite en plus) ? En France il y a beaucoup plus de partis et chaque élection présidentielle ne se finit pas comme un duel entre 2 personnes toujours des 2 mêmes partis.
Je suis d'accord avec Frédérique: ne pensez vous pas qu'il faudrait revoir le système électoral américain? Est ce que le suffrage universel direct ne vous paraät pas une meilleure solution que le système actuel?
Le seul commentaire qu'on peut faire à propos du systeme electoral americain c'est : "dépassé". Il était surement au top à la fin du 18eme siécle mais depuis la technologie et surtout les médias ont évolués...
"fair and just elections" ?! Sarah es tu sure de ce que tu annonces? que penses-tu des bulletins de Palm Beach? Et que pense tu des manoeuvres plus ou moins légales pour ne pas faire voter certaines personnes ou encore l'excuse de dire qu'il n'y a plus de bulletins pour voter...?????
ne trouvez vous pas surprenant que les francais ,plutot les europeens soient aussi interesses par vos elections.
Si Bush succede a clinton pourra t il reelement changer les choses ?
décidément... les élections ont commencé à devenir comme un 'show' depuis l'avènement de la télé et depuis les candidats font n'importe quoi... et ça avait commencé avec Kennedy.
The election results are finally in ! They have finally confirmed that Ralph Nader has lost.
je ne sais pas si la cours supreme des US possède ce pouvoir, mais s'il fallait revoter, peut-être meme avec un nouveau systeme électoral, pensez vous que la participation des américains au élections serait plus grande ?
In response to Jean's question: yes and no... let me explain. In one sense it is suprising to me that europeans would take such interest in the affairs of the Untited States. It seems most times as if most europeans try to distance themselves as much as possible (perhaps in fear of association? :) ) from Americans. On the other hand, this is quite an unusual and unprecedented situation. It seems suprising that such an "ordered" and powerful country such as the US can seem in such a chaotic state. I'm sure history and government classes all over tge world are having a field day with this election in terms of media coverage and recognition.
In response to Antoine's question: I am absolutely positive that if there were a new vote that many many more americans would turn out to vote. I think this election will also cause the voter turnout in the next election to increase as well.
Personally i think the entire Florida situation is ridiculous. news outlets have reported that there are also thousands of votes from deceased, non-citizens, underaged , etc. if it only comes down to 900 or so votes, i think the system that they have employed to determine a winner is extremely faulty