digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at youtube.com

Hilarious explanation of the US Electoral System! [VIDEO]

youtube.com — A video to help non-Americans understand how the USA will elect it's next president. It's so simple!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • lcarsdeveloper, on 04/13/2008, -47/+28Also how Clinton can beat Obama - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPEPa7KqCd8
    • bakagaigin, on 04/13/2008, -0/+11Don't know what these people's problem is, I thought it was funny...
    • MrSlumberjack, on 04/13/2008, -0/+5Too bad that people felt the need to bury before watching the video and realizing that 'beat' was meant in a literal sense.
      • jaznova, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3Yeah, the negative diggs made me a little rick roll shy, but it's satire aimed at Clinton
    • Fludd777, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2WTFV
    • reichg, on 04/14/2008, -2/+1there should not be a video for that since she cant win. until he "dies"
  • Microvelours, on 04/13/2008, -26/+8The reporters name is hilarious: WANDA KNEE-BABCOCK
  • cg4et, on 04/13/2008, -60/+527 diggs in 23 hours and this is on the front page? That's odd!
    • duskgazer, on 04/13/2008, -15/+3and it wasn't even funny!
    • chris9902, on 04/13/2008, -8/+33would you shut the ***** up about what's on the front page. Without fail there's some tard going "oh it's only got 19 diggs, how'd that get on the front page" in every story. It's here, ***** deal with it and shut up.
      • cg4et, on 04/13/2008, -19/+6omfg, take a deep breath. I was just making an idle observation.
        • H1tchh1k3r, on 04/13/2008, -4/+11this is not youtube, make your idle comments there
          • RpgActioN, on 04/14/2008, -6/+2Wow this thread is full of elitist *****.
    • nixfu, on 04/13/2008, -5/+7Digg is not a democracy...it only has the illusion of being so, when in reality its run by a ruling class and your peon digg means very very little...get over it.
      • banmaster, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2Hard to 'get over it' when the power that be keep on insisting that its a fair system and everybody has an equal chance of getting their stuff to the front page.
      • KodomoNoJikan, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2All the power diggers are spammers. They create accounts and digg every thing in mass, which increases their digg weight, and then anything that becomes popular that they voted for makes their digg weight increase as well. since they digg blindly and constantly, it is only natural that many of the popular stories are dugg by them. that and they form networks and trade diggs. These guys are new school SEO spammers gaming the digg algorithm just like they game search engines.

        Don't believe me? befriend one of them and look at their activity as well as their friends activity.
    • projjalc, on 04/13/2008, -0/+9How about this: it's a good submission, worthy of being on the front page, and OMG it's on the front page! How odd!
  • AustinMeoang, on 04/13/2008, -48/+9In the butt
    • jperras, on 04/13/2008, -7/+7what what?
      • pseudononymist, on 04/13/2008, -8/+1girl meets boy on myspace and her bro takes her to town on it. He could have raped you in the butt!
        • woody56292, on 04/13/2008, -9/+2actually its from south park....
          • bluezinc, on 04/13/2008, -3/+3Actually it's from the webbernets.
          • woody56292, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1I know I have seen the video, but jperras was referring to the South Park episode.

  • mgyqmb, on 04/13/2008, -13/+73The best part was the Steve Fossett bit at the end.
    • thedinomeister, on 04/13/2008, -2/+10"now they can drop charges for him being illegally dead." hehe
      • davelaw00, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3oh right, thanks for clarifying what he said. Thanks.
    • BKred, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3My friend was falsely accused of being illegally dead. It took him 8 months to clear it all up.
  • SemiSarcastic, on 04/13/2008, -9/+214That's how we roll in America.
  • faster3200, on 04/13/2008, -12/+325Dugg for accuracy.
    • whataboutdave, on 04/13/2008, -30/+4Buried for inaccuracy.

      It's this simple:

      Parties select their candidates -> American people vote by state -> electoral college tallies up the states won by each candidate -> most electoral college votes wins

      • duskgazer, on 04/13/2008, -17/+2Let them think it's complicated, fewer of the goobers will vote.
      • trogdor282, on 04/13/2008, -7/+15Bet you're great at parties.
      • S1ngular1ty1, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2You are so naive.
    • brad3378, on 04/13/2008, -6/+1They didn't make any mention of the super delegates.
      • Harabeck, on 04/13/2008, -0/+8Yes they did, they just didnt use the term "super delegate".
    • Rocketbird, on 04/13/2008, -2/+6But this isn't really the electoral system, it's the nominations process.
    • msipes, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1How can you digg that for accuracy? That long explanation she gave has nothing to do with the Electoral college or our process. The primary processes are dictated by the parties, not the Constitution.
  • NCSUspoon, on 04/13/2008, -8/+60Ah it all seems so clear now
  • ctrlfreak13, on 04/13/2008, -26/+23And all that crap just comes down to money and a little bit of delagates, not the people.
    • d03boy, on 04/13/2008, -5/+1It has been said... the one who shows up will win.
    • UnterDenLinden, on 04/13/2008, -0/+6But OBAMARAMA is as poor as a beggar, how do we expect him to win? At least compared to Hilary and McCain, that is.
      • TBobes, on 04/13/2008, -2/+2No, the people still vote. The money thing is just to get more ads that supid people in America fall for. A lot of people are still voting for candidates that "had better commercials" or the "look cooler." Not enough research is being done.
  • rasinhussy, on 04/13/2008, -12/+3It make so much sense now!
  • mi0capa, on 04/13/2008, -9/+3Yeah that pretty much sums it up.
  • heavystone, on 04/13/2008, -18/+90What you mean "to help non-Americans understand", I am pretty sure ALLOT of Americans don't understand it themselves!
    FYI: Yes I know its a comedy/fake news show from Australia.
  • rasinhussy, on 04/13/2008, -11/+21..2...3... NOT IT!!!
  • jspania, on 04/13/2008, -22/+244and finally the candidate with the most money wins.
    • rasinhussy, on 04/13/2008, -10/+2Obama has no chance then if you read the story a little while back.
    • gozilla09, on 04/13/2008, -0/+68omg i totally remember seeing that! thanks for the reminder lol!
    • philipl411, on 04/13/2008, -2/+6Well then Obama is going to win hands down. He has raised twice as much as Hillary?
      • MacMan88, on 04/13/2008, -0/+7in terms of campaign funds, yes. but if hillary keeps on writing personal checks for her campaign, no.
    • Jaq524, on 04/13/2008, -0/+4Romney, Edwards, anyone?
      • vikingkory, on 04/13/2008, -0/+6you also cant be a douche bag
        • Nerfdude, on 04/14/2008, -2/+1then explain our two term current president
          • nosecohn, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1There is an exception. You can be a douche bag, so long as you're the kind of douche bag that people would want to have a beer with.
  • mk2cav, on 04/13/2008, -8/+3Simple really.
  • ZeroIce, on 04/13/2008, -9/+30It's better than having an unelected president....

    I think.
    • vertinox, on 04/13/2008, -1/+25Whats the difference between elections in the Soviet Union and the USA?

      The Soviet Union has one person on the ballot. The USA has one more.
      • Vapor17, on 04/13/2008, -4/+12your grasp of simple addition is astonishing.
      • DephexTwin, on 04/13/2008, -0/+7It has all the components and structure that make it seem like it is supposed to be a joke. But, I can't find the actual joke anywhere.
        • EntangledPhysx, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1the Comedian gets the joke. Too bad he's dead.
    • dsmx, on 04/13/2008, -9/+3Well technically since bush never won the popular vote he is technically unelected.
      • theodenking, on 04/13/2008, -1/+10No, you're talking *****. Popular vote or not he still won the ELECTION according to the rules set out beforehand, hence he is ELECTED.
        Whether those rules are fair is another matter.
        • EntangledPhysx, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2Correct. Popular vote has nothing to do with who wins. It all comes down to the delegates and the electoral college
      • redneckblues, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2There isn't even a requirement for a popular vote. The states governments could choose electors by flipping a coin if they wanted to.
  • Deehuff, on 04/13/2008, -8/+2When it's explained like that it all becomes clear.....now why couldn't I have figured that all out for myself?
  • wileyAU, on 04/13/2008, -22/+2Too bad they had to dumb it down for the Brits. They didn't even mention anything about the electoral college.
    • cr42yr1ch, on 04/13/2008, -1/+13Errr, its Australian...
    • Deehuff, on 04/13/2008, -0/+15It's Australian, but this Brit would like to say please put a hold on the electoral college info for a bit. I can only handle so much enlightenment per day.
    • acceleration, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2Seriously, is it that hard to distinguish between an Australian and a "Brit"? Seems like every video from Australia that hits the front page has at least one idiot who can't tell the difference between the two.
      • TLAKABM, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2To be fair, I could easily confuse a Canadian accent for a US accent and vice versa. (I'm Australian.)
        • acceleration, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1US vs Canadian accent is just like Australian vs NZ accent - it's fair enough for someone not to be able to tell the different if they're not from the area. But Australian vs English accent is much too different to be compared to that.
  • gcman94, on 04/13/2008, -6/+0What has the world come to
  • Deehuff, on 04/13/2008, -9/+4Now I get it!
  • seans9, on 04/13/2008, -9/+25Anyone else read this headline as "Hilary's explanation of the US Electoral System" ?
    • ph070sh0p, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2ya, I was thinking where Hilary was going to come in while watching the video.
  • whataboutdave, on 04/13/2008, -10/+3Anything looks complicated if you fill a screen with graphics and speak in an auctioneer's voice.
    • AbsurdParadox, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2Dibbadibbadibbadibbadibba SOLD!!!!
  • DiggLive, on 04/13/2008, -23/+161LEAVE PROCESS ALONE! HOW ***** DARE ANYONE MAKE FUN OF IT AFTER ALL ITS BEEN THROUGH IN 2000! ALL YOU PEOPLE WANT IS MORE MORE MORE!
    • Emnsta, on 04/13/2008, -9/+4more internet munny
    • kevinwiz, on 04/13/2008, -2/+25Wow well played. You have 17 theoretical diggs for that.
      • zrthstr, on 04/14/2008, -2/+15I can't digg you up because you have exactly 17 diggs and the number syncing is just too perfect :/
    • phazon88, on 04/13/2008, -7/+1Bury me sideways.
    • badenglishihave, on 04/13/2008, -11/+2See that button on your keyboard on the left side? The one between 'Tab' and 'Shift' that reads 'Caps Lock'? Press it.
    • ggfobster, on 04/13/2008, -5/+2DiggLiveCrocker
    • faster3200, on 04/13/2008, -4/+2It took me a second to realize what you did. Well done though.
  • ichbeineinrcg, on 04/13/2008, -13/+4To be fair, I don't think we're any worse than functioning democracies like Israel and England, and we're certainly better off that places like Mexico.

    That said, I'll also confess ignorance. Does a country like Germany have layer upon layer like we do, with the delegates and the electoral college, or is it a true "1 person, 1 vote" direct democracy?
    • larsalan, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2As I recall the head party of the diet elects the Pm? You could look it up here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Germany
    • gkwillie, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1I don't know about Germany, but us Canadians have a simple first past the post parlimentary system, where we elect our member of parliment directly to the lower house. Of course.. the senate is full of appointments from the prime minister, even though it was supposed to become an elected body after the last turnover. And of course, there is the Govenor General, the representative to the Queen who is technically the head of Canada, who is also appointed by the prime minister.

      Simple!
      • bartofdahammer, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2and our nominee's for Prime Minister are done at the National Convention and there are no primaries equivalents
        • gkwillie, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1Now the National Convention is the place where backroom politics has become an art form. Do you remember the latest fiasco with the liberals?
    • vertinox, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2Actually the elections in Israel are proportional which allows for smaller parties and new 3rd parties to pop up.

      Their internal conflict aside, Israel has a better system than we do.
    • kinseyincanada, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1well actually Mexicos systems is quite good on paper, its just massively corrupted.
  • bboymouse, on 04/13/2008, -1/+38this is like the daily show of australia...genius
    • mlagana, on 04/13/2008, -0/+4yes and shaun micalef is amazing
    • arjung, on 04/13/2008, -1/+11if the whole show is like that clip, then it's much funnier than the daily show.
    • opiniastrous, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1It's even better. Unfortunately it's on at 10:00, which is a little too late for it to become as popular. I can't remember it too well, but one of my favourite bits was on Au Sung Suu Kyi:

      "Au Sung Suu Kyi met with Burmese military leaders today, and it's about bloody time too!
      All she's done since she was elected to office is hang around at home and invite people over for parties!

      ...

      Disgraceful"
  • darkfus, on 04/13/2008, -5/+16Needless to say our system sucks.
  • RedStateRandy, on 04/13/2008, -15/+1Easy to see already see Republican attack ads against Obama. First open with videos of racist wife, Michelle, saying she was proud of America "for the first time" because of her husband's presidential candidacy, next Obama explaining that he doesn't wear an American flag lapel pin or hold his hands to his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance because it is a "substitute for true patriotism." Then flash a clip of Obama explaining that his Caucasian grandmother was a "typical white person" because she uttered racial epithets and was afraid of black people. Finally, the coup de grace, pictures of Obama's angry, arm-waving preacher blaming the United States for 9/11 and shouting "God Damn America" to the rafters of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ and preaching the U.S. government formulated the HIV AIDS virus to commit genocide against blacks. Even though Obama supposedly condemning Wright's shocking verbal assaults against the U.S and White Americans, even last year; Obama was the first to public ally demand Don Imus ouster for making a racially insensitive remark, and Obama continues to support Wrights racism and remains at the church for more than 20 years, he and Michelle obviously feels it's a good environment to expose his young daughters too.
    • walkingdogs, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2WOW way to sum up every out of context or misconstrued negative talking point against Obama and prove how this country can make the wrong decision twice with our current "leader". Do us all a favor this november and stay away from the voting booth. You have proven that you cannot use good judgment and listen to the whole story, and if that is what you believe you did then yes, please stay away from the voting booth.
  • amdforever, on 04/13/2008, -14/+4Newstopia also did a freaking hilarious video on Obama bashing:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR88nKyKj3U&feature ...
  • yoris, on 04/13/2008, -2/+11The painful part is that her explanation isn't even about the elections themselves, it's only the system which the parties use to determine their candidates for those elections. The actual elections, as ruled by the Constitution instead of by the Parties, haven't even started yet, and are even more complex.
    • mrtastycakes, on 04/14/2008, -0/+0Actually, our presidential election process is one of the most simple in the world. While far from fair and less than democratic, the plurality electoral method is the most basic available.
  • madwh, on 04/13/2008, -7/+2The elected president of United States of America is elected because of the fair people who choose to vote their candidate based on their opinion but there are many people with many non-racist options, including ancestors of some of the first people who erected for a good president and towards a very strong and demarchy society, for a well vascularized leader who rather don't vote for fair and unbiased laws in United States of America.
  • theysayjump, on 04/13/2008, -10/+163Wouldn't it be easier to just have the nation vote and then the candidate with the most votes wins?

    Just an idea.
    • Texmurphy01, on 04/13/2008, -6/+102Slow down there Jimmy. That's starting to sound like a COMMUNIST idea to me.
      • tmyprod, on 04/13/2008, -2/+19I think now it is a TERRORIST idea.
      • digjam, on 04/14/2008, -4/+1unless its sarcasm...thats actually called ***** DEMOCRACY!..NOT WHATS DONE HERE WHERE THE FINAL RESULT IS NOT BASED ON PPLS VOTES
        • homanh, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4Dear Jimmy, you're being voted down for 2 reasons:

          1) You seem to miss the point of the joke being that anything that goes against the current US system is attacked as a "terrorist [previously communist] idea

          2) Communism, believe it or not is not the opposite of democracy, communism is the opposite of capitalism. It is possible for a country to be both democratic and communist, as much as its possible to have a capitalist country with is undemocratic [the US, lol jk]
      • TLAKABM, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Nah, there's not enough wiggle room for corruption.
    • dudetaz2003, on 04/13/2008, -2/+39Where is the fun in that? I propose a caged death match.
    • bunit03057, on 04/13/2008, -7/+41Direct democracy was tried and failed in the US. Our founding fathers were very opposed to the majority forcing their will on the minority, which is why we have a constitutional/representative republic. However, we do use direct voting at the state level.
      • DrSpud, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1Yup. I just wish the founders were innovative enough to figure out range voting. I would solve so many problems with our system...
      • p0tent1al, on 04/13/2008, -8/+3*****, we don't have a republic as how it was intended to be, we live in a democracy, which is decidedly different from the vision of the forefathers, get it right.
        • p0tent1al, on 04/13/2008, -2/+2Keep digging me down. It is even said in the pledge of allegiance "To the Republic for which it stands".

          A democracy is when 51% of the people rule over the other 49% of the people, which is not how our forefathers envisioned this country.
        • TLAKABM, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2It is apparent that you do not understand what democracy is.
      • TheUnlearn, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2Direct Democracy is where every citizen voices their opinions and votes on every issue that arises. There are too many people in US for that system to work which is why we have representatives in congress to legislate. There is no problem with letting the people decide who those representatives will be with a purely popular vote, instead of this ass backwards system we're using, except it would make it harder for the elite to decide who they want in charge.
      • kinseyincanada, on 04/13/2008, -1/+5yes but in the time of the founding fathers direct democracy wouldnt work, but in todays times the electoral college is a joke.
      • diggingaround, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1The only thing we have for sure is taxation without representation....
      • Parkinsons, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1"why we have a constitutional/representative republic."
        How would people directly voting for their representatives change that?
    • ggnictee, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2easier maybe. But easy does not always equal better. I used to think it was but this guy convinced me I was wrong. He's got a solid argument, with solid math.
      http://digg.com/political_opinion/Electoral_colleg ...
    • gmiley, on 04/13/2008, -2/+2That's just crazy talk man! Snap out of it!
    • 0zzy, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2I suppose some people have forgotten that we are a Union. Oh well.
    • tk0680, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1You can muddy some already muddy water far more easily than muddy some clear water.
    • bjos144, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2the problem with that is that if you have more than 2 candidates you'll get powerful minority groups (like Nazi's in Germany) getting control of government when it's not the will of over half the country. If you don't split up the votes up then only largely populated areas will get any governmental support, like cities. Rural areas or smaller states with small populations will be left in the cold. This breeds discontent and causes societal friction and an unbalanced society. In short, no.
    • thallium205, on 04/13/2008, -0/+12If history shows us anything.. It has been tried, and it has failed. Mob rule = self inflicted tyranny. Ex: Athens
      • Parkinsons, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1That's not mob rule. It is still a Republic.
    • bmdubya, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1It doesn't really matter how we vote, the rich is always going to be in power. I like how some people here are like "No, if we vote, then powerful groups will get control of the government." Hate to break it to you, but the powerful groups already control the government, they just tell you that the people run the government.
    • Rocketbird, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2Nah, look up "tyranny of the majority" or..well.. here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majori ...
    • minc727, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2I doubt it would work, because it is impossible to have a fair election with more than two people. I do think it would be a lot better if we killed the electoral college though...
    • TheGooseyOne, on 04/13/2008, -1/+3Old hippie idea that doesn't work is hippie and doesn't work.

      Take a political science class.
    • ralphthemagi, on 04/13/2008, -2/+0Under a direct voting system Hillary would be President. Is that what you want?
  • PCDestroyer, on 04/13/2008, -6/+1That wasn't funny! I just sat there with my mouth open the whole time.
  • hotpuck6, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1As funny as that is, totally accurate. Every state has different guidelines, but unless your the actual delegate running, you really only need to be concerned with your local ones.
  • chris9902, on 04/13/2008, -2/+5Where does the Florida super-super delegate come into it?
  • parafinalia, on 04/13/2008, -3/+0Mmm democracy has never tasted so good!
  • gramophone, on 04/13/2008, -6/+4So... You just check the box with Obama next to it right?
    • sfcaptainrob, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1Yeah, just make sure you don't leave any hanging chads
    • mannyqui, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1Technically.
    • bshensky, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Correct. You just check the box that's left with the word Obama off to the right. That's right. It's the only one left. Thank you for voting in Florida!
      • homanh, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1ROFL, I don't get why you're being voted down, that was hilarious: maybe people just didn't get it.
        We're not valued I say, not valued at all....
  • justinside, on 04/13/2008, -6/+1So let's "Rock the Vote" because ... so much is... well actually maybe we should just let the super delegates from the Republican & Democratic party pick a candidate (probably as this news cast mentions with the most money) and flip a coin. Heads for the republican candidate and tails for the Democratic candidate. The whole election process could be over in 24 hours. It's never really been a popular vote anyway. That's why I laugh when I see all these commercials & "every vote counts" crap. I understand why solely a popular vote has it's flaws but I think our system could be a little better - this news cast brings to light what a mess it has become over the years.
  • djchester, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1Wow sounds like a lot of fun, why don't you do it more often?
  • DangerCollie, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2Best part was at the end where they announced that since Steve Fosset was declared legally dead, authorities agreed to drop charges that he was illegally dead.
  • mecharabbit, on 04/13/2008, -1/+8I'm sorry, I haven't been paying attention. Is "Superdelegate" a character from the upcoming Justice League of America movie?
    • JointVenture, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3She didnt mention SUPER Delegates.

      Funny that.
      • mecharabbit, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1Oh, I have A.D.D. Couldn't make it through the whole thing.
    • bshensky, on 04/14/2008, -0/+0No, Superdelegate comes on after Supernanny on ABC, right before Extreme Makeover: Election Edition.
  • wiihateeveryone, on 04/13/2008, -2/+68Man I'd love to witness a conversation between her and yahtzee.
    • Pritchard, on 04/13/2008, -9/+1yahtzee: fkdjlfksjdsd?

      her: gjkfgjrhds.
      • fhornplayer, on 04/13/2008, -0/+10fhqwgads
        • mmmmmmmchips, on 04/14/2008, -0/+6I said come, on, fhqwhgads say come on fhqwhgads.
          Everybody to the limit the Cheat is to the limit everybody come on fhqwhgads!
        • Pritchard, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1gjkfgjrhds.
    • TheWorm, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3*head asplode*
    • atruskot, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Michael Scott vs Robbin Williams?
  • btools, on 04/13/2008, -10/+1http://www.obamabackground.com digg some articles, if you dig them!
  • JointVenture, on 04/13/2008, -6/+3Buried for not mentioning how ***** up the Democratic party is for having Super Delegates.
  • RJLaframboise, on 04/13/2008, -2/+2And we have the nerve to bitch about our system in Canada... I feel bad for you guys.
  • Complexium, on 04/13/2008, -3/+6Ehm... I'd tap that? Anyone?
    • filmmakershelp, on 04/13/2008, -3/+1Lmao, irreverence! I love it! ( I swear I almost fell out of my chair.)
      • joel8x, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1You must be new here. Look at any thread on Digg with a picture or video of a woman in it* and some variation of "I'd hit it" will be somewhere (about halfway usually) in the comments.

        *Excludes most Hilary Clinton posts.
        • Complexium, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1I know what it means. I wrote the 'question' because no one else had said "I'd hid it" :)
  • Lifesong, on 04/13/2008, -6/+1The only thing I understood was the whole money bit at the end of her speech. She was talking at like 500 words per minute. Not attractive.
  • OverkillTASF, on 04/13/2008, -1/+3We have an electoral college system to avoid putting all of the federal political power in the large states' hands. This seems stupid to most people who have the view that all states are basically the same and given the tendency for so many laws to be passed federally, but in a situation where states are supposed to have their own rights and the capability to pass laws as they see fit, it makes sense to treat them individually as units of their own, instead of just treating the entire country like one huge mass of people. There is no such thing as a one size fits all approach to government. This holds just as true for states as it does countries.
  • sithie, on 04/13/2008, -0/+8She should be hired to do those legal taglines at the end of car commercials.
  • themanflounders, on 04/13/2008, -3/+5So I don't understand what about our system this video complains about. The electoral college is archaic and out of date in my opinion, but that was never mentioned. It just said the person with the most money wins, which is absolutely absurd. Otherwise, Ross Perot would have been our President many times over, as he is a billionaire, and was a billionaire when he was crushed every time he ran. The Clintons were a step away from bankruptcy when they first ran in 1992. Sure, the Bushs are extremely wealthy and as were the Kennedys, but to say money gets you in is a little bit shortsighted of the real problems of politics - and these are problems that span most cultures: sensationalism, blind nationalism, the politics of fear, the politics of religion, Fox News, etc. The reason this is so blisteringly annoying is because the real problem with most corrupted systems or defunct systems are the bumbling masses that stand around and complain and do absolutely nothing to change injustice. They play along, complaining while they stand in line. "yeah man, this totally sucks, epic fail". Give me an effing break.
    • filmmakershelp, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2This is definitely a sensitive subject for many of us. Though poking fun at what you fail to understand, is decisively human, and well...funny.
    • mogebier, on 04/14/2008, -2/+1You lost any credibility when you mentioned Fox News. You are obviously a narrow-minded little man.
      • themanflounders, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1??? It was listed under "problems that span cultures", and next to the politics of fear, blind nationalism, and sensationalism...it was a negative connotation. Context clues brother, context clues.
        • mogebier, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1Yes, I know it was negative. You are a dumb ass. Really. You Fox News haters are just mad that they have the highest ratings and more people overall watch them. And why do they?? Because they tell both sides of the story, unlike CNN and MSNBC. If Fox News really was the Anti-Christ like you haters proclaim it is, then why do they have such high ratings?? Because people like being told the TRUTH, that's why.
          • themanflounders, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Oh wow..I guess it was out of my scope of reality that someone on digg would be defending Fox News. You're priceless.
          • mogebier, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1Thank you for using "you're" correctly. :)
    • lcarsdeveloper, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1It's a comedy sketch, deal with it. It's not making a political statement, it's not even written for American audiences, it's Australian.
  • JFallon126, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2One of the big things I disagree with Ron Paul about is that I think it's obvious we need to directly elect the President. "Mob rule" arguments are either elitist or a blind attachment to tradition. This video perfectly illustrated how silly our current system is.
    • randumbusername, on 04/13/2008, -0/+0nothing elitist about being against mob rule. i see unchecked democracy to be as dangerous as communism, socialism, or a dictatorship.
      • Tyrghast, on 04/14/2008, -2/+1which are all preferable to our current state of affairs
    • Parkinsons, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1What does Communism and Socialism have to do with Democracy?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.